• GraniteM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      9 days ago

      Presumably at some point a human being was involved in the decision making process to try and use this image to convey… some kind of message to other human beings, and at least one human being in that process couldn’t be bothered to give the AI slop more than the most cursory glance.

      Unless of course one could design a fully-automated system of generating pseudo-scientific clickbait factoid garbage accompanied by AI-generated illustrations, entirely dedicated to producing as much vaguely plausible-seeming garbage as possible, 24 hours a day, just spewing out the opposite of useful knowledge at an unfathomable rate.

      But what kind of monster would deploy that weapon on humanity?

          • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            They can. However, what we mean by regurgitate is that they are mixing all those images into a colourful vomit, and vomit-inducing mess that is obvious. Nothing original, nothing ‘made’, just pure regurgitated slop.

            • village604@adultswim.fan
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 days ago

              Regardless of the ethical implications, you can’t honestly say that what they do isn’t a technological marvel.

              You can ask for a picture of just about anything, and if you’re specific enough you can get it to generate exactly what’s in your head.

              • Of the Air (cele/celes)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                6 days ago

                Yes, we can and we will. It doesn’t do what you’re saying it does. We have seen some of the images it generates and a prompt for it, they were off a lot.

                Also, even if it did, that’s not the point of art. Good art is a process, failing is as much a part of that process, as is compromising, working around things etc. What such a thing would do is remove all that and create something lacking beauty, a ‘soul’ to be poetic about it.

                All such things would do if they could do it ‘perfectly’ is teach people to never learn how to do things themselves which is a shame, because it would be wonderful to see what they could create if they had learned to actually make art instead of relying on something ‘perfect’ though as we’ve established, it isn’t.

                • village604@adultswim.fan
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 days ago

                  Go ask a commission artist if the client is always happy with the very first piece they produce.

                  Good art is a process, failing is as much a part of that process, as is compromising, working around things etc

                  Yes, that’s what the person prompting the AI is doing

                  AI is a tool. There are people who still don’t think digital artists are actually artists because they use more advanced tools than physical ones.

                  But the fact is that with trial and error, AI can let a person get something inspired from their head into the real world.