Schadenfreude much? 🤔

!detroit@midwest.social ☆ !michigan@midwest.social ☆ !music@midwest.social

Why is it every time I see English food in a film/TV show it basically looks like vomit on a plate?

Nothing personal. Tell me I’m wrong.

deleted by creator

Gopher lost out to WWW in part because Gopher was proprietary

That may be so but gopher was never any fun in comparison to www

There’s a person that serves a weather reporting system via a finger interface at (finger://graph.no/)…

That’s neat! Thanks!

I still think we are more or less on the same page. I also agree with your position on NFTs. Nevertheless, “machine-generated art” as you’ve called it IS legitimate creation, just like canned baked beans is legitimate creation, just like the act of making scrambled eggs is creation. Notice that I never mentioned anything QUALITATIVE about the process. I’ve never referred to these works as “art” (however you’d like to define that) but “illustrations” which is all they are and again, for the most part, they are visibly AI…but there are exceptions, rarely without human intervention (retouching). If someone wants to sell their AI-generated illustrations, what’s the problem? Same with NFTs. What do I or you care? It’s your moral obligation to part a fool from their money.

That said, since we’ve veered way off course of the original question, MY PERSONAL OPINION is there is next to no expression of the human condition (define that as you will) in StableDiffusion/Midjourney/whatever-engine “art” and is merely (“merely,” he says!) putting the “infinite monkeys theorem” into practice. While chance and chaos is good (and not only in art), a foundation is always necessary. If “you”, untrained in composition, art history and materials, you think describing images using a certain language/method is “art”, become a writer. We’re all waiting for your bestseller.

Have a wonderfull day and thanks for the chat!

As I’d just written in another reply here, there is a world of difference in describing an illustration and creating an illustration.

Our thinking is not that different. There is a world of difference of describing an image and creating it.

But I have to strongly disagree with the rest of your assessment. Beyond the flood of six-fingered waifu, I’ve seen some beautiful, legitimate works created by this new tool. If you have to use an “ai algo” you’ve already defeated the purpose. It’s illustrations we’re discussing here, not banknotes.

BTW, do you consider Photoshop/Krita/GIMP artists “scammers”? Blender/Maya/Cinema4D artists? Who are these “actual artists” of which you speak?

In any case, we’re still in uncharted territory. And personally I’m not crazy about the work in question. It LOOKS (by my “actual artist trained eyes”) AI generated, regardless of the human Photoshop retouching involved.

As if they’re not having enough trouble with hosting “questionable” content! You obviously didn’t read the torrentfreak article making the rounds.

Internet Archive != the Pirate Bay.

For now, DON’T contaminate the IA with the Classic Chicago Television channel.

While my thinking is in line with what @TheLobotomist@lemmy.world and @NateNate60@lemmy.ml have already said, why can’t “AI artists” just do what everybody in a profit-seeking situation does and just lie about it? “No your honor, our studies have shown cigarette smoking is not hazardous to your health,” “yes, your honor, OxyContin is completely safe,” or in this case “yes, your honor, I created this illustration.” If your conscience is really bothering you, you could claim it was AI-assisted. I wouldn’t think there’d be a “Big Eyes” prove-you-painted-that courtroom case. Am I wrong?

HA! I knew I wasn’t the only one! Which browser/OS?