Tog's paradox is the main reason why I suspect that generative AI will never destroy art, it will enhance it. It allows you to create artworks within minutes that until recently required hours to create and years to master. This will cause new art to emerge that pushes these new tools to the limit, again with years of study and mastery, and they will look like nothing we've been able to produce so far.
This is exactly what happened when digital tools like Photoshop became mainstream, where you can copy-paste, recolor, adjust, stretch and transform. It didn't obsolete the manual creation of art, but instead enhanced it. It's common for artists to sketch on paper (or tablet) and later digitize and color on their computer, achieving results faster and better than what was possible in the past.
I crave authenticity. I recognise the creativity and talent in digital painting, but it lacks authenticity. I hardly feel I'll like AI art more.
Not all art needs to be high art, of course. I've bought prints of digital paintings and woodblock prints. Nonetheless, /r/ArtPorn today is like going to the cinema and being shown a compilation of TV adverts. AI art is probably not going to improve that.
I totally get that, but do consider that there were probably people in the past who felt that non-analog art wasn't authentic. That it's not a real piece of art on a real piece of paper or canvas, but a mocking grid of pixels digitized to mimic the authentic but with a jagged plastic aftertaste.
Personally, I love pixel art and think it a very legitimate medium to create art in. I can understand why somebody wants art to be something physical and real, unique and non-digital, but I feel much more strongly that the advent of digital art gave more than it took.
My hopes is that the same will be true for AI art.
A.I. will not create 'art' because art is at its essence an expression of the human condition. However, it will create a lot of what is now commoditized craft that resembles certain kinds of art, like advertising, corporate design, a lot of architecture, and graphic design.
We don’t align completely with the part on mastering, at least as stated here.
That is, yes, we can make large amount of images/videos/texts with generative AI that we would never have been able to produce otherwise, because we didn’t dedicated enough time in mastering corresponding arts. But mastering an art is only marginally about the objects you can craft. The main change it brings is how we perceive objects and how we imagine that we can transform the world (well at least a tiny peace of it) through that new perspective.
Of course "mastering generative AI" can be an interesting journey of it’s own.
My opinion, art meant to capture and communicate the emotions and truth of an exact moment will always have a place. But also, as the time cost to represent a single frame of an idea becomes achievable in fractions of a second, what it unlocks is the ability to represent ideas that are best expressed through longer time sequences. What we wait on is tools that better allows us to constrain, guide and sculpt the generated sequence as it evolves.
As someone who has always loved fractal and Mandelbrot zooms, infinite AI zooms are already cool new art experience made possible in terms of feasible time cost to make. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1vrPpM4eyM
However, it seems to me that most people just think they are some kind of Rick Rubin, who just need the right tools ato be finally appreciated for their taste and I don't think even a fraction of them has taste.
It depends on how the AI is used. If it's too high-level or abstract, it will produce "slop". Solving for AI generated content to be non-slop is probably very close to solving for AGI. But the statistical tools have proven useful in streamlining or automating what once were challenging processes. For example, generating an animated character still yields slop, but you can take a hand-crafted character and have an AI model analyze a live actor's movements and then rotoscope them onto the character. This makes life easier for the animator AND the actor: the actor can give a more natural performance without having to wear cumbersome motion capture gear; and the animator can apply those movements directly to the character without having to clean up motion capture data, let alone rotoscope the movements by hand as was done in the classic Disney animation days.
Can someone tell me what ideas of Wolfram have had an impact on mathematics & physics as a discipline? Every time I read his posts, without understanding them deeply, his accomplishments seem insane, to the point that I would expect everyone to talk about them - yet I have never heard anyone other than himself talk about them.
It's called "pasta" for copy pasta. It was built with exactly the same motivation aa yours, also has a yaml config file, and is also implemented in go, kinda interesting. If yours takes off and we can drop ours, that'd be awesome!
For some feedback in features we have which we thinkg we'd be missing:
- we have the ability to copy individual files and specific subdirectories of other repos, not the entire repos
- mechanics to "clear" the target directory, in case a file gets deleted upstream, to keep the directories in sync
- we've modelled it with a plugin API, so you can implement new "copiers" for bitbucket, google drive, subversion, ...
- the github plugin we have uses the Github API for better performance, and you can add auth by setting an env var GITHUB_TOKEN
We also create a "result" file of every copy, noting the exact commit that was copied, which might or might not be a useful... Were thinking of posting it here at some point but never got around to it. Again, if yours takes off, that'd be the best option :)
We're using it mostly to copy .proto definitions from one repo to another.
Most of the bidets--even super cheap basic ones--have a mode where they can flow water over the nozzle to clean it off. Regardless: if you shoot clean water through the nozzle you are momentarily maybe going to send dirty water at your already dirty body--so, no biggie--but then the water is going to run out of stuff to carry with it, and help clean you.
On the cheaper models, the nozzle is always there, so yeah it'll be another surface that needs to be cleaned.
On the more expensive models, the nozzle is in a separate chamber until it is being utilized, and has a separate mechanism for spraying / cleaning itself. That makes it a lot less of a cleaning burden.
Same issue as saying "the [party] didn't immediately respond". It's technically accurate and objective, but to me personally, it has an undertone of pointing out "just another shady way" this entity that's reported on is acting - when really it isn't.
You might disagree, because you might know what situation might prompt such an event, because you're a journalist, which is fine. But also, you're not writing for journalists; you're writing for the general public, such as myself.
Speaking for myself, if the article was written specifically for me, I'd consider such statements to be a blunder on the journalist's part, at best, and a very deliberate literary technique to ellicit a stronger emotional reaction, at worst. You're ofc not writing for me, but maybe you find the feedback interesting nevertheless.
You're probably at an advantage now, but I think the effort/reward hardly pays out for the newer generation. They'll learn how to deal with this with less effort & time.
Remember that the new generation doesn't just have different tools; they're also much less experienced & mature, just like we were.You can only really compare yourself to them in the future where they're at the place you're at now.
Looks interesting! Another interesting paper on this subject is 1. They seem to have a different approach; the one I reference uses a quadratic bezier approximation that is fast for random access graphics such as fragment shaders. This is very useful for having screen space constant width shapes in 2- or 3d space, skimming the paper that appears to require much more preprocessing.
> There is no universally accepted criterion for distinguishing two different languages from two dialects (i.e. varieties) of the same language.
The difference between language is more culturally and politically defined than linguistically; there are different langauges spoken in the world that have a fiar overlap and elligibility, and there are different dialects of the same "language" that are basically untelligable. It might be sensible to just consider all spoken systems to be "dialects" of each other, and comparing their similarity.
reply