- Apr 13, 2022
- 248
- 221
Your point is entirely made moot by what seems to be a clear ignorance of how image generation works. Try to get any AI image generation tool and make three images showing two different characters having a conversation in the same place, wearing the same clothes, and with both being more than "Mr. and Mrs. Generic", and then tell me again how AI tools "remove humans from the equation". You wildly underestimate the very human effort required to make anything more than "generic pretty images" with AI.Generative AI removes the human from the equation altogether, and that is where the [somewhat porous] distinction lies.
My point is that Man makes the tool. Man uses the tool to enrich their inner lives. The tool does not use Man. That's the distinction. That's the problem with AI art and AI writing. Art and writing are almost uniquely human experiences, and surrendering those deprive us of the Human Experience.
I assume, some just like to make the demos and sell the story, plot character models, whatever. This might be the case. The art is insane. Her ass is to wide for my taste. I always say, girls ass or hips can't be wider then the mans. It ruins it for me as he is more ripped but looks like a child beside her.But is this developer able to release a proper game, or is he jumping from demo to demo, without develop any of his idea?
Am I wrong or all his game are less of 100 MB?
The arts are stunning, but…
AI art - is the issue. Coz he's too lazy to make an effort to create Picture by your own, if even u use props already made. U put some time and effort, and u trying to finish. But if u can make with no effort. Why try hurd to finish? U can make again and again, new 1episod game.I see the creator of these has posted quite a few of these projects in the last few months. Do these actually get completed or are they all apart of some over arching narrative?
You probably should have read the post in its entirety, instead of using that time to think up what you were going to say next, bruv. In your defense, perhaps my 'clear ignorance' made it harder to explain my position clearer. For that, I failed you, and I am sorry. Next time, I will use a hot dog, a donut and a tour guide from Malta to help you out.Your point is entirely made moot by what seems to be a clear ignorance of how image generation works. Try to get any AI image generation tool and make three images showing two different characters having a conversation in the same place, wearing the same clothes, and with both being more than "Mr. and Mrs. Generic", and then tell me again how AI tools "remove humans from the equation". You wildly underestimate the very human effort required to make anything more than "generic pretty images" with AI.
As you said it yourself: AI is a tool, and that's all it is, just like any tool it doesn't do anything without a person handling it, and the quality of the work created is directly proportional to the skill of its user.
I'm sorry, I didn't want to mischaracterize your point, so just we're 100% clear then...You probably should have read the post in its entirety, instead of using that time to think up what you were going to say next, bruv. In your defense, perhaps my 'clear ignorance' made it harder to explain my position clearer. For that, I failed you, and I am sorry. Next time, I will use a hot dog, a donut and a tour guide from Malta to help you out.
One of my main points was that while generative AI makes art, it is drawing from copywritten or other, problematic sources. While an argument could be made that all art is derivative, it requires a human to recognize that, and consider the consequences for that. AI has no such compunction.
Some folk will want to see generative AI prohibited - especially Creatives of all kinds - because it encroaches on their patch, and that is a consideration. Others will want to see it allowed, as it 'removes' the barrier between the skilled and the dilettante.
The true issue is that generative AI should be seen as a way to ''augment human capabilities and empower communities, not replace or displace them''. Your argument seems to hinge upon folk learning how to use the tool that will replace them as artists. I wonder how that sentiment would play out if your employer asked you to 'train your replacement'.
It's already mostly solved, but not for lazy porn game devs who don't even try.When they can solve the AI hand problem, we will have a lot more issues lol.
Well, far be it for me to confuse you with the truth, Kenneth. I mean, why would I argue your belief that my mere presence means I am an eye-patch-sporting pirate, here to steal the riches of hard-working Joes [and Janes] by downloading their games super-duper-illegally. Or that the people using these assets to make games are doing so illicitly. You question my very presence here to be a rebuttal of my post [which again, you seemed to fall asleep or something while trying - really trying] to read what it said. Er, does it take being slapped with a trout for you to realize that you're here too? Does that make you a pirate as well? Do you have a parrot on your shoulder? Is its name 'Polly'? Does Polly wanna cracker?I'm sorry, I didn't want to mischaracterize your point, so just we're 100% clear then...
Your argument then is that you don't like when people use things from legally or morally problematic sources... to create the games you download from this game piracy website? Games that are, even without considering AI art at all, almost universally created from illegally downloaded assets?
THAT... is your argument? Is THAT why you don't like AI art?
I would try to find a picture to help illustrate your argument, but I worry it would trigger people with trypophobia. You, as well as every single person here are swimming in copyright infringement up to your neck, but somehow training a machine to learn art without asking for permission is where you draw this very, very fuzzy and dirty line? If you want to have some moral high ground to complain about art being used without permission of artists, you might want to quit F95 first: that is THE WHOLE POINT of this place.
