• PKMKII [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        46·
        1 year ago

        The paradox of terminal coomer brain combined with “we represent the continuation of Puritanism.” They put on airs of upholding tradition cultural values while fundamentally being hedonists who want none of that restraint. They just need something to give their whites-only carnal desire a veil of principle.

      • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        34·
        1 year ago

        Not necessarily. Open AI is trained with so much porn, and people ask it for so much porn, that it just assumes that all requests should include huge tits automatically.

    • morrowind@lemmy.mlEnglish
      64·
      1 year ago

      I think we need to just start calling it “content” AI generated content is not art, especially in a context like this

        • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
          36·
          1 year ago

          Making art easier by allowing an artist to get the thing they actually wanna make a little bit more practical to realize = halal.

          Making “art” easier by making a stochastic model that just copy pastes training data from other artists to make a crude representation of what the user wrote into a text box = haram.

          • WoofWoof91 [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
            15·
            1 year ago

            i use stable diffusion to generate npc images in my ttrpgs
            it’s handy to be able to churn out a bunch of decent looking tokens without having to trawl the internet for ages

            • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              11·
              1 year ago

              Yeah, I agree, it’s kind of a blurry line. If someone draws something and uses AI to enhance it it’s not the end of the world, and I think it’s still art unless the “enhancement” is totally replacing big parts, or all, of the input. Otherwise, it’s no different than any other tool that has made art easier to make.

              But I think in most cases generative AI can’t make anything that could reasonably be considered art, because the substance they’re taking from to make the output isn’t even the user’s. It’s nothing more than a very advanced plagiarism machine where your prompt tells it which works to plagiarize from.

                • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  4·
                  1 year ago

                  I think the photographer example you put does touch upon an interesting point since there really were people who ridiculed photography as not art. And honestly the criteria I had said kinda would disqualify photography, which is unfair.

                  Would AI be able to create art if it really did understand how the pieces it’s putting together are part of what the user wants? I think it might be an useless question, because skeptics (like me) can keep shifting the goalposts of what understanding really means. So it’s unfalsifiable in a way. Some techbros claim AI can understand it because they are capable of minimizing a loss function. But I’m not satisfied by that because it amounts to making the claim that if a system performs a task well, the system has the property of having a cognitive understanding of the task. It’s a non sequitur, and I’ve seen AI enthusiasts make the same form of non sequitur a thousand times.

                  Maybe the conclusion we can draw from it is that trying to define what exactly is and isn’t art is hard, but clearly, the OP is not.

          • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
            6·
            11 months ago

            I would agree with you, if that was at all how the AIs generate images.

            They don’t “copy and paste” anything. The images they make are novel. The AI is only trained on other images. It doesn’t have access to them to copy them once the training ends.

            The way the AI generates new images is really similar to humans. It goes over its references and literally creates a brand new image.

            Now, just like a person, you can ask it to make something as an exact copy of something that exists. And it can do it like a human, through “technique” and references. But it’s not copying directly, it’s making a new image that is like the one you asked it to copy.

            I really wish people would realise this. Idk why the idea image generating AI is “copying” from a database of images is so prevalent…

            The database of images is literally only used during training. Once the AI is set the database doesn’t exist to it anymore.

            The difference between an artist who studied their whole life, seeing paintings, seeing references, going to classes, to then create new images from their own mind -> to one that traces images from google.

            AI currently does the first, not the latter.

            • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
              4·
              11 months ago

              Look, I know how deep learning works. I know it doesn’t literally copy the images from the training dataset. But the entire point of supervised learning is to burn information about the training data into the weights and biases of a neural network in such a way that it generalizes over some domain, and can correlate the desired inputs with the desired outputs. Just because you’re using stochastic methods to indirectly reproduce the training data (of course, in a way that’s invisible to humans because of the nature of deep neural networks), doesn’t suddenly erase the fact that the only substance an AI has to draw from is the training data itself.

              I think it’s really oversimplifying how humans make art to say that it’s just going over references and creating something new from it. As humans, we are influenced by the work we’ve seen, but because of our unique experience we inject something completely new into any art we make, no matter how derivative. An AI is incapable of doing the same (except for some random noise), because literally all it’s capable of doing is composing together information that has been baked into its weights and biases. It’s not like when you ask a generative AI to make something for you, it will decide to get funky with it. All it’s doing is drawing from the information that has been baked into it.

              Just like how ChatGPT doesn’t actually understand what it’s saying because it’s only capable of predicting statistical relationships between words one word at a time, and has no model of meaning, only of how words go together in the training data, AI that generates images doesn’t actually know what it’s making or why. That is totally different from humans who make a piece of art step by step and do so very deliberately.

              Edit: I recommend you watch this video by an astrophysicist who works with machine learning regularly, she makes my point a lot better than I can. https://youtu.be/EUrOxh_0leE

              • novibe@lemmy.mlEnglish
                2·
                11 months ago

                How would you classify those “experiences” people have that influence their art or work other than data? Honest question.

                And very interesting video. I still don’t 100% align with this perspective, cause I feel it tries to give something extra to the brain than materiality. While I’m no material reductionist, I don’t think our human creativity is “special” or “metaphysical”. It’s our brain, and it’s physical. It can be physically replicated.

                I think AI will have a “soul” or consciousness because I think everything already has it. It’s just our human biology that allows this consciousness to be self-experiential and experience other things, such as thoughts and ideas and feelings. A rock doesn’t have those, but it has a “soul” or consciousness. But I feel I digressed a lot lol

                Also to make it clear, I don’t think AI exists already. I think these models and developments we have are part of AI though.

                • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
                  2·
                  11 months ago

                  I don’t disagree that experiences are data. The major distinction I’m making is that the human creative process uses more than just data, we have intention, aesthetics, we make mistakes, change our minds, iterate, etc. For a generative AI, the “creative process” is tokenizing a string, running the tokens through an attention matrix, plugging that into a thousand different matrices that then go into a post processing layer and they spit out an image. At no point does it look at what it’s doing and evaluate how it’s gonna fit into the final picture.

                  As for the rest of your reasoning, I neither agree nor disagree, I think we just don’t have the same definition of consciousness.

      • silent_water [she/her]@hexbear.netEnglish
        3·
        11 months ago

        content gives it a bit too much credit. there’s almost always body horror (look at the baby’s fingers sinking into her collarbone) and I’m so sick of it that I block AI crap as spam on my feed.

    • ElChapoDeChapo [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      23·
      1 year ago

      You’re actually right, most of this shit did come from the conservative side of the fetish community

      I have no idea how they broke containment but I really wasn’t paying much attention to these weirdos

  • Comp4 [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    40·
    1 year ago

    They look like historically accurate pilgrims to me. Cant wait till they replace all the pictures in history books with such life like depictions so-true

  • bazingabrain [comrade/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    39·
    1 year ago

    Has the person running this account ever been to church? The average catholic man is either a tall skinny stick or a somewhat overweight dad dude. No comments on the woman too lol, just really weird terminally online bullshit.