|
PhazonLink posted:Similar to the Fix-It-Yourself movement here, wasnt there a robo dog toy that a toy company stop supporting, and now Japan has FixIt movement based on legal open source dog parts being available?
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
raifield posted:I wonder why the company stopped supporting her/it/the technology, it sounds like an excuse to print money off the backs of otaku and NEETs, and that's just Japan. What's sadder is whatever led him to form such an attachment to a fictional creation and left him unable to bond with another human being. This sort of thing is bandaging that problem, which so far as I can tell, no one is interested in addressing, only laughing at. As far as I can tell, they're quietly abandoning the consumer market to focus on large-size versions for corporate customers to use for mascots and stuff. Lonely nerds are a lucrative market because you can sell them JPGs or cheap toys at an absurd markup and keep them coming back for more, but when it comes to expensive hardware like this, marketing departments tend to be the target demo that have the best mix of disposable income and lack of sense. It's hard to find info about what drove him to that, since most articles are only interested in the weirdo who married an anime, and not about him as a person. But from what I can gather, he faced bullying and social ostracism at his workplace, becoming depressed to the point that he couldn't even eat or sleep, let alone function at work. A doctor forced him to take a leave of absence, but with nothing to do and no real social support or mental health support, he ended up as a shut-in who spent all day on the internet until he found something that made him happy, became obsessed, and managed to lift himself out of that serious depressive episode by binging it nonstop. And reading between the lines, I suspect he found a community in Vocaloid stuff too, making friends and building a social support network around this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 17:35
|
|
|
Ah yes I too remember NG Resonance from that Deues Ex game everyone memory holes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Ah yes I too remember NG Resonance from that Deues Ex game everyone memory holes. project snowblind?
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 17:52
|
|
|
raifield posted:I wonder why the company stopped supporting her/it/the technology, it sounds like an excuse to print money off the backs of otaku and NEETs, and that's just Japan. What's sadder is whatever led him to form such an attachment to a fictional creation and left him unable to bond with another human being. This sort of thing is bandaging that problem, which so far as I can tell, no one is interested in addressing, only laughing at. They company only licensed the character for X number of years as it was just a promotion. Also a little weird that this pre-covid story is making the rounds again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 20:06
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Ah yes I too remember NG Resonance from that Deues Ex game everyone memory holes. I don't memory hole Invisible War. That's the first game that let me beat a child to death with another child. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
I've been looking at the recent advances in AI image generators and seeing artists I follow get pretty nervous about them. I'm not an artist myself, but I'm curious if there's any way that artists who don't want their art used by image generators can opt out other than just not putting their work online. As it is I'm seeing artists I admire like R.J. Palmer get sent knock offs of their own art as a form of harassment for voicing concern about the technology. Given that a lot of prompts include "trending on ArtStation/DeviantArt/etc" I'd think those services would want to reassure their users that they're at least attempting to protect their work (especially ArtStation, which a lot of established professional artists host their portfolios on). I see that DeviantArt currently offers a service that uses AI to identify if users' works are made into NFTs. Providing a similar service to safeguard against users' works being used against their consent in this way would give them a new business niche, so it makes sense to me that they'd do this (if it's even possible). Hexmage-SA fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 00:58
|
|
|
There's really no way to protect against it. Whether you produce art, text, code, or anything else, people are going to use what you made for training AI.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
i mean throughout the history of art you see artists copying and iterating on each others work in every possible way, so in some ways AI art is just a pure distillation of that
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
not it isnt because the ai isnt a person
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 02:05
|
|
|
The ai isn't the artist in ai art, it's the person running it. Ai art is like a very advanced spirograph set - you make your sprockets (build ai, feed it images) and choose your holes (keywords) and then just mindlessly move your hand (hit enter).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 02:35
|
|
|
You could ague, though, that the AI copies a little too much, more than would be acceptable if a human were to straight copy pieces of things. We've already seen it with code - AI programming spitting out functional secure API Keys from the training data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 02:39
|
|
|
I dunno, maybe? I guess it depends on where someone considers the value of art to be derived from.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:02
|
|
|
Stexils posted:not it isnt because the ai isnt a person What if the AI is also a corporation?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:28
|
|
|
Zachack posted:I dunno, maybe? I guess it depends on where someone considers the value of art to be derived from. It's "is photography creative enough to copyright?" all over again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:30
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:You could ague, though, that the AI copies a little too much, more than would be acceptable if a human were to straight copy pieces of things. code is a little more discrete than art
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:49
|
|
|
