SFR AI imagining...it's fun!

Sorta fishing-related
Okay my last comment about AI here. AI is a supreme insult to so many creative people be they visual artists, musicians, writers and authors . And worst of all no human conscience involved . The biggest threat being military applications and behavior modification that has already been having an effect in children. To praise the ultra wealthy investing and pushing full blown use and enhancement should cause everyone to pause a moment to question who benefits. We should already be fully aware how important that is to consider already.
 
IMHO, AI is definitely not an insult to creative people.....After all.. it was, in fact, very creative people that created it. Was it not? My OP was meant to bring fun into this forum... Apparently, that effort is struggling. I still would encourage readers to play with AI imaging just for the fun of it.
 
Jim in Anacortes said:
IMHO, AI is definitely not an insult to creative people.....After all.. it was, in fact, very creative people that created it. Was it not? My OP was meant to bring fun into this forum... Apparently, that effort is struggling. I still would encourage readers to play with AI imaging just for the fun of it.
Click to expand...
You seem to have an empathy problem and should respect others with a lifetime of different experiences than you have. We do not share the same “fun” that you do. Other than this, take care.
 
Jim in Anacortes said:
IMHO, AI is definitely not an insult to creative people.....After all.. it was, in fact, very creative people that created it. Was it not? My OP was meant to bring fun into this forum... Apparently, that effort is struggling. I still would encourage readers to play with AI imaging just for the fun of it.
Click to expand...
One angle to consider: One of the many controversies with AI is that it isn't just imagining up these images. It literally scans and learns from existing photos and art and aggregates the data to generate what you see. Many artists and photographers have reported that their art was effectively stolen by AI and had examples to show for it where a business used an AI-generated image that had striking resemblance to existing artwork.

It has to get the data to learn from somewhere, so it gets it from existing media.
 
Evan B said:
One angle to consider: One of the many controversies with AI is that it isn't just imagining up these images. It literally scans and learns from existing photos and art and aggregates the data to generate what you see. Many artists and photographers have reported that their art was effectively stolen by AI and had examples to show for it where a business used an AI-generated image that had striking resemblance to existing artwork.

It has to get the data to learn from somewhere, so it gets it from existing media.
Click to expand...
Biggest copyright/ IP theft in history.
 
Evan B said:
One angle to consider: One of the many controversies with AI is that it isn't just imagining up these images. It literally scans and learns from existing photos and art and aggregates the data to generate what you see. Many artists and photographers have reported that their art was effectively stolen by AI and had examples to show for it where a business used an AI-generated image that had striking resemblance to existing artwork.

It has to get the data to learn from somewhere, so it gets it from existing media.
Click to expand...
My art has been stolen . My paintings have had my dates and signatures removed. My resolutions of shared art are too low to be rescanned and digitally enhanced but many have been found by online friends that I should know about. Pre digital my art has been purchased at a college era(early 70’s) and been later photographed edited and enhanced my id removed and made into large online prints for sales. The burden is always on the legally harmed. It sounds trite but it is real- it does take money and power to fight city hall- which I have done for my mom when she was 95 years old. That shit wears me down. I researched a online leasing company whose offending client used grabs from my work to create travel ads . I pursued it - they were very faux apologetic sent me a dozen page document to fill out that required me to provide online proof . I can rant about Art and the law. Art and creative ownership but I am getting agitated about this for a long time . I have gone to the I do not give a shit zone and have not createdart in over a year. If people do not care about it I can not convince them to be. I did get the. Word out to HS artists when I sub taught the last 7 years of my work life though and that is gratifying!
 
I listened to this podcast a while ago. It scratches the surface on the issue of stolen intellectual property of artists and provides a way that some are fighting back. Worth the listen if you're interested in the topic of AI generated images and art.

 
I just don't get all of the hate for AI. Do parts of it suck, yes! It's a tool that's not going away.. make sure your phone or Alexa isn't listening too you.. yes, it does happen.

There are some good things about it, I've done a deep dive into it for the past 3 months and it does speed some things up. Will it be abused? Yes! Does it use too many resources? Electricity! Yes! But is your employer, or new employer going to expect you to know how to use it.. in most cases, yes.

Anyway, I do love this thread! Keep posting cool shit.. or if you hate it so much.. don't! Just my opinion, FWIW!

Cheers!
FlyBill aka AIBill LOL!

"Would you like to play a game of Global Thermonuclear War?" - yes, it has been around that long! Probably started when Al Gore created the interwebz! JK!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zak
flybill said:
I just don't get all of the hate for AI.
Click to expand...
I mean, we literally are posting the reasons many of us are not on-board. Like you say, there are pluses and minuses to it. But for many of us, the minuses far outweigh the pluses, especially as we look to long term ramifications.

I'm glad you're enjoying it, but the push-back for AI stuff is only going to increase as it becomes more and more forced on us.
 
Landlocked said:
But my 17-YO daughter saw and said “You wasted 20,000 gallons of water on that?”
Click to expand...
Just giving some affirmation to Landlocked: soon she will be in college and you will be able to feel good about cracking dumb jokes again. Just don't agree to pay for all of art school, given the current climate.
Evan B said:
One angle to consider: One of the many controversies with AI is that it isn't just imagining up these images. It literally scans and learns from existing photos and art and aggregates the data to generate what you see. Many artists and photographers have reported that their art was effectively stolen by AI and had examples to show for it where a business used an AI-generated image that had striking resemblance to existing artwork.

It has to get the data to learn from somewhere, so it gets it from existing media.
Click to expand...
I did a talk about the footedness of the Osprey that got loaded up on a popular video sharing platform. This was based on observations a group of us made on online-available pics of Osprey flying with fish underneath them, we published the data and I stand by our analysis which was really simple. Another group came up with a different type of analysis that didn't support our conclusion, which is fine, that's how science is supposed to go. If you can't replicate the answer in a different way (or even the same way) you have to reconsider your conclusion, method, observation etc. If the question is interesting enough (and hells yeah, osprey footedness is one of the great debates in the robust and electrifying literature of animal stances) then someone else takes a stab at it in a different way, or uses a better sample and the idea gets refined and build into something that is true-er. That's how it's supposed to work. And part of the reason Nobel Prizes are seldom given a year or two after a discovery but instead come 25 years later after decades of confirmatory work that opened up a new legit field. (And damn, Boot's never gonna win the Nobel or the Ig-Nobel on the osprey work...)

Now AI on the other hand, when you look up the Osprey footedness, starts cranking out our stuff and includes verbatim chunks of the talk I gave, though in written form, as a version of fact. They perpetuate whatever got the most clicks. In this case, clicks came from the video shares and not the scientific literature where the other work was published. Science journal Paywalls limit the potential impact for science on AI- at least for now.

In science the version of clicks is "citations" and entire careers hinge on citations. There's even a promotion tool called the H-index they sometimes use in universities that helps determine if the work you do gets citated, how often it is cited etc. A measure of your "worth" in scientific output. Some people can game that H-index by writing review articles, in essence they are the influencers of the science world, aggregating the ideas of others and capitalizing on the laziness of the reader to not check original sources. Review articles get cited like crazy. (Not all review writers do this but yeah, in every faculty there's a competent review-writing dude or dudette who isn't exactly peeling back the layers of unknown who nevertheless is regarded very highly much to the irritation of the dudes and dudettes who are pushing the envelope, expanding the field etc, these guys, the review writers, almost always, get promoted and have worked their parasitic abilities in manner where they are smart enough to get away with being unoriginal, and yet are still experts in their field(s))

AI can't really tell the difference in a cite vs a click to help with veracity. It can't really tell the nuance of criticism that comes with a cite, meaning sometimes a cite is pointing out how dumb the other guy's Osprey Footedness paper is etc....In any case this chunk of text might even end up figuring in AI's revision on the Osprey Footedness. Or might night.

Regardless, to my dying days. I will believe the 65% of osprey are left foot forward....

Oh and also, this AI sloppic, if the frog flees with its mouth open it deserves to die. No way frogs gonna' flee with mouth open, that's a behavioral cost that limits escape and would have been selected out long ago ....
1772643517266.png
 
Evan B said:
I mean, we literally are posting the reasons many of us are not on-board. Like you say, there are pluses and minuses to it. But for many of us, the minuses far outweigh the pluses, especially as we look to long term ramifications.

I'm glad you're enjoying it, but the push-back for AI stuff is only going to increase as it becomes more and more forced on us.
Click to expand...
I get that Evan, I just know it won't go away.. I mean this thread was created to showcase some fun Jim was having and turned into a full AI discussion. I had the same thing happen on a thread over a year ago.

Anyway, I love the discussion for the most part, but haven't wanted to kill the enthusiasm of the OP! Now off to my boring politics.. which drive me way crazier than AI ever will.. cheers!
 
Wadin' Boot said:
Just giving some affirmation to Landlocked: soon she will be in college and you will be able to feel good about cracking dumb jokes again. Just don't agree to pay for all of art school, given the current climate.

I did a talk about the footedness of the Osprey that got loaded up on a popular video sharing platform. This was based on observations a group of us made on online-available pics of Osprey flying with fish underneath them, we published the data and I stand by our analysis which was really simple. Another group came up with a different type of analysis that didn't support our conclusion, which is fine, that's how science is supposed to go. If you can't replicate the answer in a different way (or even the same way) you have to reconsider your conclusion, method, observation etc. If the question is interesting enough (and hells yeah, osprey footedness is one of the great debates in the robust and electrifying literature of animal stances) then someone else takes a stab at it in a different way, or uses a better sample and the idea gets refined and build into something that is true-er. That's how it's supposed to work. And part of the reason Nobel Prizes are seldom given a year or two after a discovery but instead come 25 years later after decades of confirmatory work that opened up a new legit field. (And damn, Boot's never gonna win the Nobel or the Ig-Nobel on the osprey work...)

Now AI on the other hand, when you look up the Osprey footedness, starts cranking out our stuff and includes verbatim chunks of the talk I gave, though in written form, as a version of fact. They perpetuate whatever got the most clicks. In this case, clicks came from the video shares and not the scientific literature where the other work was published. Science journal Paywalls limit the potential impact for science on AI- at least for now.

In science the version of clicks is "citations" and entire careers hinge on citations. There's even a promotion tool called the H-index they sometimes use in universities that helps determine if the work you do gets citated, how often it is cited etc. A measure of your "worth" in scientific output. Some people can game that H-index by writing review articles, in essence they are the influencers of the science world, aggregating the ideas of others and capitalizing on the laziness of the reader to not check original sources. Review articles get cited like crazy. (Not all review writers do this but yeah, in every faculty there's a competent review-writing dude or dudette who isn't exactly peeling back the layers of unknown who nevertheless is regarded very highly much to the irritation of the dudes and dudettes who are pushing the envelope, expanding the field etc, these guys, the review writers, almost always, get promoted and have worked their parasitic abilities in manner where they are smart enough to get away with being unoriginal, and yet are still experts in their field(s))

AI can't really tell the difference in a cite vs a click to help with veracity. It can't really tell the nuance of criticism that comes with a cite, meaning sometimes a cite is pointing out how dumb the other guy's Osprey Footedness paper is etc....In any case this chunk of text might even end up figuring in AI's revision on the Osprey Footedness. Or might night.

Regardless, to my dying days. I will believe the 65% of osprey are left foot forward....

Oh and also, this AI sloppic, if the frog flees with its mouth open it deserves to die. No way frogs gonna' flee with mouth open, that's a behavioral cost that limits escape and would have been selected out long ago ....
View attachment 179532
Click to expand...
That's because he's screaming for help. I'd like to see you scream with your mouth closed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top