daniskarma

The bar is, indeed, very low. By comparison I don't feel as predated as in other shops.

I have codex steamdrm crack at good custody for saving my library when it happens.

At that point you'll have more fun working for a bank. You'll be looking at less spreadsheets at least.

Your definition on what constitutes putting "humanity" into a piece of art is completely arbitrary. Thus I, and any rational being, reject it.

If a human have a image in his head and put it on any media that's putting "humanity" into art. You can do it with AI, so the debate is closed for me. I've had images in my head that, after a lot of work, I've been able to put into a bitmap. The accuracy in which you can translate the image is a matter of skill as with any art of trade. But it can certainly be done with great accuracy using AI tools.

So there's no rational argument to say that AI art cannot have "humanity". Unless you start talking about "souls" or something like that.

Artists have always gatekeep art.

It's not even a new trope. It had happened forever.

The best indicative for something to be a true art is angry artists saying "that's not art".

Once again, your ignorance on how AI art is made is causing the hate. It's common to hate what we ignore.

You can communicate love with AI art if you want. You can communicate whatever you want, because you can make the art look whatever you want as good as you can do with any other media.

That complex workflow is not for shit and giggles. Is the pencil to make the final image be one way or the other. Same as a photographer would control que exposure or the focus. You can chose what's on the picture and what's not. With better accuracy that doing a collage.

Your premise is based on a limitation of the media that it's not real, thus is a false premise, thus your conclusions are false too.

I get that the hate for AI is mostly an irrational pseudo religious though. So I do not expect to change anyone's mind. But I will explain things anyway. I have an easy question, is your theory about AI arr falsable? Is there anything that you think could prove you wrong?

You are using a computer right now. You should stop using any computer ASAP, don't even use one to reply to this comment.

Edit: used a computer to click downvote, instead of delivering a hand painted arrow pointing down by mail. That must be -3 IQ points minimum.

I will botton for my rust compiler, I'm not going to argue with it.

I know people who takes hours in comfyUI making a workflow, tweaking aspects, choosing different nodes, adding several layers of different diffusion models.

You can use an AI generator just by making a prompt "make me a pretty giraffe" same I can take my phone a snap a quick picture. But same as a professional photographer can take hours chosing composition, camera configuration, then tweaking the result.. a person who want to make a good AI image can take hours or days improving and tweaking the workflow.

For instance, this is a workflow example, a easy one, not even the most complex I've seen:

That could take a long time to make, because the person had a specific vision on what they want the tool to produce, and can really steer it into producing exactly what they want.

I think a lot of hate, as always, come mostly from ignorance. Once you know the time and effort that someone can put into this, it's harder to discredit them.

Unless AI became sentient and do things by itself, AI art still have humanity behind it. You not liking the tool the human used for making the art does not invalidate the humanity of the person who used that tool.

If like me going back a couple of centuries and saying that a photograph was not made by a human, but by a soulless machine. And that anyone who enjoys or makes photography is missing their humanity.

You cannot invalidate someone's humanity. That's against human rights or something.

You should go face to face with a person who made some image they like and love and put a lot of effort into it using AI tools, and say to them, face to face and looking them in the eyes "I do not consider you a human being".

Same as people needed to travel and know other cultures to cure racism. The butlerian yihad needs to meet different people to cure something that's quickly turning into bigotry.

"Computers make people stupider" have also been a known fact when personal computers became common.

https://www.theregister.com/2001/02/05/computers_are_making_us_stupid/

I'm sure we can trace back "new thing makes people stupider" arguments back to Aristóteles. It's a common human trope.

Empress? She retired two years ago from cracking, and started a cult.

I do have the feel that gaming piracy is on a all time low. At the moment there isn't even a single active denuvo cracker while there used to be like 3-4. Probably because stores like steam and gog, which are consumer friendly with fair prices for most products and not linked with stupid subscriptions.

On the other hand movie and shows piracy is rising for the anti-consumer platforms, who can pay $200 a month for seeing all decent shows and movies without ads? Very few people, and even then you own nothing.

I have a feel that music piracy will rise soon too. As Spotify already have started the anti consumer route. I'm pretty sure in a few years it's subscription won't be as worth it as it used to be, and a lot of people will find out that they have been paying for years and still own nothing.