AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
Edit. So, for example, mass market airport thriller authors might be in trouble, but amusing, very personal, sex-memoir writers won’t be.
A delicious Churchill anecdote one hopes is not apocryphal:
Clement Attlee was once standing over the urinal as Churchill entered on the same mission. Observing Attlee, Churchill stood as far away as possible. Attlee: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” WSC: “That’s right. Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it.” https://x.com/LeescoLee3/status/1704800957161205870?s=20
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (especially helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
If I was on the more cynical end of party X’s electoral machine I would definitely have people set up to phone in to local radio to talk about how the new party X policy had changed everything & now they were going to vote for party X instead of party Y who they now saw was bad all along.
Maybe several steps removed with deniable cutouts, so it couldn’t be traced back to me by the press.
Astroturfing is as old as grassroots campaigning after all.
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their, boilers and has removed the tax on meat, aircraft taxes and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
This isn’t helped by the media often misrepresenting the policy. As you said some think their cars will be taken away. I fully expect the Tories polling to improve . Most of the public don’t do detail and will swallow sound bites.
With interest rates held and Sunaks man of the people impression I think this will be the week that the election became much more competitive.
Labour need to start putting out their own sound bites full of lies like the Tories and stop thinking most of the public could tie their own shoe laces .
Forums like this are not indicative of the public at large . We’re political junkies and even though there’s many disagreements I’m confident members can tie their own shoe laces !
I think it is a stroke of genius. It is Brexit part 2. Poor panicked voters getting the wrong end of the stick through misinformation from the Conservatives and their media shills.
I bet these poor voters vote for Rishi's government now he has ditched the green crap.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
So do I have this right... India maybe assassinated a Canadian citizen in Canada? This is pretty bad stuff. We rightly condemned Putin for doing similar. Is Modi a bit out of control?
A delicious Churchill anecdote one hopes is not apocryphal:
Clement Attlee was once standing over the urinal as Churchill entered on the same mission. Observing Attlee, Churchill stood as far away as possible. Attlee: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” WSC: “That’s right. Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it.” https://x.com/LeescoLee3/status/1704800957161205870?s=20
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (especially helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
Sunak's wheeze is working because Starmer's say-nothing scheme leaves Labour wide open. Stop listening to that f-wit Mandelson. The man who got Neil Kinnock stuffed.
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
Didn't one of us get turfed off PB for showing pics of under-16 undressed young ladies? Including stuff that has adorned the walls of very respectable civic art galleries for a century and more. Cos it's Art.
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
That guy is a bit of a dick. He’s an ex travel journalist, so he’s already been everywhere. Giving up further long haul travel isn’t so hard, in that context
Also, he then boasts about having no kids. Not exactly doing his but for the future of humanity, then
Travelling at ground level is certainly a more rewarding experience than travelling by air. But if you want to go further afield than North West or Central Europe and don't have an unusually large amount of time, travelling at ground level isn't really practical.
I was speaking to someone the other day who had a friend who developed a fear of flying after 9/11. The group of them used to go on annual weekends to Mallorca. He dealt with this by getting a train from Cheshire to the south coast, then a ferry to the north coast of Spain, then a train to Barcelona, then another boat to Mallorca. He had to set off two days in advance of everyone else and get home two days later. Fortunately this guy was both very rich and had lots of time on his hands. But impractical for most people.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
I think the most common response to all this is denial, we see a lot of that on PB.
Globally I severely doubt net zero will happen by 2050. Africa has a rising population, China is still pumping out coal stations, India's wasn't phased about using Russian gas, Germany got terrified of nuclear; our own highest court judges pleasure themselves over stopping new nuclear, the USA is going to be congress locked on anything that really cuts its emissions at best heck even the sainted Trudeau knows where his oil is buttered...
It will only happen through engineering developments and an attractive economic case.
The rest is piss & wind.
Thankfully, that should continue to move (as wind and solar have in the last 10 years) so we will eventually get there, but perhaps not by 2050.
We'll get there at some point because another 200,000 -> half million years of human existence and we'll either run out of fossil fuels or the CO2 concentration will become so high the air will literally be unbreathable. A long long time in human terms, but not actually so long in terms of earth's total history.
It's worth noting that there are suggestions that cognitive impairment starts to become measurable at around 1200 ppm CO2. It's not uncommon to reach that in crowded or unventilated rooms today.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently around 420 ppm, which is already 100 ppm higher than 60 years ago. Add another 100 ppm, and we might well find that current classrooms and office meeting rooms will become unusable.
So even if we were to ignore climate change and ocean acidification, there's good reason to limit atmospheric CO2 increases well before we get to anything that would be considered outright unbreathable.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
If we accept biggles argument then still life, portraiture, much statuary, landscapes, all photography, and history paintings are all on the "not art" pile. We'd be left with some scanty Dada and the odd Paolozzi. No thanks. I'm keeping the net cast wide; AI art IS art, even if we think we know the trick.
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
I think the most common response to all this is denial, we see a lot of that on PB.
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (especially helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
Sunak's wheeze is working because Starmer's say-nothing scheme leaves Labour wide open. Stop listening to that f-wit Mandelson. The man who got Neil Kinnock stuffed.
