It’s not the systems alone. It’s the multiplication of systems per number of humans.
Too many humans even with paleolithic lifestyle will fuck up the environment anyway.
We need to find a balance, what systems we do we want to live in and how many humans can that system accommodate.
In spanish it could be translated as “comportarse”
Yo me comporto Tú te comportas Ella se comporta Nosotros nos comportamos Vosotros os comportáis Ellos se comportan.
I think they are called reflexive verbs. Because they have to be conjugated with reflexive pronouns.
If not it would be.
Yo comporto Tu comportas Ella comporta …
Which sounds weird as hell. So I suppose you are right also in Spanish.
Probably you hear more of those stories because if you have a bad experience you tell everyone, while if you have a good one you don’t tell ot that much.
I had a good experience doing therapy. The psychologist was a professional that applied modern psychology techniques for my case and they worked within what’s expected.
Me choking on a grape and doing random noises I thought they had no meaning:
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn
Insert meme of calendar guy turning 2020 page to 1984.
Even for such an orange looking piece of shit the judicial process should be fair, and everyone should be innocent until proven guilty.
AFAIK there’s pay processing business that will do nsfw transactions but they ask for extra money.
Not it’s not. All the artists I follow keep doing art as usual.
Same as I said other user. If that’s your concern, live by it. If in X number or years other forms of art keep existing and AI have not taken over everything promise yourself that you will change your mind and admit that your were wrong. Think about the people that told you that was going to happen and stop trusting them.
I have promised myself that if in 5-10 hears AI have taken over art and all traditional art is dead and all art is bad I would do the same.
Because learning from our mistakes is the only way to move forward.
Here you are making a big assumption “AI will take over”. Just promise yourself that that assumption being correct or incorrect will have moral consequences for your future self.
I say this because I’m very certain that that prediction will not occur. But sadly people who made that prediction and bullied all over the place anyone liking AI will keep being the same once proven wrong.
Tell me. In which year I will be unable to read a book written by a person, read a comic made with digital painting, look at a oil handmade painting or look at a composite photography?
You are trying to analyze a joke my dude. Refer to the other, more serious, comment you replied a few minutes ago if you want real conversation.
Human input is still needed. As far as I know there’s not a skynet level AI doing things by itself.
Human interaction is indispensable in AI creation. And it can be far more involved that other forms of art. A person can take more time and effort producing an AI image than in making something quickly in Photoshop/Gimp.
Speed argument is invalidated by photography which can produce images faster than AI so… A photography can be taken in fractions of a second, AI usually takes more time. The difference on time between a oil portrait and a photography is far greater than whatever we have now with AI, and people still have hand made portraits. I have one of myself.
Anyway, I suppose you are subduing your opinion to that prediction. Then I just hope that if the prediction proves false, and if in the future AI have not destroyed other forms of art then your opinion will change and you will recognize you were wrong. I obviously accept the same proposal if in the future AI art have destroyed other forms of art then I’ll had to admit I was wrong.
The way some websites just guess your language via IP geolocation infuriates me.
I wish I could go to bed early. But noisy neighbours make it impossible.
I basically need them to go to sleep before I can go to sleep.
Photography didn’t replace painted art.
Digital art didn’t replace traditional art.
3d art didn’t replace hand drawn art.
Why is AI going to replace anything?
I think that idea is based on a proposition “AI generated images will replace all other type of images” which is not true.
It’s just another tool that will be used among others, some people will use it, some people won’t, some people will use as a mixed media utility.
The existence of one thing doesn’t invalidate or harm the existence of another. As in many aspects of life most things can coexist together.
I visit some image boards which are media neutral, this meaning they don’t discriminate by media. Most art there used to be digital painted or 3d, and now there is AI art but it hasn’t replaced anything. Digital and 3d art are posted at the same rate, now there is just more art in the form of AI generated art. It didn’t replace the other artists, it just added to them. Now there’s more content for people to enjoy, everyone wins.
Plenty of artists stole other people’s art. Entire genres are based on that. And one can even argue that all art is derivative and that truly original art do no exist.
It’s not just prompts there are hundreds or thousands of different variables, several programs you can join in different positions, you can make it complex to inimaginable level, to writing your own programs to do part of the task, or making your own Lora with your art or training a lors with other people’s art to achieve the result you want, it can get infinitely complex. You not liking or thinking is boring is irrelevant. Is complex enough and you can achieve specific results. It take time and expertise to do it right, as any other technique. And at the end it gives you enough freedom to be able to use it to express yourself which, in my book, is the definition of art.
You don’t need to explain art to me. I’ve been doing artistic work as amateur for several decades now, I can more or less paint, write and play some instruments, I have a few short stories with a few thousands readers, it’s nothing, but I know what the creative process is. And I’ve studied several courses of art history in university. I’m quite knowledge on the topic. I know about AI art because I find it extremely interesting and I’ve played quite a lot with it. But to be true most of the artistic things I still do are all manual, because I like it better, and because I get better results doing it like that. But I’ve seen other people getting very good results with AI tools.
Go search renaissance or baroque Churches and then come back and tell me that “copying other people’s work is not art”. Art being so different artist to artist is a relative recent thing, for most history all artists in a period just keep copying each other blatantly. I remember doing an exam where we had two pictures of two nearly identical renaissance churches and had to be able to differentiate the architects, and it was HARD. Those fuckers didn’t need AI to copy each other’s styles to the last stone. And nowadays are still studied as grand masters of their art.
Your definition on what constitutes putting “humanity” into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.
If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that’s putting “humanity” into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I’ve had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I’ve been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.
So there’s no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have “humanity”. Unless you start talking about “souls” or something like that.
Artists have always gatekeep art.
It’s not even a new trope. It had happened forever.
The best indicative for something to be a true art is angry artists saying “that’s not art”.
Once again, your ignorance on how AI art is made is causing the hate. It’s common to hate what we ignore.
You can communicate love with AI art if you want. You can communicate whatever you want, because you can make the art look whatever you want as good as you can do with any other media.
That complex workflow is not for shit and giggles. Is the pencil to make the final image be one way or the other. Same as a photographer would control que exposure or the focus. You can chose what’s on the picture and what’s not. With better accuracy that doing a collage.
Your premise is based on a limitation of the media that it’s not real, thus is a false premise, thus your conclusions are false too.
I get that the hate for AI is mostly an irrational pseudo religious though. So I do not expect to change anyone’s mind. But I will explain things anyway. I have an easy question, is your theory about AI arr falsable? Is there anything that you think could prove you wrong?
You are using a computer right now. You should stop using any computer ASAP, don’t even use one to reply to this comment.
Edit: used a computer to click downvote, instead of delivering a hand painted arrow pointing down by mail. That must be -3 IQ points minimum.
I know people who takes hours in comfyUI making a workflow, tweaking aspects, choosing different nodes, adding several layers of different diffusion models.
You can use an AI generator just by making a prompt “make me a pretty giraffe” same I can take my phone a snap a quick picture. But same as a professional photographer can take hours chosing composition, camera configuration, then tweaking the result… a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.
For instance, this is a workflow example, a easy one, not even the most complex I’ve seen:
That could take a long time to make, because the person had a specific vision on what they want the tool to produce, and can really steer it into producing exactly what they want.
I think a lot of hate, as always, come mostly from ignorance. Once you know the time and effort that someone can put into this, it’s harder to discredit them.
I still enjoy music made in the XVII century, so I suppose you are right.