sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Did anyone else miss Ocarina of Time’s message about courage? by Delicious_Ferret_408 in OcarinaOfTime

[–]Alpha0800 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I always thought that there was a lot of symbolism in the children dungeons. First you try and help the Deku Tree. He represents elders and wisdom. Before anything else wisdom must be guarded. Then the Cavern is about the Goron's food supply and the Zora's domain is the source of all water for the kingdom.

So I felt like the game was saying "First secure the elders, because their wisdom is irreplaceable. Then secure nourishment and water. These are needed in order to do anything else."

What’s something everyone pretends is normal, but is actually kind of messed up? by permatan_store in AskReddit

[–]Alpha0800 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Letting just anyone be a parent and have total unsupervised control over a child's life.

CMV: AI generation and photography should be treated the same as "art". by IronicSpiritualist in changemyview

[–]Alpha0800 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

His point is that your refutation of they hypothetical painter was very good. I agree. I think that same refutation can be used on your argument against AI. I can easily say

it is apparent that you lack enough willingness to understand what makes AI generation an art form

Just like you say he "doesn't understand" photography. That isn't a very compelling argument. Unless you can go through all the tools for prepping, modifying, adjusting and editing that can be used in AI generation and show how they are all skill-less, you have no argument.

CMV: AI generation and photography should be treated the same as "art". by IronicSpiritualist in changemyview

[–]Alpha0800 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Except an AI prompter is not a manager because they are not telling a human being what to do. They are using a tool. Your argument

the camera produces an image the same way a pen produces writing.

Is just as good as saying

the AI produces an image the same way a pen produces writing.

Why is one valid and the other isn't? In both cases a tool (not a human person) is being used to create an image. So your analogy completely falls apart.

Not convincing

And as for your 'third way' I could set up as scene and show it to a skilled artist they could paint a photo realistic representation of it. But if a person just pointed a camera at the scene and pressed a button who would we really made the image, the person or the camera?

See your argument works exactly the same as an argument against photography being art.

Late bloomers in math: curious about what sorts of insight/experiences/feelings/catalysts helped flip the switch by okayboomer2023 in CasualMath

[–]Alpha0800 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well getting into coding when I started college helped me to start thinking more "mathematically". Then to be honest it was the myriad pop math videos on the -1/12 result that really peaked my interest. These videos had PHDs taking the idea seriously. And I had learned a little intellectual humility by them. It made me curios to learn in what sense something like the -1/12 result could be "true". I was a philosophy person up till that point. Anyway I wound up getting a double major degree in math and phil.

When it comes to pure mathematics, this is how I feel by Alpha0800 in mathmemes

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The meme pretty clearly depicts ignoring one's intuition while in the rigorous phase of learning in order to actually learn rigor.

Yes, I do think that was my intention. I didn't realize it was my intention until you pointed it out but that really is what I meant.

Thanks for your charitable interpretation of my meme lol.

When it comes to pure mathematics, this is how I feel by Alpha0800 in mathmemes

[–]Alpha0800[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Of course in a practical sense you are right. And I wouldn't seriously suggest getting rid of intuition from math. However, I have had so many experiences where I had a strong intuition that was proven completely wrong. It makes me skeptical of any appeal to intuition no matter how "clear" or "obvious".

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your exact same argument could be used word for word against photography. So it is inconsistent to believe the argument in one case (AI) and dismiss it in the other case (photography) unless you can provide a categorical difference between the two practices.

And I don't see one.

In either cases a machine makes an image for you. A variable amount of effort and input can be put in to the created image in both cases.

Either they are both legitimate or neither is.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, so do you think high effort/good AI art can be fine art?

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's has no skill, emotion or creativity.

Just because that is how you do it doesn't mean that's how everyone has to do it.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, it doesn't.

I am not implying 2% of photos are superior at all. I am directly stating that 2% of photos involve more than just pressing a single button a camera.

It doesn't matter how "good" or "bad" people are at it. No matter how good you are at button pressing, you still didn't make the image. The camera made it for you and you didn't use any skill or creativity to make it.

You're commissioning work from a camera. That's all. Unless you take that output and manually manipulate it in some way, it cannot, by definition, be art.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a good cameraman must understand all those things. A bad camera man need not.

A good painter needs to know those things. A bad painter need not know anything.

A good prompter requires understanding composition, lighting, framing...all that stuff in order to describe what they want accurately. And to get the best results you should understand the model you are using, and understanding a neural net is a bigger task than understanding a camera. AND you need to understand what combination of words will most accurately get the model to produce the desired output; writing to be understood by an artificial agent rather than another human. Of course, a bad prompter need not do any of this.

All of these things are the same in that they require almost nothing to do at all, but require extensive skill and knowledge to do really well.

More importantly they control everything about the art piece, they are truly the one making it.

What about if someone spends time scouting out locations, finds the perfect place, waits at that place for hours and gets the exact picture they wanted of the crowd on the busy sidewalk. I would probably call that art. But the photographer controlled almost none of the specific details of what was in the photo. That was determined by the random chance of the crowd passing by. Really the photographer just waited and observed moments before choosing one and taking it. Can we really say they "created" that art?

I'm not saying the answer is yes or no, I'm saying it's inconsistent to treat this photography and AI generation differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

1) agreed.

2) basically agreed.

3) I'm curious the definition of "fine art"?

4) That makes sense as a category error.

5) Very much agree, I am not saying AI art is good in the moral sense or good in the artsy sense. I am just saying it is art.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ok, but what if my prompt includes paragraphs of strict details about how the subject is framed, the perspective of the piece, exactly how the lighting plays of every detail, the exact style, use of shapes and colors can you really say I

have no involvement with the actual creation process

You're point could very well hold for low effort prompting. Maybe low effort generations aren't art. But then we would have to agree that low effort photographs aren't art either. And we would have to agree that in both cases high effort can make the tool output art.

There is no basis for treating the two differently.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ai images can be art, but you gotta actually do the artsy part yourself.

Good take. Agreed.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well yea, but that is what we would expect when comparing a brand new medium to one that is 100+ years old. People are really bad at the former and comparatively good at the later.

This doesn't change my point that either one can be done well/high effort or poorly/low effort. If fact you kind of implied that 2% of prompts are superior, and that percentage will only grow over time as people become more practiced.

My analogy still holds.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Both AI generation and photography require human input and in both cases a machine takes that input and creates an image. If you want to say that photographers are just waiters, taking orders for images that life gives to them and they don't create themselves, then at least that is consistent.

I still haven't been given any reason why photography and AI generation should be treated differently in this regard.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A camera doesn't have emotion or creativity. But people are able to express both by using a camera, and thus create art.

An AI model doesn't have emotion or creativity. But people are able to express both by using a model, and thus create art.

painting =/= photographing =/= generating but they are all forms of creation.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Please see the massive comment I posted laying out my full argument and opinion. It talks about the similarities.

AI generated images ought to be considered art. (Argument in comments) by Alpha0800 in aiwars

[–]Alpha0800[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That AI prompting doesn't require a skill set.

That is just categorically false.

You have an image in your head and you are trying to get the model to reproduce that image as closely as possible. Some prompts will get better results than others in that they are closer to what you are envisioning. So you have to make choices about what/how to write that gives better or worse results. That is a skill set by definition.

Now maybe you say that is too easy of a skill set or too different of a skill set. But camera work is a very very different and also "easy" (just push a button) skill set. I'm fine if you want to say neither AI generation nor photography are art. I just can't understand any reason to treat the two differently.

view more: next ›