I think Sunak was particularly clever by short circuiting parliament and parliamentary scrutiny.
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
I think the most common response to all this is denial, we see a lot of that on PB.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
If we accept biggles argument then still life, portraiture, much statuary, landscapes, all photography, and history paintings are all on the "not art" pile. We'd be left with some scanty Dada and the odd Paolozzi. No thanks. I'm keeping the net cast wide; AI art IS art, even if we think we know the trick.
No, with respect you miss the point. Photography is a good example. The art is in knowing the moment and picking the angle, and being unique. AI can’t do that currently - it can only present what is most likely the most pleasing image based on pre-cooked criteria.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
That guy is a bit of a dick. He’s an ex travel journalist, so he’s already been everywhere. Giving up further long haul travel isn’t so hard, in that context
Also, he then boasts about having no kids. Not exactly doing his but for the future of humanity, then
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
Tbh it doesn’t get me over-excited either. But then I don’t really rate M C Escher. He did clever tricks (like this) but they don’t move me as good art should
The salient points are
1. This is easily as good as Escher, which means it passes a form of Turing test
2. It HAS excited people on X. It’s had ten million hits and people who were previously skeptical about AI art are saying “yeah, ok, this is impressive and good”
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
And Romeo was only 16.
These laws are normally on the basis that relations are legal/decriminalised (depending upon jurisdiction) on something along a +- 3 year age gap. Hence Romeo and Juliet, it would be lawful for them, but not for Lord Montague to sleep with Juliet.
I believe eg in Texas a 16 year old sleeping with a 13 year old is allowed within their Romeo and Juliet laws, but a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old would not be.
Though you may want to update it past 13/16 to 16/19 but that's sort of where the idea comes from.
Labour need to outline their energy proposals and put some sweeteners in there for the public. They can’t leave the Tory campaign of lies to take hold . Once people develop an opinion it’s hard to move them .
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
Former Kremlin lobbyist picked as UK Conservative candidate
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
Labour need to outline their energy proposals and put some sweeteners in there for the public. They can’t leave the Tory campaign of lies to take hold . Once people develop an opinion it’s hard to move them .
There’s an easy free hit on something that sounds like nationalisation and kicking fat cats, which the Tories can’t match.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
If we accept biggles argument then still life, portraiture, much statuary, landscapes, all photography, and history paintings are all on the "not art" pile. We'd be left with some scanty Dada and the odd Paolozzi. No thanks. I'm keeping the net cast wide; AI art IS art, even if we think we know the trick.
No, with respect you miss the point. Photography is a good example. The art is in knowing the moment and picking the angle, and being unique. AI can’t do that currently - it can only present what is most likely the most pleasing image based on pre-cooked criteria.
I'm willing to be there could be (and maybe already is) an AI that could watch a film and pick the most visually pleasing frames from it LIVE as it happens. That is half the skill of a photographer, picking the moment as you say. The AI simulating the decision to click the shutter.
We already know that AI can resolve entities out of images and anticipate future positions. That is half the battle for picking the angle.
None of what you described sounds beyond a system that could could be trained with a few hundred person hours and a database of videos files. You could even have an autonomous drone that flies around taking nice photos.
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That is also true of most of what humans produce. Have you been to the Tate Modern?
Very true. Humans produce a bunch of crap art. Says you, and you have every right to say it.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
I think the most common response to all this is denial, we see a lot of that on PB.
More common is boredom.
I know it’s mad, but some of us find the potential advent of Artificial General Intelligence, the techno-singularity which might destroy all humanity - possibly in the next 3 years - EVEN MORE EXCITING than the imposition of 20mph speed limits in rural Wales
I know. Bonkers. But that’s PB for you. Takes all sorts
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
And Romeo was only 16.
These laws are normally on the basis that relations are legal/decriminalised (depending upon jurisdiction) on something along a +- 3 year age gap. Hence Romeo and Juliet, it would be lawful for them, but not for Lord Montague to sleep with Juliet.
I believe eg in Texas a 16 year old sleeping with a 13 year old is allowed within their Romeo and Juliet laws, but a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old would not be.
Though you may want to update it past 13/16 to 16/19 but that's sort of where the idea comes from.
Three years feels like a lot at that age. Half your age plus seven feels a better measure.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That is also true of most of what humans produce. Have you been to the Tate Modern?
Very true. Humans produce a bunch of crap art. Says you, and you have every right to say it.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
And as you say some of it will be shocking.
It makes AI the "studio of" or "ecole de"...bunch of AI draftsmen executing the art they are instructed to produce by the old master.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
If we accept biggles argument then still life, portraiture, much statuary, landscapes, all photography, and history paintings are all on the "not art" pile. We'd be left with some scanty Dada and the odd Paolozzi. No thanks. I'm keeping the net cast wide; AI art IS art, even if we think we know the trick.
No, with respect you miss the point. Photography is a good example. The art is in knowing the moment and picking the angle, and being unique. AI can’t do that currently - it can only present what is most likely the most pleasing image based on pre-cooked criteria.
I'm willing to be there could be (and maybe already is) an AI that could watch a film and pick the most visually pleasing frames from it LIVE as it happens. That is half the skill of a photographer, picking the moment as you say. The AI simulating the decision to click the shutter.
We already know that AI can resolve entities out of images and anticipate future positions. That is half the battle for picking the angle.
None of what you described sounds beyond a system that could could be trained with a few hundred person hours and a database of videos files. You could even have an autonomous drone that flies around taking nice photos.
That’s absolutely right. Bang on. It’s all algorithms and computers are good at that
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
I think the most common response to all this is denial, we see a lot of that on PB.
More common is boredom.
I know it’s mad, but some of us find the potential advent of Artificial General Intelligence, the techno-singularity which might destroy all humanity - possibly in the next 3 years - EVEN MORE EXCITING than the imposition of 20mph speed limits in rural Wales
I know. Bonkers. But that’s PB for you. Takes all sorts
Sure, Skynet exterminating all us human vermin would be interesting.
Art that looks like a remaindered album cover from the 1970s less so.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That is also true of most of what humans produce. Have you been to the Tate Modern?
Very true. Humans produce a bunch of crap art. Says you, and you have every right to say it.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
And as you say some of it will be shocking.
We actually have no idea what AI does or why. GPT4 and it’s brethren are, famously, black boxes - we can’t look inside - no more than we can open up a brain and say Look, There, that’s consciousness
And these machines do the strangest things. No one knew GPT3 could draw from a language prompt until it started doing exactly that - and we still don’t know how or why
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That is also true of most of what humans produce. Have you been to the Tate Modern?
Very true. Humans produce a bunch of crap art. Says you, and you have every right to say it.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
And as you say some of it will be shocking.
We actually have no idea what AI does or why. GPT4 and it’s brethren are, famously, black boxes - we can’t look inside - no more than we can open up a brain and say Look, There, that’s consciousness
And these machines do the strangest things. No one knew GPT3 could draw from a language prompt until it started doing exactly that - and we still don’t know how or why
GPT3 does not have the ability to launch missiles though, so comparisons with Skynet are rather weak.
Spread on how many of them have connections to the Tory party?
There wouldn't be much point in them having connections with the Labour Party would there?
Pretty sure the Labour Party has been accused of being in the pocket of the Kremlin throughout its long history (which mostly consists of them being in opposition). Some of the time it might even have been true.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
If we accept biggles argument then still life, portraiture, much statuary, landscapes, all photography, and history paintings are all on the "not art" pile. We'd be left with some scanty Dada and the odd Paolozzi. No thanks. I'm keeping the net cast wide; AI art IS art, even if we think we know the trick.
No, with respect you miss the point. Photography is a good example. The art is in knowing the moment and picking the angle, and being unique. AI can’t do that currently - it can only present what is most likely the most pleasing image based on pre-cooked criteria.
I'm willing to be there could be (and maybe already is) an AI that could watch a film and pick the most visually pleasing frames from it LIVE as it happens. That is half the skill of a photographer, picking the moment as you say. The AI simulating the decision to click the shutter.
We already know that AI can resolve entities out of images and anticipate future positions. That is half the battle for picking the angle.
None of what you described sounds beyond a system that could could be trained with a few hundred person hours and a database of videos files. You could even have an autonomous drone that flies around taking nice photos.
That’s absolutely right. Bang on. It’s all algorithms and computers are good at that
No. People are good at them…. If I write an algorithm about which photo to submit as the best, then that’s my artistic judgement. The “AI” has done nothing.
People on Twitter are saying this is the first example of AI art which has impressed them, and made them realise AI can be creative and artistic. That AI art is art, in essence
Not saying I agree or disagree, but this is the image provoking the debate. See what you think
”Say what you want, but this is creative, novel, and endless. Incredible to see the community pick this up so fast”
That is also true of most of what humans produce. Have you been to the Tate Modern?
Very true. Humans produce a bunch of crap art. Says you, and you have every right to say it.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
And as you say some of it will be shocking.
We actually have no idea what AI does or why. GPT4 and it’s brethren are, famously, black boxes - we can’t look inside - no more than we can open up a brain and say Look, There, that’s consciousness
And these machines do the strangest things. No one knew GPT3 could draw from a language prompt until it started doing exactly that - and we still don’t know how or why
I know you are a mystic when it comes to belief (not helped, I imagine, by a recent journey to Cathar country) and yes machines do the strangest things and all the machines on the planet are designed by humans. Given initial conditions by humans, and take their prompts from humans.
And no we don't understand the human brain but it is a human brain. If you are saying you take Factor X and put it together with Factor Y and Factor XY turns out to decide things on its own then you are talking about an algorithm. And we have plenty of those doing all kinds of things today and for some time.
Spread on how many of them have connections to the Tory party?
There wouldn't be much point in them having connections with the Labour Party would there?
Pretty sure the Labour Party has been accused of being in the pocket of the Kremlin throughout its long history (which mostly consists of them being in opposition). Some of the time it might even have been true.
Perhaps they had a fiendish plot to soften Wales up for invasion by making everything go at 20 miles per hour.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
Spread on how many of them have connections to the Tory party?
There wouldn't be much point in them having connections with the Labour Party would there?
Pretty sure the Labour Party has been accused of being in the pocket of the Kremlin throughout its long history (which mostly consists of them being in opposition). Some of the time it might even have been true.
Tories need to be paid for, Labour comrades come free of charge.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
Didn't one of us get turfed off PB for showing pics of under-16 undressed young ladies? Including stuff that has adorned the walls of very respectable civic art galleries for a century and more. Cos it's Art.
The boundary between art and porn has always been a very fine one, and the line keeps moving in the conservative direction over time.
The Blind Faith album cover would almost certainly be illegal today, yet hundreds of thousands of people possess it. Ditto all of the old British newspapers with 16-year-old Page 3 girls from the ‘80s and ‘90s.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
God
Oh. Righty Ho.
Well if we're bringing Him into the discussion then the sky's the limit.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
God
Well from its perspective, I suppose we will be. A very fallible god, mind.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
I won’t be any more unnerved than I am by the brush a painting was painted with.
Until the day real AI actually emerges. Then I’ll be first into the bunker. Until then I’m happy with the fact that, contrary to your post above, I know exactly how these programmes work and they are not black boxes in any meaningful way.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
God
Well from its perspective, I suppose we will be. A very fallible god, mind.
It’s more likely we will end up worshipping the machines. Because ultimately they will be so smart they will do stuff that works brilliantly yet is beyond our comprehension, we won’t know how or why it works, yet it will be super-intelligent
That will trigger the religious reflex in Homo sapiens, which is never far from the surface
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
Didn't one of us get turfed off PB for showing pics of under-16 undressed young ladies? Including stuff that has adorned the walls of very respectable civic art galleries for a century and more. Cos it's Art.
The boundary between art and porn has always been a very fine one, and the line keeps moving in the conservative direction over time.
The Blind Faith album cover would almost certainly be illegal today, yet hundreds of thousands of people possess it. Ditto all of the old British newspapers with 16-year-old Page 3 girls from the ‘80s and ‘90s.
Mm. Though it was the conservative middle-aged male pillars of civic society which liked all those nude females in their marble art galleries of the long Victorian era. And ISTR Conservativ e MPs defending the Page 3 publishers against their critics. Anyway will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
Wouldn't paying with cash also achieve this result?
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
Agree, but most PBers are unable to use it, sadly – either their phones don't work or their brains don't. The poor lambs are only just getting to grips with chequebooks.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
Supermarkets probably can profile you even with no cards and paying cash. Most shopping trolleys are probably sufficiently regular and unique to allow this. But in any case, it is probably more use just to know that men in general who buy nappies also buy wine and ear plugs.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
I won’t be any more unnerved than I am by the brush a painting was painted with.
Until the day real AI actually emerges. Then I’ll be first into the bunker. Until then I’m happy with the fact that, contrary to your post above, I know exactly how these programmes work and they are not black boxes in any meaningful way.
“AI's mysterious ‘black box’ problem, explained”
“Artificial intelligence can do amazing things that humans can’t, but in many cases, we have no idea how AI systems make their decisions. UM-Dearborn Associate Professor Samir Rawashdeh explains why that’s a big deal.”
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
I use Tesco Clubcard etc, all on my phone, deny permission for them to call/text me and any emails get filtered into a spam folder.
Get hundreds of pounds back from 'loyalty' cards. Not loyal to any of the stores.
Paying hundreds of pounds less over a year is well worth it, since that's even better than getting same amount as a pay rise since there's no tax/NI effect on money you don't spend, its straight back into your own pocket.
That's distorted though by getting 10% cashback from Asda for my wife's blue light card certainly helps. Nothing to turn your nose up at.
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
I see the chap who escaped from prison under a van is pleading not guilty to escaping from the prison under a van.
Maybe Trump should watch to get some ideas for his defence.
What's his defence? Some mischievous chaps tied him to the bottom of the van for a laugh?
Could be a variation on Boris' parliamentary defence for Covid parties which was I recall that he was being led round like a prize bull and didn't realise what he was doing. (Mens rea)
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
I don’t mean the images are people, I mean they are stolen from the works of real people. And indeed they may be stolen from video. That’s all “Ai” can do at the minute. It can synthesise lots of bits of others’ work and pretend it’s original.
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
What a ridiculous argument. This is all human artists do. They see stuff around them - people, animals, environment - and they look at other art - and that inspires them to make new art
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
No. We can invent.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
This is absolutely untrue. As I know from reading this Spectator article. By the end the journalist was putting in fairly simple prompts and the computer was responding with spectacularly imaginative and terrifying images
All that is happening there is that your prompt interacts with an algorithm that searches an image database, and a bastard child is spat out.
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
In the end this argument of yours - and all others like it - boils down to “art is stuff created by humans who have emotions” which is certainly a view, but it’s not particularly useful, as it rules out AI making art from the start
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
And who do you think tells the machines to make art which makes you laugh, cry, gasp in horror (ie a typical day on PB)?
God
Well from its perspective, I suppose we will be. A very fallible god, mind.
It’s more likely we will end up worshipping the machines. Because ultimately they will be so smart they will do stuff that works brilliantly yet is beyond our comprehension, we won’t know how or why it works, yet it will be super-intelligent
That will trigger the religious reflex in Homo sapiens, which is never far from the surface
Even if Hitler was good at painting I wouldn't have one of his on the wall. Maybe that's narrow minded but it's how I feel about it.
Eric Gill is, of course, a pretty famous example of this problem.
He wasn't Hitler, clearly, but was an appalling human being who should have been jailed for his actions. Yet there is no denying the quality or importance of his art, and it remains prominently on display.
It does beg the question as to whether there is a threshold of quality above which, while you might not forgive the person and some people will be rather offended by it due to their own experiences, it's just too good not to show?
I think there probably is and have to admit that part of the reason I don't give a damn if broadcasters chose not to make available material involving Russell Brand to which they own the copyright, is that it's pretty crap regardless of the your opinion of the man. It's also true that they are within their rights as they own it and are perfectly entitled to make a decision on how withdrawing it reflects on them. But I'd care more if it was genuinely exceptional work.
Spread on how many of them have connections to the Tory party?
There wouldn't be much point in them having connections with the Labour Party would there?
Pretty sure the Labour Party has been accused of being in the pocket of the Kremlin throughout its long history (which mostly consists of them being in opposition). Some of the time it might even have been true.
Wasn't there a famous typo in The Guardian about internal strife that stated "the Labour Party has its roubles...."
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
It's unbelievably idiotic that she's sent those letters out to Rumble and Tiktok regarding a particular individual who has not even been charged with anything, particularly as she is also effectively a gatekeeper on internet regulations in the UK. General letters reminding providers remain in line with their obligations in the UK (On cp and so on) are fine but she must have written those letters off her own back as legal/Whitehall bods would have told her "No, absolutely not. Do not pass Go."
It's good to see that @Leon has finally caught on to why much of humanity believes in God: it's because it is convenient to do so, rather than because there's some old man with a beard in the sky.
(Note: this is not to downplay the importance of the Judeo-Christian system of ethics, merely to point out that those benefits don't derive from a supernatural being.)
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their, boilers and has removed the tax on meat, aircraft taxes and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
This isn’t helped by the media often misrepresenting the policy. As you said some think their cars will be taken away. I fully expect the Tories polling to improve . Most of the public don’t do detail and will swallow sound bites.
With interest rates held and Sunaks man of the people impression I think this will be the week that the election became much more competitive.
Labour need to start putting out their own sound bites full of lies like the Tories and stop thinking most of the public could tie their own shoe laces .
Forums like this are not indicative of the public at large . We’re political junkies and even though there’s many disagreements I’m confident members can tie their own shoe laces !
I think it is a stroke of genius. It is Brexit part 2. Poor panicked voters getting the wrong end of the stick through misinformation from the Conservatives and their media shills.
I bet these poor voters vote for Rishi's government now he has ditched the green crap.
Ah, so the British media finally picked it up. Don’t they work night shifts any more?
Yes, it’s a total embarrassment for Parliament, to be questioning the US approach to freedom of speech. Apparently TikTok’s office in the US also got a letter from Dineage.
Oh, and didn’t the Guardian make right tits of themselves with an American letter-writing campaign a few years back..?
(My next research project is the new Online Safety Bill, which I suspect is a total sh!t-show of government-enforced censorship).
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
It's unbelievably idiotic that she's sent those letters out to Rumble and Tiktok regarding a particular individual who has not even been charged with anything, particularly as she is also effectively a gatekeeper on internet regulations in the UK. General letters reminding providers remain in line with their obligations in the UK (On cp and so on) are fine but she must have written those letters off her own back as legal/Whitehall bods would have told her "No, absolutely not. Do not pass Go."
She’s a fucking idiot who has embarrassed Parliament and she should be sacked forthwith
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
It's unbelievably idiotic that she's sent those letters out to Rumble and Tiktok regarding a particular individual who has not even been charged with anything, particularly as she is also effectively a gatekeeper on internet regulations in the UK. General letters reminding providers remain in line with their obligations in the UK (On cp and so on) are fine but she must have written those letters off her own back as legal/Whitehall bods would have told her "No, absolutely not. Do not pass Go."
She’s a fucking idiot who has embarrassed Parliament and she should be sacked forthwith
She should have probably just left it at sending letters to Youtube (Who obviously acted on it), (and possibly Meta and Alphabet). Rumble, Tiktok and potentially X all had a high chance of making the letters public and humiliating her. A Sec of State who clearly doesn't realise the lie of the land.
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
Rumble is a Canadian company with an American base in Florida. YouTube is an American company quartered in California. Twitter is currently based in San Francisco but by the time Musk is finished with it it'll be based in Texas or China. We are having this conversation on Vanilla Forums: Vanilla is a Canadian company in Quebec.
You want to join a Trump-style protest to fight for a Canadian company against an American company about what the American company wants to say.
We are all getting aereated by social media companies who are vastly outside our control but we still think we have some influence over the process
Most new cars will have to be electric by 2030 despite a delay on banning new petrol vehicles, the prime minister said as he attempted to reassure the motoring industry.
The prime minister will still introduce annual legal targets for electric vehicle sales beginning next year in an effort to give certainty to manufacturers about investment decisions.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
IT professional gallows humour calls people like that ‘rape victims’.
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
Agree, but most PBers are unable to use it, sadly – either their phones don't work or their brains don't. The poor lambs are only just getting to grips with chequebooks.
If you can’t use Apple Pay, then use cash. Either is better than swiping the same card every week at a similar time, which just lets them build up a shadow profile on you, for targeting more discount vouchers that have individual codes and add to the tracking.
This morning's Savanta 20% Labour lead is the highest since January.
The Conservatives seem to be a busted flush. Time for change.
That was before Sunaks man of the people conversion . I’ll be astonished if the Tories support doesn’t increase after that . Labour need to counter this quickly and not sit idly by whilst the Tory lies remain unchallenged .
I see the chap who escaped from prison under a van is pleading not guilty to escaping from the prison under a van.
Maybe Trump should watch to get some ideas for his defence.
What's his defence? Some mischievous chaps tied him to the bottom of the van for a laugh?
He may argue that his being held in custody wasn't lawful, which is one of the elements. That is very unlikely to succeed as it's still pretty obviously lawful custody even if he's acquitted of the charges for which he was originally held. But he may just want to put the prosecution to proof, or it may be a holding position before pleading guilty at trial.
In quite a few countries, escape isn't actually a crime as it's deemed to be natural for a prisoner to want to escape. So if you escape in the Netherlands, for example, you neither get charged with an offence nor is time added to any sentence you're serving. You just get brought back to serve time remaining on your sentence at the time you escaped.
By the way, Romeo and Juliet is not an appropriate name for these laws given she was 13.
Didn't one of us get turfed off PB for showing pics of under-16 undressed young ladies? Including stuff that has adorned the walls of very respectable civic art galleries for a century and more. Cos it's Art.
The boundary between art and porn has always been a very fine one, and the line keeps moving in the conservative direction over time.
The Blind Faith album cover would almost certainly be illegal today, yet hundreds of thousands of people possess it. Ditto all of the old British newspapers with 16-year-old Page 3 girls from the ‘80s and ‘90s.
Mm. Though it was the conservative middle-aged male pillars of civic society which liked all those nude females in their marble art galleries of the long Victorian era. And ISTR Conservativ e MPs defending the Page 3 publishers against their critics. Anyway will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Yes, there’s been an interesting tug-of-war over the centuries, between those in favour of freedom and expression, and those in favour of protecting children from abuse. Both left and right politics have taken on both roles over time, depending on the exact issue at hand.
I think that we all agree now that any photo at all of a naked young teenager, except possibly the historic one from the napalm attack in Vietnam, should be illegal.
It's good to see that @Leon has finally caught on to why much of humanity believes in God: it's because it is convenient to do so, rather than because there's some old man with a beard in the sky.
(Note: this is not to downplay the importance of the Judeo-Christian system of ethics, merely to point out that those benefits don't derive from a supernatural being.)
As he told us all the other day he has just been visiting Cathar country. Which is liderally the origin of so many Christian myths designed originally to cement the position of the pope and the church (eg the Gregorian reforms) which today are taken as, er, gospel, by the believers.
God exists because shit happens and we need to explain it and we are scared. And also because we need pictures of tennis players scratching their arses, obvs.
This correspondence is quite astonishing. It should be seen as a moment of national humiliation. A role reversal where an obscure upstart social media channel becomes the guardian of liberal democratic values, under assault from the 'mother of all parliaments' that has debased itself to such a degree that it has become a participant in a lynch mob.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
It's unbelievably idiotic that she's sent those letters out to Rumble and Tiktok regarding a particular individual who has not even been charged with anything, particularly as she is also effectively a gatekeeper on internet regulations in the UK. General letters reminding providers remain in line with their obligations in the UK (On cp and so on) are fine but she must have written those letters off her own back as legal/Whitehall bods would have told her "No, absolutely not. Do not pass Go."
She’s a fucking idiot who has embarrassed Parliament and she should be sacked forthwith
She should have probably just left it at sending letters to Youtube (Who obviously acted on it), (and possibly Meta and Alphabet). Rumble, Tiktok and potentially X all had a high chance of making the letters public and humiliating her. A Sec of State who clearly doesn't realise the lie of the land.
She’s not the Sec of State, she’s the Head of the CMS Select Cttee.
Agree with the rest though, of course Rumble et al were going to humiliate her.
Most new cars will have to be electric by 2030 despite a delay on banning new petrol vehicles, the prime minister said as he attempted to reassure the motoring industry.
The prime minister will still introduce annual legal targets for electric vehicle sales beginning next year in an effort to give certainty to manufacturers about investment decisions.
The policy is incoherent . On one hand fining car manufacturers if they don’t sell enough EVs , on the other hand doing a u-turn which means EV sales are likely to fall . This doesn’t matter though politically as Sunak and the Tories have got what they wanted . Enough people will be duped and the Tories are portraying themselves as on the side of the poor motorists and hard working families !
This morning's Savanta 20% Labour lead is the highest since January.
The Conservatives seem to be a busted flush. Time for change.
That was before Sunaks man of the people conversion . I’ll be astonished if the Tories support doesn’t increase after that . Labour need to counter this quickly and not sit idly by whilst the Tory lies remain unchallenged .
Not sure I agree with you on this. Sunak's stunt yesterday would have been much more effective if he'd waited until the starting pistol for the GE campaign had been fired. As it is, Labour has plenty of time to see which way the wind blows and formulate an appropriate response in due course. I don't actually think this will affect the GE, even if it does give Sunak a short-term boost. He's gone too early.
Spread on how many of them have connections to the Tory party?
There wouldn't be much point in them having connections with the Labour Party would there?
Pretty sure the Labour Party has been accused of being in the pocket of the Kremlin throughout its long history (which mostly consists of them being in opposition). Some of the time it might even have been true.
Tories need to be paid for, Labour comrades come free of charge.
Mind you one of the most pitiful bouts of muck slinging in recent years was the suggestion that Michael Foot was in the pay of the Soviet Union. Total coincidence it was done when Foot was safely dead and therefore unable to sue.
Comments
Like I say, we can have a debate about how much human artists do that themselves, but “AI” cannot imagine or create. No part of an “AI” image is truly original.
Yet.
Edit. So, for example, mass market airport thriller authors might be in trouble, but amusing, very personal, sex-memoir writers won’t be.
They used to say it was decades away
https://x.com/thomaspower/status/1704054396068180010?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Meanwhile this guy claims to be an insider at OpenAI. He might sound like a nutter but he predicted GPT4 and it’s parameters precisely and he nailed the release date
Maybe several steps removed with deniable cutouts, so it couldn’t be traced back to me by the press.
Astroturfing is as old as grassroots campaigning after all.
I bet these poor voters vote for Rishi's government now he has ditched the green crap.
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23697572.rishi-sunaks-family-firm-infosys-signed-1-5b-deal-bp/
And that’s all AI does. It looks at loads of images and thus synthesises new art. If we gave it a head with cameras for eyes it could be inspired that way, too
There is literally no difference except one is mostly carbon and the other mostly silicon
I was speaking to someone the other day who had a friend who developed a fear of flying after 9/11. The group of them used to go on annual weekends to Mallorca. He dealt with this by getting a train from Cheshire to the south coast, then a ferry to the north coast of Spain, then a train to Barcelona, then another boat to Mallorca. He had to set off two days in advance of everyone else and get home two days later.
Fortunately this guy was both very rich and had lots of time on his hands. But impractical for most people.
If you want a picture of Donald Trump felching, “AI” can currently sort you out.
However it couldn’t have conceived of Bugs Bunny.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are currently around 420 ppm, which is already 100 ppm higher than 60 years ago. Add another 100 ppm, and we might well find that current classrooms and office meeting rooms will become unusable.
So even if we were to ignore climate change and ocean acidification, there's good reason to limit atmospheric CO2 increases well before we get to anything that would be considered outright unbreathable.
should
The salient points are
1. This is easily as good as Escher, which means it passes a form of Turing test
2. It HAS excited people on X. It’s had ten million hits and people who were previously skeptical about AI art are saying “yeah, ok, this is impressive and good”
https://twitter.com/FT/status/1704849356820505054?s=19
At the very least, AI is considerably quicker at art than Hitler.
These laws are normally on the basis that relations are legal/decriminalised (depending upon jurisdiction) on something along a +- 3 year age gap. Hence Romeo and Juliet, it would be lawful for them, but not for Lord Montague to sleep with Juliet.
I believe eg in Texas a 16 year old sleeping with a 13 year old is allowed within their Romeo and Juliet laws, but a 30 year old sleeping with a 16 year old would not be.
Though you may want to update it past 13/16 to 16/19 but that's sort of where the idea comes from.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/i-ve-seen-the-future-of-ai-art-and-it-s-terrifying/
We already know that AI can resolve entities out of images and anticipate future positions. That is half the battle for picking the angle.
None of what you described sounds beyond a system that could could be trained with a few hundred person hours and a database of videos files. You could even have an autonomous drone that flies around taking nice photos.
Where Leon is wrong or misguided is that computers/AI don't produce art. They are told to produce art by humans. They don't wake up in the morning, and think I know what, I'll paint a picture of a puppy and kitten nuzzling each other, or of the despair of the human condition (with which all art arguably in some way is concerned).
They are told to do whatever they are told to do by humans. So AI art is art, but it is not "I", still less "artistic". It is simply a tool for humans to produce art.
And as you say some of it will be shocking.
I know. Bonkers. But that’s PB for you. Takes all sorts
Post was brought to you by pedanticbetting.com
I don’t deny that these programmes are the equal of a street portrait/caricature artist or that some types of illustrator/concept artist now have rivals at the low end of their work.
But I stand by the fact that they aren’t currently going to conceive of something to match Starry Night. They can copy the style but they couldn’t have invented it.
A good way to see my point is to go back to the text programmes. Imagine for a moment you were someone who has many published articles online from which it could draw. Ask it to write an article in your style about the Barbie movie.
It will copy your language well enough to sound like you superficially, but the substance of the ideas will be generic Barbie review stuff you would discard as not having an interesting angle.
Or, perhaps, a more direct example. Ask it to give you 800 interesting words prompted by that film. It won’t think of interesting angle that isn’t a copy of someone’s work. It can’t.
Art that looks like a remaindered album cover from the 1970s less so.
And these machines do the strangest things. No one knew GPT3 could draw from a language prompt until it started doing exactly that - and we still don’t know how or why
And no we don't understand the human brain but it is a human brain. If you are saying you take Factor X and put it together with Factor Y and Factor XY turns out to decide things on its own then you are talking about an algorithm. And we have plenty of those doing all kinds of things today and for some time.
And if you want to believe this, as some kind of consolation, go ahead. I have several artist friends who believe exactly this; it comforts them
But you’re going to be deeply unnerved when the machines start making art - pictures, stories, videos, sculptures, movies - which make you laugh, cry, gasp in horror. And they will: it’s coming
The Blind Faith album cover would almost certainly be illegal today, yet hundreds of thousands of people possess it. Ditto all of the old British newspapers with 16-year-old Page 3 girls from the ‘80s and ‘90s.
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/21/video-platform-rumble-rejects-mps-call-to-demonetise-russell-brand
Well if we're bringing Him into the discussion then the sky's the limit.
Until the day real AI actually emerges. Then I’ll be first into the bunker. Until then I’m happy with the fact that, contrary to your post above, I know exactly how these programmes work and they are not black boxes in any meaningful way.
That will trigger the religious reflex in Homo sapiens, which is never far from the surface
My wife is one of them, she has dozens of loyalty cards and discount books/apps, and doesn’t understand why I don’t have any of them, and prefer to pay full price over being subjected to constant phone and email spam, from companies who know way too much about me.
What you should all use though, is Apple Pay. It gives the merchant a different card number for each transaction, so they can’t aggregate transactions to build a data profile on you.
Maybe Trump should watch to get some ideas for his defence.
“AI's mysterious ‘black box’ problem, explained”
“Artificial intelligence can do amazing things that humans can’t, but in many cases, we have no idea how AI systems make their decisions. UM-Dearborn Associate Professor Samir Rawashdeh explains why that’s a big deal.”
https://umdearborn.edu/news/ais-mysterious-black-box-problem-explained
Right, that’s me done. Thankyou for a stimulating debate, PB. Time for work
👍
The Conservatives seem to be a busted flush. Time for change.
Get hundreds of pounds back from 'loyalty' cards. Not loyal to any of the stores.
Paying hundreds of pounds less over a year is well worth it, since that's even better than getting same amount as a pay rise since there's no tax/NI effect on money you don't spend, its straight back into your own pocket.
That's distorted though by getting 10% cashback from Asda for my wife's blue light card certainly helps. Nothing to turn your nose up at.
It is creating political space for a Trump style protest, observing all this unfold, I would consider supporting it.
He wasn't Hitler, clearly, but was an appalling human being who should have been jailed for his actions. Yet there is no denying the quality or importance of his art, and it remains prominently on display.
It does beg the question as to whether there is a threshold of quality above which, while you might not forgive the person and some people will be rather offended by it due to their own experiences, it's just too good not to show?
I think there probably is and have to admit that part of the reason I don't give a damn if broadcasters chose not to make available material involving Russell Brand to which they own the copyright, is that it's pretty crap regardless of the your opinion of the man. It's also true that they are within their rights as they own it and are perfectly entitled to make a decision on how withdrawing it reflects on them. But I'd care more if it was genuinely exceptional work.
General letters reminding providers remain in line with their obligations in the UK (On cp and so on) are fine but she must have written those letters off her own back as legal/Whitehall bods would have told her "No, absolutely not. Do not pass Go."
(Note: this is not to downplay the importance of the Judeo-Christian system of ethics, merely to point out that those benefits don't derive from a supernatural being.)
The senile will probably go for it, as you say.
Yes, it’s a total embarrassment for Parliament, to be questioning the US approach to freedom of speech. Apparently TikTok’s office in the US also got a letter from Dineage.
Oh, and didn’t the Guardian make right tits of themselves with an American letter-writing campaign a few years back..?
(My next research project is the new Online Safety Bill, which I suspect is a total sh!t-show of government-enforced censorship).
A Sec of State who clearly doesn't realise the lie of the land.
You want to join a Trump-style protest to fight for a Canadian company against an American company about what the American company wants to say.
We are all getting aereated by social media companies who are vastly outside our control but we still think we have some influence over the process
Most new cars will have to be electric by 2030 despite a delay on banning new petrol vehicles, the prime minister said as he attempted to reassure the motoring industry.
The prime minister will still introduce annual legal targets for electric vehicle sales beginning next year in an effort to give certainty to manufacturers about investment decisions.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rishi-sunak-net-zero-latest-news-uk-climate-plans-zvhlszz09
In quite a few countries, escape isn't actually a crime as it's deemed to be natural for a prisoner to want to escape. So if you escape in the Netherlands, for example, you neither get charged with an offence nor is time added to any sentence you're serving. You just get brought back to serve time remaining on your sentence at the time you escaped.
I think that we all agree now that any photo at all of a naked young teenager, except possibly the historic one from the napalm attack in Vietnam, should be illegal.
God exists because shit happens and we need to explain it and we are scared. And also because we need pictures of tennis players scratching their arses, obvs.
Agree with the rest though, of course Rumble et al were going to humiliate her.
This thread has just been banned from Rumble