AI generated art still has human input and curation. If things like colorized mandelbrot sets or collections of aesthetically pleasing rocks can be art, then so is developing the prompts and selecting and image or images. The criticism can't really be "it's not art", it has to be "it's unfairly using others' art to inform its own" and depending on the prompt and the AI that might be hard to argue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:51
|
|
|
There were whole arguments and cases about who owns someone's image and photograph, who is the actual creative agency, etc, before the law was rewritten to clarify it. I think they're just going to have to rewrite the laws for this, as well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 03:56
|
|
|
Hexmage-SA posted:I've been looking at the recent advances in AI image generators and seeing artists I follow get pretty nervous about them. I'm not an artist myself, but I'm curious if there's any way that artists who don't want their art used by image generators can opt out other than just not putting their work online. As it is I'm seeing artists I admire like R.J. Palmer get sent knock offs of their own art as a form of harassment for voicing concern about the technology. I'm pretty sure that the big ones used a curated training dataset.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 04:11
|
|
|
fool of sound posted:AI generated art still has human input and curation. If things like colorized mandelbrot sets or collections of aesthetically pleasing rocks can be art, then so is developing the prompts and selecting and image or images. The criticism can't really be "it's not art", it has to be "it's unfairly using others' art to inform its own" and depending on the prompt and the AI that might be hard to argue. Yeah, I completely agree. If you listen to a cover band, it's mostly the same as listening to the actual band, if they're good. But if they're excellent and if they can play it note for note, you still don't get the same feeling out of it. If you don't add anything to it, it still falls flat. Sorry if it sounds dumb or flakey, but the human element is still important. An AI doesn't know what is beautiful and pleasing, or what gives art meaning; it's an unthinking algorithm. If you look at the art of the late 19th and 20th century, and now, technical skill is of far lesser importance than making beautiful things. No one cares about the process, and I would argue, no one should care about the process. Gernika isn't what is is, for example, because Picasso mastered the technique of painting, but rather because he had the idea that it should look exactly the way it did (along with the technical skill to execute it).
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 04:51
|
|
|
lol if you look at the art of the late 19th & 20th century you end up straight at Duchamp and find out that "technical skill" and "beauty" and "pleasing art" are all moot
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 04:58
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Ah yes I too remember NG Resonance from that Deues Ex game everyone memory holes. I enjoyed it, even with the glaring flaws <  >
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:02
|
|
|
idiotsavant posted:lol if you look at the art of the late 19th & 20th century you end up straight at Duchamp and find out that "technical skill" and "beauty" and "pleasing art" are all moot You can equally say that art exists to make you think, or even to offend your sensibilities. But I don't think a computer will do it beyond random chance. A computer could generate a MCU film, I have no doubt. It would never create Freddie Got Fingered. You could very well argue that that's an argument in favour of computers, I suppose, but I think that's to overlook the purpose of art.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, I completely agree. If you listen to a cover band, it's mostly the same as listening to the actual band, if they're good. But if they're excellent and if they can play it note for note, you still don't get the same feeling out of it. If you don't add anything to it, it still falls flat. An AI doesn't have to know whether something is beautiful or pleasing. The human operator can spend a few hours tweaking the prompt and iterating on results until the AI spits out something that looks beautiful and pleasing. The AI has no concept of "beautiful", but that doesn't mean it can't create something beautiful. It's just smashing pixels together semi-randomly. Roll those dice ten thousand times and it'll probably spit out something close enough at least once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
Wasn't there this "artist" whose "work" was "I will take someone else's work and just put my signature on it and it's transformative enough do pay me obscene amounts of money while the original artist gets nothing"? It worked out for him because he knew the right people, if I recall correctly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:27
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:An AI doesn't have to know whether something is beautiful or pleasing. The human operator can spend a few hours tweaking the prompt and iterating on results until the AI spits out something that looks beautiful and pleasing. Well, that's the point. The AI is an idiot, the person that directs it can be an artist because creating art does not necessarily depend on technical skill. The reason you can prompt these systems with "...in the style of [famous artist]" is because those artists brought something new to the table, as one could do with the assistance of these algorithms.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 05:31
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:Lots of things can damage a person's ability to form bonds with others. Parentification, abuse, and other forms of trauma. Generally when someone is younger, it's worse, but you can see it with adult trauma too. Part of domestic violence is cutting the victim off from their support structures. Friends, family and social groups. It can be fixed, but having trust issues does make therapy a lot harder. Pretty sure I read somewhere that it's really not that complicated, Japanese shut-ins and such are usually a result of A: the same intense societal pressures to live up to impossible standards, alienation, atomisation and unrealistic expectations that cause them to simply give up because they see the writing on the wall, and 2: abuse to the point that destroys their ability to function. Also school shooters are all literally just radicalised white supremacist terrorists.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 07:02
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wasn't there this "artist" whose "work" was "I will take someone else's work and just put my signature on it and it's transformative enough do pay me obscene amounts of money while the original artist gets nothing"? It worked out for him because he knew the right people, if I recall correctly. I'm pretty sure his name is Eric
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 12:53
|
|
|
The solution is pretty simple. Since "AI art" is merely imitating existing creative works, the person creating this art has to credit all works used as inputs, and owes royalties to every person whose art they used. You could probably make an argument that it's very similar to sampling, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 13:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wasn't there this "artist" whose "work" was "I will take someone else's work and just put my signature on it and it's transformative enough do pay me obscene amounts of money while the original artist gets nothing"? It worked out for him because he knew the right people, if I recall correctly. That just sounds like capitalism.txt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 13:23
|
|
|
Has FN Meka been brought up on here before? For those unaware it was an "AI rapper" created and owned by a company called Factory New that Capitol Records "signed a deal with" before outcry caused them to drop it only days later. Here's some excerpts from an interview co-founder of Factory New Anthony Martini did with Music Business World in regards to why they made FN Meka: "Even with all the money labels devote to finding talent, the success rate is a pitiful 1%. Now we can literally custom-create artists using elements proven to work, greatly increasing the odds of success. We’ve developed a proprietary AI technology that analyzes certain popular songs of a specified genre and generates recommendations for the various elements of song construction: lyrical content, chords, melody, tempo, sounds, etc. We then combine these elements to create the song." This next part is great: "Not to get all philosophical but, what is an “artist” today? Think about the biggest stars in the world. How many of them are just vessels for commercial endeavors? How many fans ever actually meet the stars they idolize anyway? People’s fandom develops from digital images on screens projecting expertly designed content – who actually knows with certainty whats real and whats not? If the content is good enough, do people even care how it’s made?" In this instance people cared enough how it was made that Capitol Records severed ties with Factory New, but it's not hard to imagine that other companies will attempt similar projects. The icing on the cake is that someone has come forward claiming that they wrote FN Meka's first three songs (that had supposedly been written by AI) and were never compensated adequately for it. Hexmage-SA fucked around with this message at 14:10 on Sep 2, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 14:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Wasn't there this "artist" whose "work" was "I will take someone else's work and just put my signature on it and it's transformative enough do pay me obscene amounts of money while the original artist gets nothing"? It worked out for him because he knew the right people, if I recall correctly. Roy Lichtenstein was basically a plagiarist and made millions doing so, but the art world is basically a big scam.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:36
|
|
|
GrandpaPants posted:Roy Lichtenstein was basically a plagiarist and made millions doing so, but the art world is basically a big scam. This was somebody active in the 2000s I could swear.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 16:39
|
|
|
We already had this discussion, or at least I thought it was this thread, and when it comes to "Fine Art" you have to remember: The Art is NOT the Image. For better or for worse. You can have a Roy Lichtenstein who reproduces a Sunday Morning comics panel in acrylics. You can Marcel Duchamp drawing a mustache in pencil on a postcard of the Mona Lisa. You can have thousands and thousands of white canvasses painted white. You just gotta convince someone to like it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 17:34
|
|
|
Congrats on your big brain revelation I guess. Art is about people, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 18:25
|
|
|
When I bought my house the previous owner left a giant picture frame. I've been taking photos of that giant picture frame in front of various things and calling it art for a while now
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 18:38
|
|
|
I don't strong opinions about what makes art "art", really, I'm more interested in the "how will society deal with this and who will control how this propagates," which is why I brought up copyrights on photographs and how that was very contentious until explicit laws were written to address it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 18:46
|
|
|
Art used to be art. Now it's just inflation-resistant assets for the rich.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't strong opinions about what makes art "art", really, I'm more interested in the "how will society deal with this and who will control how this propagates," which is why I brought up copyrights on photographs and how that was very contentious until explicit laws were written to address it. I wish there was more speculation on the potential societal impacts of this kind of tech. To me, AI being able to remove creatives from the process of making art, literature, music, etc seems like it could have unforeseen impacts of the kind of magnitude that the ubiquity of social media platforms has created, if not even more so. There's no way essentially automating the creation of culture can't have some kind of huge impact, for better or worse, and I'm both curious and kind of worried about what it will look like.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 19:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:31 |
|
|
hello i would like to buy an art, i have a budget of $5
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2022 19:17
|
|