Yeah, like I said on my first comment on this thread: you guys have such arbitrary gripes, it's just ridiculous. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.
Not at all, I'm fine with shoplifter expressing their opinions on morality subjects. Freedom of expression is paramount, after all. Just as I am free to express my opinion that a shoplifter accusing other shoplifters of shoplifting is... you know... slightly hypocritical.In your worldview, a shoplifter isn't allowed to express opinions on any morality subject [because, you know, shoplifter]. You might be surprised to know that a lot of devs voluntarily release their games, presumably to increase interest and subsciptions.
Sounds like you have a religious or pseudo-religious belief in the human soul or human exceptionalism. A lot of people nowadays are materialist/atheists and don't have that view.You make excellent points, Gnome, but IMO you are missing the point. By your reasoning, If primitve man couldn't tearopen the mastadon's skin, or kill the bear with his/her bare hands, or couldn't make his own blood turn blue to write on the walls of caves, then he shouldn't use it.
Man is a toolmaker. As a species, we use them because we cannot keep ourselves warm agains the cold, or fight against predators or prey. We cannot swim or run or do anything for very long. We use tools to compensate for our own design 'flaws.'
As you said, AI is just a tool, like a phone, a bicycle or a computer. THE DIFFERENCE is that it is a human using the phone. It is a human pedaling and steering the bike. It is a human using the computer.
With AI - both predictive or generative [the difference between the two lies in what they do - predictive AI analyzes existing data to make predictions, while generative AI generates new content based on learned patterns] - removes a lot ofYou must be registered to see the linksin a product. And while AI analysis threatens that segment of the workforce that crunches numbers and such, it isn't any more predictive than, say a calculator or a weather report.
Generative AI removes the human from the equation altogether, and that is where the [somewhat porous] distinction lies. Whereas [most of us] know that nazis are shite topics to talk about and espouse beliefs in [and I'm looking at you, Marine le Pen], Microsoft's AI product TAY - in less than 24 hours - claimed that 'Hitler did nothing wrong.' It had its plug pulled almost immediately after.
Had the AI gone rampant? Probably not. The AI had taken a lot of the datasets presented in discussion groups and followed down several rabbit holes and was overwhelmed by the incessant flame wars from white nationalists and, well, neo-nazis.
Where a human would usually say 'thet sheet ees jess whack, mayn', there were no such borders on the newborn AI. Without the wetware of having lived a life full of emotional experiences, there was no filter to decide right and wrong, or art versus imitation, or craft versus mental Legos.
My point is that Man makes the tool. Man uses the tool to enrich their inner lives. The tool does not use Man. That's the distinction. That's the problem with AI art and AI writing. Art and writing are almost uniquely human experiences, and surrendering those deprive us of the Human Experience.
It isn't solely about losing jobs. It's about losing a part of us that make us, Us.
<snip>
Look, I'm not sure where your passive-aggressive tone is coming from, but I don't think it's having the effect you may had hoped. You aren't coming across as morally or intellectually superior (if indeed that was your aim). I've tried to give you some leeway here, but it's just growing tiresome.Finally, I don't know why you keep saying I'm not reading your <snip>
I haven't insulted you at all. I called you no bad names and said nothing about you that isn't directly from your own words. Pointing out facts and showing the hypocrisy in your arguments isn't an insult, it's just reality. But you are right, this has gone long enough. See ya.Insult me all you want
If I do, I never saw it as such. I see humans as a species somewhat arrested in evolution because it makes tools that would otherwise require evolutionary adaptation [and adaptation can be fast or slow] of the wetware. A number of people in our grouping are materialists and/or atheists. I might be a Doubting Thomas [and yeah, the metaphoric contradiction isn't lost on me], but I think that expressing the view that people have the possibility to evolve and be better than their circumstances. All too philosophical, I know.Sounds like you have a religious or pseudo-religious belief in the human soul or human exceptionalism. A lot of people nowadays are materialist/atheists and don't have that view.
If you really think you haven't been taking little jabs at me, then I have to retract my earlier post. It isn't that you aren't reading my posts. It's more a case of you not being aware of the content of anyone's posts, including your own. Maybe it's being caused by you using a secondary language, or maybe you are just this combative and antagonistic in two languages. In either case, I think we should each go find something else to do. Later.I haven't insulted you at all. I called you no bad names and said nothing about you that isn't directly from your own words. Pointing out facts and showing the hypocrisy in your arguments isn't an insult, it's just reality. But you are right, this has gone long enough. See ya.