Support NeoGAF

[mrcroket]

Not comparable.

The Industrial revolution created employment opportunities.

So the AIs are going to create, maintain and improve themselves, right? It's unnecessary to have programmers and all kinds of technicians specialized in them.

 

[chlorate]

AI can make your code compile in R, but it doesn’t really tell you at all whether or not your analysis is meaningful. It just reduces the amount of time you spend on buggy code that won’t run because there’s a misplaced bracket.

 

[IDKFA]

So the AIs are going to create, maintain and improve themselves, right? It's unnecessary to have programmers and all kinds of technicians specialized in them.

No. The AI needs a goal and somebody to develop/maintain it. However, the artist is no longer required. Eventually AI will cost more jobs than it'll create and also lower wages. That's a given

The industrial revolution on the other hand created far more employment opportunities than were lost because of it and increased wages. That's why we cannot compare the two.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

AI has no concept of inspiration. It is taking multiple art pieces and splicing them together into something that appears as new, much like how someone would do a photobash in photoshop or a music mashup on youtube:



Except the way it works is a bit more clever and deceitful so that it's not too obvious which parts it took from which pieces. Even after saying all of this, I'm not against the usage and growth of AI in many capacities. I'm more against the people who want to use AI as shortcut over paying other people for hard work. Human greed ruins a lot of cool ideas.

This reminds me so much of Girl Talk and Super Mash Bros.....I really liked their mashups...really tickled my ADHD brain.

 

[radewagon]

I don't think AI is going to lead to gazillions of job losses with no replacements like the doomers have been saying. AI can't create anything new, it can only (poorly, mostly) replicate that which has been made. I think after the initial surprise and amazement that came from DALL-E and the like, people were like "yea this art is pretty shit tbh." After only a few months of this people have started to intuitively figure out what shitty AI-generated stuff looks and reads like. I see this Amazon art and it shows me that yea, real artists are still going to have to be employed at these companies. This is just total garbage, 1/10 stuff, unacceptable. While Rings of Power showed me that Amazon really does not have any standards of quality whatsoever, so this is par for the course for them, companies will correctly see that having people on staff will be a creative and competitive advantage.

Along the same lines, I think AI will likely destroy all the content farm/aggregator type websites out there, but in reality those sites have no reason to exist and having AI replace poorly paid English majors who hate their lives is just a halfway step towards that. The sites making new content and new stuff will be fine. I think it will make a lot of professionals vastly more productive though, since they'll basically all have an assistant working for them 24/7. I used AI to write a SQL query that probably would have taken me many hours to figure out because I am not well-versed in SQL. So that let me move on to another task. Companies are not going to entrust mission critical operations to AI only, they'll need people to run and manage this stuff. It will mean that companies can do a LOT more in the same amount of time, similar to what happened when computers came onto the scene.

I think we always need to temper our emotions on this stuff. Like, when ATMs came on the scene and became very powerful, people thought bank tellers would disappear as a job. Well, believe it or not, more people work as bank tellers now than before ATMs. This stuff is very fluid and complicated. They're predicting again that bank tellers will be out of a job because of AI. We'll see.

You seem to think that the general public is particularly demanding of quality. They're not. You also seem to think that content providers that want better quality are willing to pay top dollar for it. Most aren't. Most companies out there will pay as little as they possibly can because it helps them make more money and keep investors happy. They will continue to pursue AI until it is at the point where hiring actual artists does not offer an appreciable difference that offsets the added production cost. The only thing that can save artists at this point, if things like the hollwood strikes don't work, is if courts rule that AI generated art has zero copyright protections and can be legally copied and resold by third parties as a result.

 

[K2D]

Are you sure about that?

Ok, let's suppose that you are not a tech illiterate idiot parroting nonsense on the internet...

Can you tell me "WHERE WAS THIS IMAGE STOLE FROM?"

All I ask of you is that the source of “inspiration“ for this computer generated image - is traceable to the original artist(s).

That the work origin is made transparent for the sake of scrutiny.

That the artist(s) in question have signed off on their use, and are compensated - also fully transparent.

To lay the burden of proof on to others is quite frankly dishonest.

 

[64bitmodels]

ppl are here talking about the moral dillemma. It's not the moral dillemma its the fact that amazon is using AI art for their brand new video game adaptation show. That should be a major red flag that this will be complete and utter garbage

 

[diffusionx]

You seem to think that the general public is particularly demanding of quality. They're not. You also seem to think that content providers that want better quality are willing to pay top dollar for it. Most aren't. Most companies out there will pay as little as they possibly can because it helps them make more money and keep investors happy. They will continue to pursue AI until it is at the point where hiring actual artists does not offer an appreciable difference that offsets the added production cost. The only thing that can save artists at this point, if things like the hollwood strikes don't work, is if courts rule that AI generated art has zero copyright protections and can be legally copied and resold by third parties as a result.

Well, like I said, it only took a few months and people can already spot AI art pretty easily, and it's not good. Once you get past the novelty of generative AI, the fact is, its output is mostly bad and derivative. There will be bottom-tier trash companies that make wide use of shitty AI art, but they'll be recognized as bottom tier trash companies. I disagree that people have no appreciation or demand of quality, I mean, Rings of Power, enough said. Or the fact that people spotted this as crappy AI art in about 5 seconds. I also disagree that some companies won't recognize it as a competitive advantage to make sure their work is better than bottom-tier trash.

Maybe we do get into a world where I tell AI to make me a 2D pixelshit Metroidvania game, and it will do it in an hour, and it will put tons of bearded soy indie designers currently making 2D pixelshit Metroidvanias out of work. Ok I can accept that, but that comes with the caveat that if you're not doing work that is any better than an AI program, then ultimately one way or the other we don't need you. Either the AI replaces you or your game sells 5 copies on Steam. To make original and great work, you need to be a person, period, that will never change, a robot cannot do it and never, ever, ever will. Maybe we get to a world where Ai generates tons of disposable crap "art" but the truly skilled artists, writers, creatives, etc. will always have a place.

 

[64bitmodels]

The level of dumbness of this comment is off the charts.

Generative AI is the best thing to ever happen to "common people"

When everyone's out of a job because the robots took them how the fuck is the economy supposed to function?

 

[Danknugz]

calling out ai quickly became virtue signaling for less tech oriented philosopher and struggling artist types

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

All I ask of you is that the source of “inspiration“ for this computer generated image - is traceable to the original artist(s).

That the work origin is made transparent for the sake of scrutiny.

That the artist(s) in question have signed off on their use, and are compensated - also fully transparent.

To lay the burden of proof on to others is quite frankly dishonest.

The thing is you cannot because this is a new piece of art I've created on my computer. There's no other artwork excly like this in the entire world.

Inspiration is not copyrightable you can paint your own version of Mona Lisa without have to pay royalties to anyone.

Your knowledge of the technology is weak and your argument is flawled.

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

When everyone's out of a job because the robots took them how the fuck is the economy supposed to function?

I've explained that already. That's now how economics work.

AI will/ALREADY do allow people to do jobs they were previously incapable of, it empowers people to create musical and visual art while also being capable program computer software.

It can instruct, develop or counselor your projects, you will be able to create new startups/business and hire people to help you.

Companies doesn't exist to employ people they exists to make profit, new companies and new types of work will arise, but even before that AI can ALREADY increase the power of people have to do their current work/services.

Stop jumping in the fear mongering bandwagon, when the automation take over services and products will also be cheaper as well.

 

[Krathoon]

It is funny how A.I. screws up like that. It does make for a sassy Skyrim companion. It is a shame you have to pay a fee to use it that way.

 

[Krathoon]

AI has this tendency to hallucinate or lie. You have to quality check it and adjust what it produces.

They did not do that or half assed did it.

It needs an editor.

 

[Apocryphon]

Wasn’t there recently a ruling that AI generated art can’t be copyrighted?

 

[bender]

When everyone's out of a job because the robots took them how the fuck is the economy supposed to function?

 

[M.W.]

This thread is a fallout

 

[Krathoon]

AI is good enough for it to talk trash. I find that hilarious.

I proves that it does not take much thought to be obnoxious.

 

[kevm3]

I see people are already fine with mediocrity AI brings and don't see anything wrong with their animated movie characters having thrid leg or sixth finger here and there. This time it's a teaser postcard, next time it's some scenes or episodes or whole shows looking like uninspired buggy ass.



Probably the dumbest analogy one could come up with. Completely misses the point.

Corporations and the masses they feed don't care about quality.

As long as the low cost and low quality slop content AI generates is passable in terms of whittling away consumers' free time, corps will continue to produce it. Sad reality, but I think I'm becoming apathetic about it. People will consume what they're offered.

 

[FunkMiller]

Wasn’t there recently a ruling that AI generated art can’t be copyrighted?

Yep.

All this talk of the AI revolution is nice and everything… but it’s going to get shut down pretty fucking quickly once studios and companies start getting their ‘entirely original’ AI creations ripped off left right and centre.

 

[hyperbertha]

I’m pretty sure if a neural network sees 2 pictures of Komodo dragons with the current amount of training you’ve had, it can also identify another Komodo.

If you feed an empty neural network the 2 images it probably doesn’t know what to do with it, just like your own brain when it was a baby.

Neural networks work exactly like a human brain, but much less efficient as of now so you need much more power to run it, but it also knows everything about everything which a human brain can’t even start to comprehend.

Also, generative ai is a separate ai from image recognition so there’s that. And a human possesses inferior versions of both in a single brain which makes us more effective for this moment. AI will catch up very soon though and in a year from now it’ll probably be better at doing everything than we can, except for physical stuff since they don’t have good bodies yet.

Delusional. Neural networks, despite all their training still can't learn in few attempts the way humans do, and doesn't have the ability to generalize. It's unsolved. Gpt4 despite seemingly looking like it knows what its talking about doesn't have the reasoning capacities of children.

 

[systemr123]

Delusional. Neural networks, despite all their training still can't learn in few attempts the way humans do, and doesn't have the ability to generalize. It's unsolved. Gpt4 despite seemingly looking like it knows what its talking about doesn't have the reasoning capacities of children.

I asked GPT this for you... Nothing delusional about it. Here is what GPT says:

There is no definitive answer to whether image recognition AI is better than human, as it depends on various factors such as the type, quality, and quantity of the images, the task and goal of the recognition, and the criteria for measuring the performance. However, some general observations can be made based on the web search results:

• Image recognition AI is based on artificial neural networks that are inspired by the human brain, but are a highly simplified version of the biology1.
• Image recognition AI can perform faster and more accurately than humans on certain tasks, such as recognizing hundreds of breeds of cats and dogs2.
• Image recognition AI can also learn from a large amount of data and generalize to new images that are similar to what they have seen before1.
• However, image recognition AI may not be able to capture the nuances and context of human vision, such as emotions, intentions, and social cues1.
• Image recognition AI may also have different spatial priorities and resolutions than humans when processing images, which can affect their agreement with human viewing behavior13.
• Image recognition AI may also be more susceptible to errors and biases when faced with adversarial or noisy images that are designed to fool or confuse them2.

Therefore, image recognition AI and human have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to recognizing images. They may complement each other in some scenarios, but also compete or conflict in others. It is important to understand the limitations and potentials of both systems and use them appropriately for different purposes.

Better and worse at the same time.

 

[Wingnut]

Was there similar topics rising when the car industry start using robots instead of real humans?

 

[Shadowplay1979]

If its AI it was most likely a working artist that used it and made it anyway.

Artist in the game industry here (3d though) and even when 3d ai stuff gets better you will still need artists to use it and art directors to sit around and tell you what you did needs to be adjusted..

and if they did use ai...it wasnt very good....here 14 seconds in mj

a few rerolls would fix all the car issues here

 

[YeulEmeralda]

I think it's the moral dilemma. Training ai on art without compensating the artists.

Personally I have no qualm with them using AI in digital promotions. It gives away the overall quality of the show.

Crying about AI is pointless. This technology is not going to be put back in the box. Capitalism rewards efficiency.

BUT AI ISN'T GOOD

Look were we have come in just 5 years.

 

[hyperbertha]

I asked GPT this for you... Nothing delusional about it. Here is what GPT says:

There is no definitive answer to whether image recognition AI is better than human, as it depends on various factors such as the type, quality, and quantity of the images, the task and goal of the recognition, and the criteria for measuring the performance. However, some general observations can be made based on the web search results:

• Image recognition AI is based on artificial neural networks that are inspired by the human brain, but are a highly simplified version of the biology1.
• Image recognition AI can perform faster and more accurately than humans on certain tasks, such as recognizing hundreds of breeds of cats and dogs2.
• Image recognition AI can also learn from a large amount of data and generalize to new images that are similar to what they have seen before1.
• However, image recognition AI may not be able to capture the nuances and context of human vision, such as emotions, intentions, and social cues1.
• Image recognition AI may also have different spatial priorities and resolutions than humans when processing images, which can affect their agreement with human viewing behavior13.
• Image recognition AI may also be more susceptible to errors and biases when faced with adversarial or noisy images that are designed to fool or confuse them2.

Therefore, image recognition AI and human have different strengths and weaknesses when it comes to recognizing images. They may complement each other in some scenarios, but also compete or conflict in others. It is important to understand the limitations and potentials of both systems and use them appropriately for different purposes.

Better and worse at the same time.

Are you trolling? What relevance does gpt's answers have here?

 

[Shadowplay1979]

Crying about AI is pointless. This technology is not going to be put back in the box. Capitalism rewards efficiency.

BUT AI ISN'T GOOD

Look were we have come in just 5 years.

i mean look how far its come in just a year.... MJ exactly 1 year ago and MJ now ..same exact prompt ....its all moving so fast

 

[Gallard]

Amazon used AI badly. Good AI art needs a little human curation. You don't have to reroll the entire image anymore - you can specify which region you want rerolled with inpainting.

I have mixed feelings regarding it - but I recognize the AI beast can't be stopped. People are running their own stable diffusion instances on their own machines. It's open source. Companies like Adobe are working on their own AI using their vast library of stock images which they own (no legal issues there). Politicians are lobbied by huge corporations - the same corporations that are pushing AI. The AI beast isn't going back into its little box. It's adapt or die.

 

[Drizzlehell]

Oh no! You mean to say that annoying advertising that no one gives a shit about anyway is AI generated?

 

[Ishma3L]

If AI usage really bothers you, better buckle up!

 

[Dracor]

People complaining about AI are modern day luddites, like they match the definition down to a tee:

Luddites “protested against manufacturers who used machines in "a fraudulent and deceitful manner" to replace the skilled labour of workers and drive down wages by producing inferior goods.”

They originated in the textile industry. You know the end result of this innovation? Everyone, except those who were previously making those textiles by hand, was better off.

It’s the same with the printing press, agricultural improvements, the personal computer, the web, etc. Some people are worse off, but the majority of people are better off. If you really want to “think of your fellow man”, you don’t withhold progress so a few people can keep jobs, you let society progress so everyone else is better of.

At one point, ~40% of the US had to work in the agriculture industry to make enough food. It’s now ~10%. Should we have held back any improvements in fear people would lose their job?

The economy adjusted and people who were freed up from agriculture were able to get into new jobs. That is a large amount of people too. It’s the same with other massive innovations.

What kinds of jobs will be available in the future? Who knows. Someone in 1950 couldn’t have guessed that SEO Optimizing would be a job 50 years from then. We won’t know either.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

As long as the content is good, AI is good in my books. No different than buying stuff at a store. I dont care if it's handmade, made on an assembly line, made locally, or made overseas. If it's good and a fair price, I'll buy it. If it stinks, avoid it.

Consider it along with all the automation in blue collar jobs and PC tech in office jobs which streamlined work, efficiency and processes over the past 50+ years.

The key difference is that art is something I dont think anyone expected to be done fast and well by AI bots. And it came out of nowhere with this ChatGPT stuff the past year or two. Maybe for techies who are really into AI they saw the evolution over a decade, but for most people AI is a new thing everyone suddenly talks about. But here we are.

 

[SALMORE]

i want an ai to name my future children

 

[Krathoon]

It is going to get really annoying when they use AI for customer service.

 

[Dutchy]

Mathematician didn't cry when calculators happened.

1 + 1 = 2

Whether you use a calculator or not. Calculators also did not put people out of a job.

Good art and bad art are two entirely different things. And AI only makes the latter.

What's up with people on this forum using the most asinine analogies lmfao.

 

[systemr123]

Are you trolling? What relevance does gpt's answers have here?

You didn’t read the post did you? It’s about image recognition AI, the post itself is not about GPT. It’s just an answer to a question from GPT.

 

[Neofire]

I have no problem with a company trying to cut costs but doing it so sloppily and those downward costs til to reach the consumers too.

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

A lot of stupid "old men" yelling at the clouds on this topic.

Tech illiterate dumbasses making a fool of themselves saying stupid shit online.

AI is the future, you don't need to like it or use it but you don't also get to complain when your dinosaur ass lose your job.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

1 + 1 = 2

Whether you use a calculator or not. Calculators also did not put people out of a job.

Good art and bad art are two entirely different things. And AI only makes the latter.

What's up with people on this forum using the most asinine analogies lmfao.

For all the people crying about AI, what they should be doing is using it to make better products. Use some AI as a foundation and then adjust it better. The avg person is not an artist and wont be using AI at all regardless except to dick around. Their fear is that corporations will kick them to the curb and use Skynet to do all their art in an automated/assembly line fashion putting them out of work.

Well, there's still people working assembly lines. There's still people hired to work in the office despite tech doing a lot of the grunt work. So opportunities are out there.

If I was an artist, I'd be learning how to use AI asap (and it looks like a lot of these sites are free too), and churn endless shit all afternoon and then cherry pick the good ones to latch onto. It's like being at the office and using databases all set up by IT to churn out data. Then from there you pick what to analyze.

I get it. Artists have an ego and want it their way grassroots style. They dont want AI to do shit for them. Well, man up. Unless someone is an old school Bob Ross doing shit by hand, the typical artist in modern day probably uses Photoshop and whatever other tools to fix and edit shit by PC anyway So think of AI as another PC program.

PS: LOL. I think I said shit 4 times. 5 if you include this sentence1

 

[Dutchy]

For all the people crying about AI

If I was an artist,

I get it. Artists have an ego.

You seem to be very emotionally invested in something you don't understand.

Somehow I'm not that surprised anymore that three legged people and cars with 6 tires don't bother you as much

 

[Games of Today]

Cry me a fucking river.
AI is a massive time gain and it should be embraced and available for everyone for free forever.

Mathematician didn't cry when calculators happened.
Artists are trying to become a special protected class like entitled little fucks. If learning AI are made into a legal nightmare, this will endanger human progress greatly.

Yea see this is why I'm in between.

AI art is great because I'm not an artist. I can even start it out with a sketch and get it to draw something way out of my talent range for free.

But since art is subjective and AI art still isn't perfect, there will always be room for artists. They aren't going anywhere. But they are not a necessity.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

Cry me a fucking river.
AI is a massive time gain and it should be embraced and available for everyone for free forever.

Mathematician didn't cry when calculators happened.
Artists are trying to become a special protected class like entitled little fucks. If learning AI are made into a legal nightmare, this will endanger human progress greatly.

Meh. A calculator was programmed once by people payed to do it. The AI used in the OP was trained with Data done by creatives not payed for it.
Remember data is the new gold. Open AI are getting sued for basically data theft.

It’s not the same.

If they trained their own AI based on images they own and payed artists to do, go ahead and abuse the system as much as you like.

 

[YeulEmeralda]

As long as the content is good, AI is good in my books. No different than buying stuff at a store. I dont care if it's handmade, made on an assembly line, made locally, or made overseas. If it's good and a fair price, I'll buy it. If it stinks, avoid it.

Consider it along with all the automation in blue collar jobs and PC tech in office jobs which streamlined work, efficiency and processes over the past 50+ years.

The key difference is that art is something I dont think anyone expected to be done fast and well by AI bots. And it came out of nowhere with this ChatGPT stuff the past year or two. Maybe for techies who are really into AI they saw the evolution over a decade, but for most people AI is a new thing everyone suddenly talks about. But here we are.

It's like artificial diamonds. If you need a laboratory test to figure out which is which who cares?

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

Meh. A calculator was programmed once by people payed to do it. The AI used in the OP was trained with Data done by creatives not payed for it.
Remember data is the new gold. Open AI are getting sued for basically data theft.

It’s not the same.

If they trained their own AI based on images they own and payed artists to do, go ahead and abuse the system as much as you like.

How the fuck you people come up with those dumb ideas?

Dude the shit you just posted now and everything else you do PUBLICLY on the internet is free to be seen and studied, AI doesn't reproduce what it reads it learns and trains a sets of layered neurons based on probabilities and weights.

If you post a picture of you on a open and public web site you're already giving permissions for people and bots to look at it.

 

[ProtoByte]

Every person shaking and pissing and crying about AI on the internet really does exemplify the human capacity for hypocrisy and ignorance. Let alone over some throwaway promotional image.

"AI doesn't make anything new!" What does "new" mean? Something abstract that no one has ever seen or comprehended before? Or a set of attributes spun in a unique way?

"AI is going to destroy jobs!" New technology always renders some jobs obsolete, and creates a new suite of others. Many of those jobs are actually pretty rudimentary. No matter how many AI driven machines are used to make things, there will always be someone who has to first build, then maintain, then upgrade said machine by mind and hand.

There will always be value in human art and artists, and all the rest of the so called creative field works. Plagiarism didn't get struck from the record yesterday, so the appropriate protections are mostly in place. Generative AI will get better over time, yes, but it will never have the flexibility or intuition of the human mind. I don't think most of you realise exactly how much human input there is with AI already. Stop panicking.

 

[sankt-Antonio]

How the fuck you people come up with those dumb ideas?

Dude the shit you just posted now and everything else you do PUBLICLY on the internet is free to be seen and studied, AI doesn't reproduce what it reads it learns and trains a sets of layered neurons based on probabilities and weights.

If you post a picture of you on a open and public web site you're already giving permissions for people and bots to look at it.

Sadly that’s not the case. They crawled copyrighted material that may be free to look at but not to commercialize.

Same way Unreal engine is „free“ but you have to pay as soon as you make money with it. Etc.

Not everything enters public domain just because it’s „on the internet“.

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

Sadly that’s not the case. They crawled copyrighted material that may be free to look at but not to commercialize.

Same way Unreal engine is „free“ but you have to pay as soon as you make money with it. Etc.

Not everything enters public domain just because it’s „on the internet“.

They are not commercializing those assets.

AI LEARNED about the things it saw that's why is called TRAINING, which in fact lead to the development of what we call emergent abilities, it do not hold a copy of any of those assets inside of it... It's exact the same thing as a person watching a movie learning about it's contents and then publishing a review or summarization, for that they do not have to pay shit.

FFAS do you people have ever read anything about AI or are you guys just parroting what you read on twitter?

 

[sankt-Antonio]

They are not commercializing those assets.

AI LEARNED about the things it saw that's why is called TRAINING, which in fact lead to the development of what we call emergent abilities, it do not hold a copy of any of those assets inside of it... It's exact the same thing as a person watching a movie learning about it's contents and then publishing a review or summarization, for that they do not have to pay shit.



FFAS do you people have ever read anything about AI or are you guys just parroting what you read on twitter?

The dataset used for training was used without permission in a lot of cases.

That is a real thing. Don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that :/

 

[Chuck Berry]

They are not commercializing those assets.

AI LEARNED about the things it saw that's why is called TRAINING, which in fact lead to the development of what we call emergent abilities, it do not hold a copy of any of those assets inside of it... It's exact the same thing as a person watching a movie learning about it's contents and then publishing a review or summarization, for that they do not have to pay shit.

FFAS do you people have ever read anything about AI or are you guys just parroting what you read on twitter?

Are you Miles Dyson?

 

[DemonGamerTTT]

The dataset used for training was used without permission in a lot of cases.

That is a real thing. Don’t know what’s so hard to understand about that :/

Dude wtf? Are you fucking serious?

The datasets are out there on the internet and are free to be seem/studied/used as inspiration.

I can go there on Instagram, deviart or any other place and see the pictures/artwork people are posting and yes I can learn from their style and apply it to my own without paying them shit.

They're the ones that decided to put their work to be freely available at the internet, you don't see Disney or Warner brothers allowing their movies to be freely available to be watched on the internet do you?

Yet you can draw and sell hero and movie artwork if you draw it yourself.

Do you really think that artists that draw their own version of manga/anime/hq/movies have to pay royalties to the companies from which their work is derived?