I’ve seen this argument, and it’s inherently flawed and reductionist, and it’s from people who don’t understand how AI image generation and human minds work.
Ai turns images into static, then turns that into math, then takes the prompt and changes the math, then turns the new math back into static and the static into a picture. Basically.
Human brains not only choose what things to use inspiration from, but they also change those things, by choice, and since we don’t have perfect recall and everything is stored as what the brain thinks it ought to be, we misremember things, which then are absolutely new things.
Just because you built off of something else doesn’t mean it’s not new, and extrapolating the argument that nothing is new means you’d have to show how cavemen had EDM and cell phones.
People here like to ignore the article and just start rambling about random things. If we’re talking about AI coming up with completely novel concepts, being creative in in some philosophical sense or being able to create beautiful art then of course you’re right. AI does not operate like people and is not able to replicate the way human creativity works.
But this article is about Disney using AI to generate SciFi animals to use in a background of a movie. You don’t need to be a creative genius and push the boundaries of art to do this. SciFi movies done by people don’t do this. They usually use caricatures of animals/people with recognizable but exaggerated features mixed in random ways. AI is perfectly capable of doing this. The video they used was terrible but it doesn’t mean AI couldn’t create a better example.
Basically, the article is not about achieving human level creativity in cinema so saying that AI can’t do it is besides the point.
I was always taking about the article. Because it’s a post about an article. If someone is talking about something else than they changed the subject. If you want to talk about something else feel free to make a post about different article. I will read it and tell you what I think.
Naw dude, I shouldn’t have to make a whole post special just for you. You had a shit argument about AI and I said it was shit, and now you’re deflecting instead of responding. I’ll chalk that up as you knowing your take is shit and are too vain or cowardly to admit you were wrong.
I’ve seen this argument, and it’s inherently flawed and reductionist, and it’s from people who don’t understand how AI image generation and human minds work.
Ai turns images into static, then turns that into math, then takes the prompt and changes the math, then turns the new math back into static and the static into a picture. Basically.
Human brains not only choose what things to use inspiration from, but they also change those things, by choice, and since we don’t have perfect recall and everything is stored as what the brain thinks it ought to be, we misremember things, which then are absolutely new things.
Just because you built off of something else doesn’t mean it’s not new, and extrapolating the argument that nothing is new means you’d have to show how cavemen had EDM and cell phones.
Ai is just a trick, nothing more.
People here like to ignore the article and just start rambling about random things. If we’re talking about AI coming up with completely novel concepts, being creative in in some philosophical sense or being able to create beautiful art then of course you’re right. AI does not operate like people and is not able to replicate the way human creativity works.
But this article is about Disney using AI to generate SciFi animals to use in a background of a movie. You don’t need to be a creative genius and push the boundaries of art to do this. SciFi movies done by people don’t do this. They usually use caricatures of animals/people with recognizable but exaggerated features mixed in random ways. AI is perfectly capable of doing this. The video they used was terrible but it doesn’t mean AI couldn’t create a better example.
Basically, the article is not about achieving human level creativity in cinema so saying that AI can’t do it is besides the point.
Don’t change the subject. I’m not talking about the article, I’m criticizing your logic and take.
I was always taking about the article. Because it’s a post about an article. If someone is talking about something else than they changed the subject. If you want to talk about something else feel free to make a post about different article. I will read it and tell you what I think.
Naw dude, I shouldn’t have to make a whole post special just for you. You had a shit argument about AI and I said it was shit, and now you’re deflecting instead of responding. I’ll chalk that up as you knowing your take is shit and are too vain or cowardly to admit you were wrong.
ok