• Rhaedas@fedia.io
    67·
    27 days ago

    “A computer made this” is so dumbed down from what is going on that it’s wrong. The actual process of generating images from noise is a very fascinating one and still seems like magic to me, but it is far from the computer creating something from nothing. Then again, to get metaphysical, humans who do artwork get their spark of creation somewhere from something they’ve experienced. Go too deep and it becomes a Matrix “what is real” discussion.

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
      27·
      27 days ago

      i always like to call it hallucination, it’s significantly closer to how it works both technically and in effect.

      • usualsuspect191@lemmy.caEnglish
        18·
        27 days ago

        What messes with me is how many AI videos I’ve seen that are so similar to dreams. The hallucinations that AI produces are very similar to the ones our brains produce, and that makes me feel like more of a meat computer than usual.

        • Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          14·
          27 days ago

          What I’ve found even more fascinating is, particularly in earlier iterations of the technology, visual effects produced were remarkably similar to visual distortions people experience with certain drugs.

          Easy to make a lot out of this where it’s not warranted, but at minimum it gives some interesting food for thought re: how visual processing works. Have seen people write about this, but am too dumb to actually understand.

        • easily3667@lemmus.orgEnglish
          2·
          27 days ago

          You’re a meat computer and always have been, flesh sack named after a famous abuser

      • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        12·
        27 days ago

        I think fabrication is a better term than hallucination because of the double entendre of it being industrially fabricated and also being a lie.

        • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
          5·
          27 days ago

          that’s more of a comment on the usage than on the technology itself.

          remember that google deepdream thing that would hallucinate dogs everywhere? it’s the same tech.

            • lime!@feddit.nuEnglish
              7·
              27 days ago

              so is calling it fabrication. something incapable of knowing what is true cannot lie.

              also, gpts and image generators are fundamentally different technologies sharing very little code beyond the basic matrix manipulation stuff, so the definition of truth needs to be very different.

            • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
              3·
              26 days ago

              that’s literally how it works though, the software is trained to remove noise from images and then you feed it pure noise and tell it there’s an image behind it. If that’s not hallucination idk what would be.

            • Glitterbomb@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              26 days ago

              If that’s the case, then we anthropomorphize technology all the time. Like, constantly. How many times has your phone died when its not even alive? How does a phone drop a connection without hands? We feed a computer input and it regurgitates or spits out output, all without a mouth. The examples are endless but hard to immediately pick out, because the usage has changed to be completely commonplace. Even bytes were originally conceived as a play on words with ‘bite sized’ to refer to a small collection of bits. I don’t necccessarily defend these ‘AI’ tools, but policing the language people use ain’t it. Changing the word hallucinate to refer to a part of technology is exactly how language has functioned since always

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          3·
          26 days ago

          that removes the reference to how it actually functions though, at that point you might as well just stop being coy and call it “AI dogshit”

      • Rhaedas@fedia.io
        5·
        27 days ago

        Yes, good point, and it’s incredible that so often the hallucination is close enough that our pattern-matching brains say, yes, that’s exactly right!

        • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          2·
          26 days ago

          eh is that really true though? in my experience our brains tend to go “wow, this looks exactly right but there’s something ineffably off about it and i hate it!”

  • Smorty [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    40·
    27 days ago

    i dunno if this is the point of the post, bt im pretty sure the comic is generated…

    my reasoning, in case nayone cares:

    • painting isn’t the same in first and last panel
    • small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
    • second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. it doesn’t make much sense to redraw a scene when it’s exactly the same… at least to me…

    so lik— what is the point of dis post? ai image bad? i agee, bt is there another point?

    EDIT: srri if it was obvious to evrione thad the comic is fake… to me it was not, so i thought i share what i see

    • Pennomi@lemmy.worldEnglish
      22·
      27 days ago

      Yep the subversion here is that the comic itself is AI-generated. So the humor is based on the misdirection of the speaker and the fourth wall break.

      The fact that a lot of people missed this means the quality of AI images (in some cases) is finally approaching human levels of quality, further emphasizing the shock of the speaker.

      Arguments about whether or not it’s ethical aside, that is really quite the technological achievement.

      • Smorty [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        4·
        27 days ago

        yisyis i see it exactli lik dis. i alsuu thought thad, bt then i alsuu thought hmmmm i wondr if this is so obvious that dis is the main jok… which apparentli it is sooo it gud <3

    • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.caEnglish
      10·
      27 days ago

      Translation in case others struggle with reading this reply:

      I don’t know if this is the point of the post, but I’m pretty sure the comic is generated.

      My reasoning, in case anyone cares:

      • Painting isn’t the same in first and last panel
      • Small imperfections in the ears in the second and third panel
      • Second and third frame look almost identical, but are not. It doesn’t make much sense to redraw a scene when it’s exactly the same… at least to me.

      So like— what is the point of this post? AI image bad? I agree, but is there another point?

      EDIT: Sorry if it was obvious to everyone that the comic is fake… to me it was not, so I thought I share what I see.

      Given the context, it wouldn’t be surprising if the comic was at least partially AI generated.

        • setVeryLoud(true);@lemmy.caEnglish
          3·
          26 days ago

          No, I manually replaced the words one by one with what I thought it was supposed to be, only then was I able to understand your post.

          No offense, despite your points being valid, I can’t understand your broken English as it doesn’t read out in my head.

    • ironhydroxide@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      6·
      27 days ago

      The redrawing of the third frame is to show a pause before the response. At least that’s how I interpret it.

      Like looking at someone who is showing you something blatantly obvious as if it were new to everyone. Pausing, then responding. “Well duh”

  • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    25·
    27 days ago

    I don’t get the first tweet, the four panel comic. Are they excited because ai can generate images that imitate art, or are they worried because no one seems to take it seriously?

    Edit:

    Looking at the real thread and looking at the other ai bros, I think I’ve come to the conclusion that the poster is shocked and confused that people aren’t as excited as they are about this.

    This for example was one of them.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      25·
      27 days ago

      I interpreted he’s taken aback that no one is acknowledging or celebrating his super neat prompt slop.

      • Smorty [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        5·
        27 days ago

        i dun think so…othrwise he’d hav said “i made this” n not “a computer made this”… cuz lik… hes not praising himself and not claiming its his, bt instead says that the putr made it…

    • Smorty [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
      5·
      27 days ago

      i thinksies the guy is like “woah, computr cn do dis! dis crazi” n peeps lik “yea so what” n he agn lik “nununu u dun realize. dis is scari!!! lik - bad scari!!!”

      i dun think the guy liks it, othrwise eh wouldn look so scared kinda in last panl

      • HappyFrog@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        3·
        27 days ago

        Looking at kimmonismus’ profile, the person posting the comic, they are a huge ai fan. I’d find it strange if they posted something that would criticize ai, especially with a comment seemingly agreeing with the comic.

        • Smorty [she/her]@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
          2·
          27 days ago

          yes, chubby is huge ai fan. bt lik… peeps cn be self-reflecting i feel… evn if ai peeps.

          im an ai peep. jus not an image ai peep… n i totalli kno ai is mostli dum n shiddi n nt useful, which a babbl bout in this post

          sooo yis… maybsies theyr reflectin… or mayb it rlli is jus “woah dis comic genrated!!! :o” n nothin else…

    • Ephera@lemmy.mlEnglish
      4·
      27 days ago

      Yeah, I think, there’s just some tech folks and tech bros, who think AI is going to change everything. Then there’s other tech folks, who are simply fucking tired of the hype cycle. And then there’s the majority of people, i.e. the non-techies, for whom AI has largely no bearing on their life. From the position of “it’s going to change everything”, you would probably be alienated massively by there being people who just don’t think about it at all.

  • untakenusername@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    17·
    27 days ago

    I think the methods they use to make all this ‘ai’ art is really interesting, like diffusion models and stuff, but the fact that they are literally stealing from artists and creators without compensating them is pretty bad

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    11·
    27 days ago

    i mean i’m all for shitting on people who think AI should replace humans, but surely it only hurts the message to call AI content ugly when it looks completely nondescript? At least to me it comes across as a bit dogmatic.

    • belated_frog_pants@beehaw.orgEnglish
      17·
      27 days ago

      Ai image output is ugly. It just averages everything at a massive scale from stuff its trained on. It might look cohesive enough to be ignorable but under scrutiny its just generic and sloppy at best.

      Not to mention everything being so glossy all the time

      • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        3·
        27 days ago

        To me the main thing that’s ugly about it comes from how most of what gets posted is from the top few services, which intentionally standardize their outputs so that any prompt will result in an image that is generically ‘good quality’. So then you get stuff that’s all in the same boring style, like the style of the OP comic that you see in (fully generated) AI comics everywhere. The actual range of what AI images can look like is much larger than what people are getting from ChatGPT.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        2·
        26 days ago

        you seem to be talking about a specific kind of content, completely ignoring that AI can be made to fart out anything you want.

        Like the whole point is that it just takes parts of what it’s been fed and recombines it into an output, right? so it only makes sense that it should be capable of making beautiful things, because it was fed beautiful things. if you insist that everything AI models put out is ugly then you’re kinda implying that all art is ugly, which obviously cannot be true.

        AI art is soulless, which is a very different thing from being ugly. Most corporate things are surface-level pretty but fundamentally soulless.