AI art and creative content creation

Status
Not open for further replies.
martinbayer said:
TheRejectionist said:
I wish for an AI that writes apps, codes or programs for me or that at least can make me smart like one of the senior members here.

Of course the first one is likely and the second one is going to make me sound like Dagoth Ur at best!
Click to expand...
Using AI in any way, shape, or form will not *make* you smart. At the very best it might make you *look* smart, because you cannot outsource intelligence. What actually might make you smart, or rather informed (or, to use a more accurate term, educated on the issues debated in this venue), is gaining as much knowledge and understanding of the topics at hand discussed in this forum as you can before asking any questions.
Click to expand...
I am very glad I did join secretprojects because I did discover a lot of things I should have been aware about my own countries. Like that Italy did try to have their own jet fighters!
 
AI Illustrations Lose Copyright Battle

"The US Copyright Office has determined that images created by AI are not eligible for copyright protection because they weren’t made by a human and they are trained on the work of actually copyrightable material. The ruling may make AI-generated art and writing a legal minefield… and ultimately keep companies from toying with the technology for the content they hope to monetize."

futureparty.com

AI illustrations lose copyright battle

Kristina Kashtanova’s Zarya of the Dawn copyright battle determined AI generated images not protected by copyright law says US Copyright Office.
futureparty.com futureparty.com
 
Richard N said:
AI Illustrations Lose Copyright Battle

"The US Copyright Office has determined that images created by AI are not eligible for copyright protection because they weren’t made by a human and they are trained on the work of actually copyrightable material. The ruling may make AI-generated art and writing a legal minefield… and ultimately keep companies from toying with the technology for the content they hope to monetize."

futureparty.com

AI illustrations lose copyright battle

Kristina Kashtanova’s Zarya of the Dawn copyright battle determined AI generated images not protected by copyright law says US Copyright Office.
futureparty.com futureparty.com
Click to expand...
That would be good news...provided there is a way to prove something was created by A.I.
 
So let's say you are a competent painter, either digital or physical media. But you have no talent for dreaming up things to paint. Shazam! AI can dream up novel compositions... and now *you* paint what you're given, making some adjustments. Can you copyright *that*?
 
Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, ......"

www.mtsu.edu

Potter Stewart

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart had a mixed record in First Amendment cases but was often supportive of individual liberty in cases involving speech and religion.
www.mtsu.edu www.mtsu.edu
 
Not seen on Monty Python:

Wife: What are you doing?

Husband: I'm using Midjourney to create something.

W: You're not making anything.

H: Am.

W: Are not.

H: Am.

W: What are you really up to?

H: I... uh... what's that supposed to mean?

W: [is silent]

H: OK, OK. I'm going to take this art, touch it up a bit and sell it for money!

W: I forbid it!

THE END
 
The video below is from a feller who might not be all too popular with some, as he seems to be a "mens rights" kind of guy. Whatever. The reason I post it isn't the guy, but the several clips of women he included. These women are using "filters" that change their appearance in real time. In some cases these filters spruce them up; in others, the results are completely different women. The filters are still not *perfect,* but they're getting really damn good and increasingly difficult to detect with the mark I Eyeball.

Filters like these doubtless have an important role to play in the movies and TV shows of the future... why bother with all the makeup? Why not look 20 years younger? And so on. And for a movie, that's great and all. But for social interactions, it's going to be (already is?) disastrous. Online dating is already nightmarish enough for men; imagine a world - which is probably already here, has been for a while - where online video interactions seem to be going well, but the woman on the other end isn't what she appears to be. Hell, maybe not even a *woman.* Forget about the problems that would arise upon the first real-world face-to-face, just imagine the thousands of wasted hours spent online with someone who's simply leading you on for some nefarious, financial, or just plain time-wasting reason.

And soon enough the need for a filter will vanish entirely. the "woman" will be entirely computer generated, her voice created by computer, her responses crafted by an advanced chatbot. Guys will think they have a shot with an imaginary woman, leading them to spend years not pursuing *actual* women. The birth rate is already bad enough.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI0iNjG01Co


It has been long established that online dating is an utter waste of time for the majority of men; they are belting out their mating call into an empty void. When they get no reply, sooner or later they give up on online dating., But if the empty void can whip up simulated responses that seem like the guy actually has a shot... yeeeeesh.
 
OH ..... puh leeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzz !!!!

"And soon enough the need for a filter will vanish entirely. the "woman" will be entirely computer generated, her voice created by computer, her responses crafted by an advanced chatbot. Guys will think they have a shot with an imaginary woman, leading them to spend years not pursuing *actual* women. The birth rate is already bad enough."

And yeah. Like no one is going to say anything? Seriously?

"Hey Bob! Yer wasting yer time! That online romance site is fake. The women are fake. Go out and find a real girl !!!"

PROBLEM. SOLVED.
 
At some point people will just assume it's all fake and treat it accordingly. For instance I NEVER click on a click-baity headline, video, etc. I don't care what site it is. (NASA SpaceFlight is notorious for doing that.)
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
"Hey Bob! Yer wasting yer time! That online romance site is fake. The women are fake. Go out and find a real girl !!!"

PROBLEM. SOLVED.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work *now.* Have you not been paying attention? Why would it work when the system is even more effective?
Click to expand...

OK. Let's deal with your very lame idea about the future. I go to one of those chatbot sites. I set up a meeting. No one shows. The chatbot has no excuses. I start to go to real places with real women I can meet (no bars). So, the chatbot people can keep them. Face to face conversations in actual, real places makes the chatbots go away.
 
edwest3 said:
OK. Let's deal with your very lame idea about the future. I go to one of those chatbot sites. I set up a meeting. No one shows. The chatbot has no excuses. I start to go to real places with real women I can meet (no bars). So, the chatbot people can keep them. Face to face conversations in actual, real places makes the chatbots go away.
Click to expand...

My "lame idea about the future" is the lame reality of *today.* A *lot* of guys spend waaaaay too much time "socializing" online. This problem is especially prominent in Japan, but it's hardly rare in the US. It's not new... I suspect you are old enough to remember commercials on late night TV inviting you to call certain phone numbers for XYZ dollars per minute to talk with "sexy women." Here's a link to a whole playlist of such commercials on YouTube.

The fact that *you* might not experience it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Where do you think the "incel" community comes from? Hell, I went to Google to poke around to find links to studies or news reports on the idea, and the first damn thing to pop up was this:

23 Easy Ways To Get Paid To Talk To Lonely People​

A lot of women are making a *lot* of money "chatting" online with lonely guys. Only Fans and the like cater to a clientel who often are delusional enough to think that they actually have a shot at the pretty, naked girl on the screen in front of them. They don't, of course, any more than lonely delusional guys in the 80's had a shot with the phone sex lady. But it's in the pretty, naked girls financial interest to keep them thinking they do. Filters will make a "6" into a "10" and increase her revenues. A CGI girl will be able to respond directly and personally to a million different guys at once.

You might think you're immune to the charms of a pretty face on a screen telling you nice things. And maybe you are. But a lot of guys are not. It seems to be a growing issue. The lockdowns sure as hell didn't help.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
At some point people will just assume it's all fake and treat it accordingly.
Click to expand...
You'd think, but no. Only Fans is still raking in the cash. E-Girls are all over everywhere.

These things are clearly fake. But when has "it's faaaaake" ever been reason enough for people - especially the lonely and desperate - to abandon something that promises them a chance of success? Insert political candidate/party/ideology/message reference HERE.
 
HoHun said:
it's worth noting that the prime target of "romance scammers" are women:
Click to expand...
Scammers go after everybody, but they go after the two genders differently. I'm more aware of the pitfalls of being a guy because, y'know, I've been one for a while.

Fortunately I have no need to doctor my photos, because I really do look like an even better version of Brad Pitt in his prime. And anyone tells you different, they're a dirty rotten liar and probably a malicious AI as well.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1630638719740047361
View: https://twitter.com/TeslaAIBot/status/1630638719740047361
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
OK. Let's deal with your very lame idea about the future. I go to one of those chatbot sites. I set up a meeting. No one shows. The chatbot has no excuses. I start to go to real places with real women I can meet (no bars). So, the chatbot people can keep them. Face to face conversations in actual, real places makes the chatbots go away.
Click to expand...

My "lame idea about the future" is the lame reality of *today.* A *lot* of guys spend waaaaay too much time "socializing" online. This problem is especially prominent in Japan, but it's hardly rare in the US. It's not new... I suspect you are old enough to remember commercials on late night TV inviting you to call certain phone numbers for XYZ dollars per minute to talk with "sexy women." Here's a link to a whole playlist of such commercials on YouTube.

The fact that *you* might not experience it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Where do you think the "incel" community comes from? Hell, I went to Google to poke around to find links to studies or news reports on the idea, and the first damn thing to pop up was this:

23 Easy Ways To Get Paid To Talk To Lonely People​

A lot of women are making a *lot* of money "chatting" online with lonely guys. Only Fans and the like cater to a clientel who often are delusional enough to think that they actually have a shot at the pretty, naked girl on the screen in front of them. They don't, of course, any more than lonely delusional guys in the 80's had a shot with the phone sex lady. But it's in the pretty, naked girls financial interest to keep them thinking they do. Filters will make a "6" into a "10" and increase her revenues. A CGI girl will be able to respond directly and personally to a million different guys at once.

You might think you're immune to the charms of a pretty face on a screen telling you nice things. And maybe you are. But a lot of guys are not. It seems to be a growing issue. The lockdowns sure as hell didn't help.
Click to expand...

Blame it on the lockdowns. Lame - again. Yeah, there are lonely guys out there. And there are commercials showing somewhat attractive women today, offering phone chats. So what? Delusional is not my thing. The fact that others fall for fake - you'll never, ever actually meet ANY of those women - does not mean I should be a lemming. I work in the media. A CGI girl might fool a few until word gets out. And that's the key. Telling guys: "Hey. Those aren't real women."

"Making a LOT - as in A LOT - of money." Big deal. As in B I G D E A L.
 
On further reflection. I'd like to point out that whoever falls for this is not spending their money on worse things. Like ILLEGAL DRUGS.

I'm done now.
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
Delusional is not my thing.
Click to expand...
You're denying the reality that enough people are getting sucked into phony relations that it is culturally and economically important.

Denying reality = delusional.
Click to expand...

Oh, oh, pleeeez. No one is perfect. I get that. My point is: There are imperfect people out there. And there's nothing I can do about that. Unless, of course, my friend Bob tells me he's wasting his time and money on stuff like that. At which point I'll give him some advice. The problem is, sometimes people you know won't take good advice no matter how many times you tell them.

And people don't usually tell other people about things like this...
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
"Hey Bob! Yer wasting yer time! That online romance site is fake. The women are fake. Go out and find a real girl !!!"

PROBLEM. SOLVED.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work *now.* Have you not been paying attention? Why would it work when the system is even more effective?
Click to expand...
Note that the use of chatbots and filters may be applied by both parties in online conversations. I'm with edwest3 - caveat emptor in this arms race.
 
Last edited:
martinbayer said:
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
"Hey Bob! Yer wasting yer time! That online romance site is fake. The women are fake. Go out and find a real girl !!!"

PROBLEM. SOLVED.
Click to expand...
That doesn't work *now.* Have you not been paying attention? Why would it work when the system is even more effective?
Click to expand...
Note that the use of chatbots and filters may be applied in both ways of an online conversation. Caveat emptor in this arms race.
Click to expand...

THE number one problem online is scammers and fakers. When in doubt, disengage. Don't fall for whatever it is. Fer cryin' out loud, how hard can it be? And for those who lack willpower, what can I say? Will a certain poster here run out and rescue them? I think not.
 
edwest3 said:
Fer cryin' out loud, how hard can it be?
Click to expand...

Given that scams and e-girls and Only fans and whatnot are billion dollar industries, apparently pretty hard.

edwest3 said:
And for those who lack willpower, what can I say? Will a certain poster here run out and rescue them?
Click to expand...
Will you?
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
Fer cryin' out loud, how hard can it be?
Click to expand...

Given that scams and e-girls and Only fans and whatnot are billion dollar industries, apparently pretty hard.

edwest3 said:
And for those who lack willpower, what can I say? Will a certain poster here run out and rescue them?
Click to expand...
Will you?
Click to expand...

A little chat with Bob:

You know what I saw on TV last night? This realllly attractive girl. And she tells me to call her! So I called her! Oh man! It was great! She sounded wonderful! We musta talked for an hour!

"Uh Bob. She's not real."

What do you mean she's not real? I actually talked to her!

"It's a scam, Bob. You paid real money to talk to someone you'll never meet."

Never meet? Really? I... uh... was getting up the nerve to ask her about that but, you know.

"Bob. You're my friend and maybe we should go to this party next weekend. You know, at the hall."

Oh, yeah. OK.
 
edwest3 said:
A little chat with Bob:

You know what I saw on TV last night? This realllly attractive girl. And she tells me to call her! So I called her! Oh man! It was great! She sounded wonderful! We musta talked for an hour!

"Uh Bob. She's not real."
Click to expand...
"Uh Jim. Jesus/Allah/Shiva/ghost/honest politician isn't real."

People will believe damn near anything if it gives them hope, no matter how slim and unlikely that hope may be.

And from a certain point of view, an "AI girlfriend" *is* real. What does a person want out of a relationship? Sure, there's the physical aspect. But everything beyond that? A voice and/or a face on a screen that tells you that you have some worth satisfies many needs. Otherwise people wouldn't send each other texts or love letters. How many people are there out there who think they have a deep personal relationship with some god or other? That's as one sided a relationship as you can get, with the other participant never putting in an appearance and only existing as a voice in the head... a voice doubtless generated *by* that head.

If someone produced a "virtual girlfriend" like Joi in "Blade Runner 2049" they'd have themselves a license to print money by the billions. Sure, you're not gettin' any... but presumably you weren't gettin' any before. But now you have someone to talk to and share stuff with, and that covers a *lot* or "relationship territory."
 
Orionblamblam said:
edwest3 said:
A little chat with Bob:

You know what I saw on TV last night? This realllly attractive girl. And she tells me to call her! So I called her! Oh man! It was great! She sounded wonderful! We musta talked for an hour!

"Uh Bob. She's not real."
Click to expand...
"Uh Jim. Jesus/Allah/Shiva/ghost/honest politician isn't real."

People will believe damn near anything if it gives them hope, no matter how slim and unlikely that hope may be.

And from a certain point of view, an "AI girlfriend" *is* real. What does a person want out of a relationship? Sure, there's the physical aspect. But everything beyond that? A voice and/or a face on a screen that tells you that you have some worth satisfies many needs. Otherwise people wouldn't send each other texts or love letters. How many people are there out there who think they have a deep personal relationship with some god or other? That's as one sided a relationship as you can get, with the other participant never putting in an appearance and only existing as a voice in the head... a voice doubtless generated *by* that head.

If someone produced a "virtual girlfriend" like Joi in "Blade Runner 2049" they'd have themselves a license to print money by the billions. Sure, you're not gettin' any... but presumably you weren't gettin' any before. But now you have someone to talk to and share stuff with, and that covers a *lot* or "relationship territory."
Click to expand...

I've read all this before. Life is bad and then you die. The glass is half empty.

I can't stop people from falling for chatbots and neither can you.

Online, I have no real identity. I'm not in a position of confidential trust with anyone. Except for people I know in real life.

And your "relationship" scenario? I'm not in a "relationship" with anyone online. There's no one I can contact to who I can say, "My sister is sick. Can you come over and visit?" Real relationships REQUIRE an actual presence. But a fake person telling me fake stuff for money online? What do I get out of that after call number 20? "I'm never going to meet her. She's never going to be with me." That sounds like a recipe for more frustration. Not satisfying at all.

Your conclusions about god amount to an opinion not shared by a lot of people.
 
edwest3 said:
I've read all this before. Life is bad and then you die. The glass is half empty.

I can't stop people from falling for chatbots and neither can you.
Click to expand...
Correct. But denying that people can fall for chatbots will *certainly* not help you dissuade people.
edwest3 said:
And your "relationship" scenario? I'm not in a "relationship" with anyone online.
Click to expand...

Bully for you. But *you* are not *everyone.* There are vast numbers of people who are in relationships with people they'll never physically encounter.
edwest3 said:
Your conclusions about god amount to an opinion not shared by a lot of people.
Click to expand...
"Any god that is not *my* god is false/nonsensical" is a point of view likely to be shared by the majority of people.
 
Of course it's not art. I've seen so-called art that was made by humans that was not art, except to a small group of cultists who I encountered in college. I recall my Advanced Painting class. The guy next to me spent 4 hours running his brush randomly over the canvas, for days. Then he surprised me. He turned the canvas on its side, and went back to painting a lot of vague shapes.

And I can just see gallery openings with the wine and cheese. The artist walks in for the compliments and observations. "Oh, I just love Untitled #42!" Blehhh... And with robots? Double Blehhh...
 
Orionblamblam said:
And expanding on "but since it was made by a non-human, is it art?" debate...

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_96lcvIBCSA


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvGtdP-6IOU


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AbR8js1YOQ
Click to expand...
it is not art in the sense it is a replica of a real art-piece.
The real art is scanned and then converted into a series of coordinates for the robot to follow.
It would become art if the robot somehow would do something more then its programming would allow it do to and it would create something unique ( and sometimes with meaning). AI can make unique looking 3D-models, but it can't control a robot to make those 3D-models into a real object (yet). But is a AI driving a robot the same thing as 1 person making an artwork, or is it more of a creator telling an skilled laborer what to do?
 
Hobbes said:
ChatGPT looks cool, but is severely flawed. It is just as likely to produce complete nonsense as a correct output. Even worse, it's likely to insert subtle errors. Its output has to be checked line by line.
Click to expand...
like human-written stuff , testing , code-reviews , end-user acceptance and so on.If it can write the 80% that works and doesnt need changing , then you can concentrate on the 20% that is always giving trouble.
 
Orionblamblam said:
BAROBA said:
[
it is not art in the sense it is a replica of a real art-piece.
Click to expand...

Then that means that a human painted copy of the Mona Lisa, no matter how skillful, is also not art. Also implies that a painting made from a photo is not art.
Click to expand...
Correct for the first argument, they are also referred to as replicas. Most traditionally trained artists make replicas of other artists paintings. It is rare these days, but I have seen art-students sit with an easel and paintbrushes making a replica of a painting inside a museum. Making almost exact copies of paintings. It is usually an assignment and the people doing it see it as a learning point rather then a piece of art. It is often upgraded to art when it is signed with their own signature and is re-discovered when they are long dead and they became famous after making other work.
Wrong on the second argument: A painting made of a photo is a piece of art. Nobody is going to make an exact replica of a photograph. (There are people who can do this, but still we would call it a piece of art.) A trained artist will interpret the photo and will give his view of that photo through the painting.
Can a computer do the same? In practice yes, you can feed a photo to a computer (stable diffusion is one such algorithm) and it will give you an interpretation of it. But also no, because the computer does also need to be fed the textual context( called prompts) of what you want to get out of it. You can tell a human " go make a painting of this painting" and it will get you a result, the computer can not go and find the painting in a museum, take a picture of it, upload it to the algorithm and then instruct itself to make a painting of it based on it own experiences and preferences, because it has none... Everything the algorithm is learned or trained on, is all based on human biases..Everything has been spoonfed into it. Everything that comes out is just a blend of everything that has been made before. There is nothing that goes: What if? And then acts on that impulse, that is what makes us unique and the result of that impulse is that makes art art.

*gets off the soapbox*
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom