Germany has had that for a couple of years. When that law was introduced, commercials really became quiter on some channels. Then the stations found out that no-one actually sues, so we’re back to square one.

The channel names are different. How can you not tell?

Frets on Fire also exists

15 minute YouTube video trying an explanation: by ExtraCredits

Why did you join a discussion space if you don’t like discussing?

What constitutes AI by your definition?

If it were possible to tell, at a glance, whether something was or was not AI, it would not be causing nearly the social harm that it does.

It seems like you’re shifting away from the point of discussion, which was whether AI output can be art, and more towards the general dangers of the technology itself, which is a whole other discussion.

My opposition is to demon tech produced by vampires.

It also seems like this discussion is taking a toll on you. If you are interested in continuing it, there’s no harm in taking a step back and coming back later.

there is hardly confusion about whether something is or is not a photograph.

This proposition is refuted by hyperrealistic paintings such as La hora del té by Magda Torres Gurza. You can see that this is not a photography if you pay attention to the reflections. But certainly not at “first glance”.

The most complicated comfyUI-whatever is worth less to me than a child’s drawing of their parents because the child’s drawing is communicating love while the generated one is communicating nothing.

How can you say what the output of that workflow communicates or doesn’t communicate without seeing it?

The lot of them can’t even explain their own work—at best they can explain their comfyUI workflow because that’s the thing they actually put effort into.

That statement is unsubstantiated. Without knowing the creator of that workflow I venture the following proposition: If the creator put in hours of effort into constructing it, so the AI would produce just the right output, then they clearly had a vision of what they were going for. And If they tried to get a detail just right, then that detail must have meaning to them, or else they wouldn’t bother.

I see another issue with the statement “The lot of them can’t even explain their own work”. Do you think every stroke of the brush has a meaning for a painter? Is every note carefully chosen in a piece of music? Or is it rather a case of “doing what feels right at the moment”? I ask that because I don’t see the difference in playing a few chord progressions on the piano and seeing what fits best, and letting AI generate a few outputs and seeing what fits best.

I can generate my own monkey throwing a banana, why would I need to see theirs?

Because theirs is the one they chose out of many options. Theirs is the one they felt came closest to their vision. Theirs is the one they wanted to share with you because it meant something to them.

Asking it to write an entire song for you is not art.

Please correct me if I misunderstand your point. Are you saying that produce is not art if it is made because someone threw money at the creator and told them “do something for me”?

Cause if that’s your point, then a whole lot of classical music, for instance, is not art, because it was commissioned.

Could you define what you mean by “human element”, exactly?

Generative AI seeks to dehumanize and invalidate human expression.

Would you mind elaborating on that statement? Consider my using a meme generator to plaster some text over a stock image. I express myself regularly by this means. How does this compare to using an image generator to produce the meme? Why does the latter “invalidate human expression”?

It’s absolutely baffling to me why YouTube thought the social media features were something anyone wanted.

Why are people using this feature that clearly no-one wants?

if there’s a funny oneliner in a video, that one of the top comments will be a direct quote of that oneliner with nothing added.

I took this to be feedback to the creator. The commenter tries to communicate that they liked the joke. A creator can never know if their jokes land, after all.

That is a good question! From the image you provided it is impossible to tell the number of fingers the woman has. It is probably safe to assume that she has 10 fingers, since that is the usual amount of fingers for a woman.

Well… there’s two sides to this. The sidewalk there looks narrow. Banning tables might have been a measure to make walking easier and remove cars.