Midjourney?

4season · Aug 29, 2022

Some of the initial interpretations were interesting, maybe thread-worthy in their own right.

Otherwise, just use the Duck (more private than you-know-who), to look those made-up words, which Midjourney is, as opposed to mid-journey. What's the difference? Pretty sure that you can't trademark "mid-journey".

Ikea, Apple, and others have been mostly using CGI (Computer Generated Imagery, people) for years, and now Ikea is (or was) even using synthetic influencers:

https://www.fastcompany.com/9054958...ake-for-years-now-its-taking-cgi-even-further

So far as I know, Tim Cook is still real. Probably. Mostly.

4season · Aug 29, 2022

Oh, and in case you've regretting not seeing them in concert before, ABBA is back.

grain elevator · Aug 29, 2022

It's quite interesting, no? Why the doom and gloom innuendo?

Agulliver · Aug 29, 2022

Still confused as to why we are in hell. I mean, I've got my handbasket all picked out...but that's been the case for 25 years and nothing to do with film.

Has something happened to the camera film industry?

pentaxuser · Aug 29, 2022

Pieter12 said:
What link?

Sorry Pieter12, I should have been clearer. NB23 provided no link that was 4season who thought that NB23 was referring to something called Community Showcase which seems part of Midjourney. com. Matt thinks it may be to do with his link which is quite different

pentaxuser

4season · Aug 29, 2022

A timely article by Kotaku's Luke Plunkett on the possible implications of AI-generated art:
https://kotaku.com/ai-art-dall-e-midjourney-stable-diffusion-copyright-1849388060

As the author puts it:

A machine is not creating art. A machine, even ones as advanced as the AI we’re talking about here, is crunching data. There is no perspective to AI art, no inspiration, nothing it is trying to communicate. It’s a compilation playlist built by an algorithm, spinning an endless number of remixes and cover songs. The fact so many people are getting bogged down comparing AI art to the creations of human beings, as though the former is doing anything but adhering to an algorithm, is playing right into the hands of those championing this mimicry, because it sets AI creations on a level playing field that they don’t deserve. playlist built by an algorithm, spinning an endless number of remixes and cover songs.

Don_ih · Aug 29, 2022

4season said:
A timely article by Kotaku's Luke Plunkett on the possible implications of AI-generated art:
https://kotaku.com/ai-art-dall-e-midjourney-stable-diffusion-copyright-1849388060

As the author puts it:

Except you can't prove a human is doing anything different from that.

grain elevator · Aug 30, 2022

Don Heisz said:
Except you can't prove a human is doing anything different from that.

Yeah. That quote from the article seems to be just stating the obvious. If we were living in a world before ready-mades and so on. The interesting (to me) questions result from the fact that the results can't necessarily be distinguished from something a human being might have made. So it points to the relationsip between process and result and what it means for our understanding of art. I'm not sure what I'm thinking about it. In any case I wouldn't be opposed to trying to treat it like human made art for, at least as an experiment. Have a curator put a show together and see how people react? Also I'm not entirely opposed to displaying something made by an AI on my wall. At least it's more of a coversation piece than many other things... would you?

Don_ih · Aug 31, 2022

grain elevator said:
Also I'm not entirely opposed to displaying something made by an AI on my wall. At least it's more of a coversation piece

And then the conversation could go "It looks like it's meaningful but how could it be?" Then you slowly convince yourself that perhaps it is just as meaningful as anything else.

guangong · Aug 31, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
Here in Southern California we have comfortable temperatures year round with little to no air conditioning and a little heating. If I want to see Fall Colors I drive to the mountains and when I want to see snow I drive to the mountains, then I just drive home and not have to deal with raking leaves or shoveling snow. And I have sunny skies 350 days a year.

A life with no surprises!

Sirius Glass · Aug 31, 2022

guangong said:
A life with no surprises!

It is a tough life but someone has to live it.

4season · Aug 31, 2022

I think the weakness of AI as it exists now is that it's "trained" by analyzing existing images, and it has a pretty good grasp of styles which are likely to be well-received, but so far as I can see, it's not able to take intuitive leaps. No reason to think it would be capable of arriving at works similar to those of, say, Jim Woodring, except by having samples of his work to analyze, and good luck trying to put the visuals into words without referring to the artist's or character's names.

4season · Sep 2, 2022

https://www.boredpanda.com/ai-generated-artwork-wins-twitter/

Rick A · Sep 3, 2022

Sirius Glass said:
I thought that Hell is either playing golf or watching others play golf.
View attachment 314553

Bowling, always has been.

warden · Sep 3, 2022

NB23 said:
Okay, we are in hell

An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy. (Published 2022)

“I won, and I didn’t break any rules,” the artwork’s creator says.

www.nytimes.com

"Controversy over new art-making technologies is nothing new. Many painters recoiled at the invention of the camera, which they saw as a debasement of human artistry. (Charles Baudelaire, the 19th-century French poet and art critic, called photography “art’s most mortal enemy.”) In the 20th century, digital editing tools and computer-assisted design programs were similarly dismissed by purists for requiring too little skill of their human collaborators."

Don_ih · Sep 3, 2022

warden said:
An A.I.-Generated Picture Won an Art Prize. Artists Aren’t Happy. (Published 2022)

“I won, and I didn’t break any rules,” the artwork’s creator says.

www.nytimes.com

"Controversy over new art-making technologies is nothing new. Many painters recoiled at the invention of the camera, which they saw as a debasement of human artistry. (Charles Baudelaire, the 19th-century French poet and art critic, called photography “art’s most mortal enemy.”) In the 20th century, digital editing tools and computer-assisted design programs were similarly dismissed by purists for requiring too little skill of their human collaborators."

Yes - but how about no human involvement beyond turning on the machine?

warden · Sep 3, 2022

Don Heisz said:
Yes - but how about no human involvement beyond turning on the machine?

I'm not losing sleep over it. Just thought NB23 would appreciate the article and the comments section of that article which offers a full scope of argument about the issue.

The human involvement is present though imho. The computer and software were made by humans, the internet image banks that the software accesses were largely made by humans (assuming I understand correctly what the software is doing), the little haiku instructions are given to the software by a human, the scale/color/cropping/editing/printing/display decisions all made by humans, etc etc.

The resulting image looks a bit like a Syd Mead, which is remarkable. I wonder what he would have made of this development. As a futurist I imagine he would have liked it.

Vaughn · Sep 3, 2022

The trouble with AI is that it is only human...

In other words, it should be AHI...artificial human intelligence.

The ultimate human break-through in understanding the universe will be when we can create artificial non-human intelligence. Imagine that...a computer built based of whale intelligence!

NB23 · Sep 3, 2022

That is only the beginning. The grand scheme being to make AI efficient. This is the baby step to reading the human mind, and of course controling. The iphone already reading the retina being another baby step.

And anyone tempted to call out on conspiracy theories, I’d remind them that the conspiracy theorists were laughed at for mentioning that there would be more than one dose, here we are at the 4th “booster” assorted with various threats by the good ole authorities.

Yes, we are in hell. This is where we live.

Vaughn · Sep 3, 2022

The medical field was not laughing at the conspiracy theorists, so what is your point there?

Nah...we create our own hell and heaven when we die. That's my latest theory. Time dilation at the moment of death. Like time in our dreams...it lasts an eternity and we exist in heaven or hell, depending on how we judge ourselves.

NB23 · Sep 3, 2022

The medical field was not laughing at the conspiracy theorists, so what is your point there?

Vaughn said:
Nah...we create our own hell and heaven when we die. That's my latest theory. Time dilation at the moment of death. Like time in our dreams...it lasts an eternity and we exist in heaven or hell, depending on how we judge ourselves.

My point was clear. You may re-read in case of doubt.

Sirius Glass · Sep 3, 2022

Rick A said:
Bowling, always has been.

Also skee ball.

Sirius Glass · Sep 3, 2022

Notice that I do not comment on AI? I worked on it for years. Among other things I learned is that there is a lot of the opposite of artificial intelligence, it is called real stupidity.

Vaughn · Sep 3, 2022

NB23 said:
The medical field was not laughing at the conspiracy theorists, so what is your point there?

My point was clear. You may re-read in case of doubt.

Yes it was clear. My point is...what significance is there with non-experts disagreeing or agreeing with fake experts (by definition, conspiracy theorists)? One would expect that both are likely to have difficulty understanding a given situation and/or presenting it in an unbiased manner.

Sirius Glass · Sep 3, 2022

NB23 said:
That is only the beginning. The grand scheme being to make AI efficient. This is the baby step to reading the human mind, and of course controling. The iphone already reading the retina being another baby step.

And anyone tempted to call out on conspiracy theories, I’d remind them that the conspiracy theorists were laughed at for mentioning that there would be more than one dose, here we are at the 4th “booster” assorted with various threats by the good ole authorities.

Yes, we are in hell. This is where we live.

I worked in AI for years. The goal then was to make machines that people could not detect that the machines made the decisions. We are still not there yet and AI is not going produce a scient being since all it can do is learn, not develop new ideas or concepts.

Midjourney?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency