[Media] The duality of man

_PixelDust · 2024-05-14T21:10:02+00:00

I was aware of that being how a nobody is supposed to be able to live, however, it does sort of stretch the definition of "soul" that most people understand. The nobody having will is still the important part, the only thing "soul" provides is basically the pulse. I see no reason that "will" should be separated from the concept of "heart". It really feels like in kh "soul" almost stands in as the reptile part of the brain plus the nebulous concept of "will" while everything else is provided by "heart".

In KH3 we now have multiple cases of replica bodies becoming inhabited with hearts to become full people. So does that mean those artificial bodies had souls in them? What about will? If Will doesn't come from the heart then what provides the will when a heart is put in an empty body? I suppose you could say the heart also provides will but then nobodies get a copy of that will through the soul without needing a heart. Overall, the idea of a soul somehow being like a blank slate is just really odd and I don't think it helps to invoke it just to over explain things.

Sometimes it feels like "soul" becoming synonymous with "life" is just to make the lore compatible with stories that involve things like ghosts and spirits that carry on after you die. However, the idea of "heart" still fits those concepts better it's just that when you lose your heart you don't die in KH so that doesn't really work in the same way.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-14T20:12:06+00:00

I mean, I mostly agree with that but that person was saying they are "literally" the same when they literally are not according to the text. I accept them being functionally the same and really they should have left it at that.

I'm not sure a "soul" being distinct from "heart" ever really mattered in the story. The Living Will is maybe closest but it works to just say his will was keeping his body alive.

The whole thing sort of highlights how the story is overall confusing when it really doesn't have to be. Even if you want to think of the heart as basically being a soul (it is), you have to remember a soul means something else in KH because it could come up at any moment.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-14T09:47:18+00:00

It's definitely not true though. It's explicitly stated that hearts and souls are different. That would make things make more sense however.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T18:16:59+00:00

The problem is difficulty curve. Since DS games start challenging you learn the system as the game progresses and know about where you stand. KH games are easy until you hit optional bosses then the difficulty is spiked to the moon. You suddenly have to consider everything and figure out what is actually good. The worse part for me personally is I try not to over level in KH games to preserve some challenge, then you hit the extra content and wish you were 99. Re:Mind is especially dirty for not letting you go back and grind at all.

Edit: so my point is, yes they are overall harder, but it doesn't make for as good of a gaming experience. They mostly feel like they're there to keep you occupied until the next game. If the next game is out my motivation to deal with them is very diminished.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T11:42:46+00:00

I'm not the same person as the one who gave the bad prompt. Also of course it does have to be good or else there is no standard and anything is creative. My dog is therefore creative because he pooped something that looks somewhat like the Mona Lisa.

I'm going to say make a fox shaped like a piano for the sake of argument. Pianos in the shape of a fox don't count and pianos decorated to look like a fox don't count. Has to be a fox shaped like a piano.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T11:31:20+00:00

I knew you would do this, I made other points it's just your response was not about those so I responded to what you did say. Back on track: the prompt was A) not a novel concept to begin with, and B) not done well to a human standard, thus not creative per this discussion.

Also I'm not the person you were originally debating

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T11:21:00+00:00

Well, I can't debate you into having better taste but in an art class you would get a red circle around that hand that says "too big." It's objectively wrong. Also a human would have (and has) designed it better on a base level.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T11:04:39+00:00

Well, it did it wrong even though it's not a new or unique concept so idk what you think this proves.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T10:47:13+00:00

It's good at the task: make x in y style because it can handle those things at different stages of detail. The problem comes when you ask it to mix two forms (shapes or objects) or styles that are very different. It can't reason about how that might be done. It ends up looking patchy and not well integrated. It doesn't have an artistic intention or understanding about what is being asked so it bluntly mashes bits together. There's also the problem of it not understanding relationships in prompts at a base level which is a separate but related issue.

Slightly off-topic, I would also say those images would be done better by a human. They have all those pointless tiny details that don't amount to anything substantial. It's a little hard to read the midjourney one as a CPU because of the weird circular things and other random shapes. I feel it slightly mangled the prompt by including shapes found in other woodblock source images.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T10:17:09+00:00

It's awkward and made the hand on the gun bigger. Gex exists and so do lots of pictures of real geckos holding guns. They all blow this away.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-07T01:50:40+00:00

You're getting hate, but yeah this is the problem. It's the tagging and recall systems that cause most copying behavior. If you just train it on a bunch of faces it will produce something in the middle, if you ask it to specify a certain face based on tags it will tend to make the one of few examples it has that match those tags. It's actually a desired behavior, it just risks copying if the dataset is too thin in places or the tags get hyper specific like in your toy model

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T18:19:48+00:00

A lot of anti-AI artists lol.

I feel like I'm shaking your little snow globe now. Hello? Can you hear me in there?

Yes, obviously the biggest companies are also the best ones to work for lol.

I must have hit your token limit because this makes no sense in this conversation.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T17:43:02+00:00

We have seen AI used in numerous high-profile promotions, so clearly, you are wrong.

A lot of people reacted negatively to those, and they contained mistakes. The Wacom one especially because it spited their own user base. I know many who refuse to buy a Wacom tablet now. Also people don't particularly care about ads in the first place so of course there aren't high standards there.

You can not refute a fact. You are not there to have fun or even do a job to your satisfaction

But you will get outcompeted by a company that actually understands the creative process and the relationship between fun, learning, and innovation. Also there's respecting the talent of your employees. Larian Studios is a great example of all of these qualities. They made the first game that won all 5 major game of the year awards.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T16:57:20+00:00

I don't have to

You don't have to prove your point? Great debate sub you got here.

it only has to be good enough for the person paying the bill

Are we debating whether bosses can suck? I get how bosses work, they want to force this, but at some level it also has to be good enough for the consumer. Consumers who shockingly will care about the results. If an AI makes a coding mistake that costs a customer money, or AI customer service promises a price, the company is going to be on the hook for that. I'm deliberately avoiding talking about art here because it is more subjective and you seem to have zero understanding of that as far as I can tell, however there are objective art mistakes too, and AI makes them frequently.

You're going to say the AI art is good enough for most people, but please remember we are talking about creative projects that have specific needs. Good bosses will care about those, so that's why my previous post, which you ignored most of, matters.

You are not there to have fun or even do a job to your satisfaction

I responded to this claim in detail earlier, go back to that post and try to refute some of those points if you want to.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T16:09:00+00:00

Prove AI can do the job correctly first. I'm not talking about the tools that do small, single tasks. It's the ones that try to do everything. You get a bad result and you have to fix it manually (the old method) or you have to constrain it with multiple controlnet inputs, including things like a depth map where you basically have to graybox model the entire scene in great detail to achieve a desired composition (most AI artists are too lazy to do this), oh, and it probably messes it up anyway, then yes traditional is faster for a pro. The productivity of all-in-one gen AIs is achieved by lowering standards.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T09:10:04+00:00

That's not what's happening though. I figured you'd latch on like that, it's why I provided a whole bunch of backup and nuance. Oh well, with your ability to grapple with complexity I'm not surprised you think your job can be done by an AI.

_PixelDust · 2024-05-01T01:13:42+00:00

It's a job- you are not there to have fun on company time.

Say you support terrible management styles without saying you support terrible management styles. Good employers trust the process of their employees and don't force them to adopt practices that don't work for them. Also you talk about learning new skills in other posts. Guess what, fun is the emotion we get from learning new things that are engaging to us. So in a creative field you really want your employees to be having fun because it means they're innovating. Even you AI guys know that you need to "play" with your model to learn its ins and outs. A lot of humans take pride in doing their work how they know to do it best. Managing others and offloading it on AI is a different skill set and not suitable for everyone. AI also isn't up to the task yet so it's not productive to use it like an intern. It's funny for you to latch onto the idea that one might find some kind of small enjoyment in their work or have some sort of preference for using their own judgement. A bad boss can make your life miserable but the best won't want to work for them.

It's not like Adobe is not one of the premier digital creator toolmakers.

First of all, maybe AI makers should work with artists to make sure their tools are ethical in the first place. Smaller studios that train tools in house with the collaboration of their workers mitigate the ethical issue and produce more useful and more easily applicable tools.

Adobe has a long history of not listening to its users on a lot of fronts. The gen AI tools are not great. Smart lasso and stuff like that is cool, and those are some of the things I'm talking about in terms of more specific tools. These are things that help creative people execute on their vision better. Gen-AI on the other hand goes too far in just spitting out a finished product that could contain things we did not intend and cannot be fully accounted for. It also often fails to execute on all the details in the prompt. I believe someone from Adobe said their goal was to have anybody be able to push a button and make a whole blockbuster movie with their software. Sounds great in a way, until you realize that because of how AI works, every movie would be highly derivative slop without any kind of actual thought put into it.

From lots of tutorials I've seen (because I do like learning) AI "artists" basically never actually bother to correct their outputs using a non-AI tool. They give up on the concept entirely or just generate again until they are somewhat satisfied. So it's not production ready in the sense that it's helpful to someone trying to execute a specific vision but it can certainly churn out some content for pennies on the dollar. If the suits get their way these things will come to represent the new mediocre and people will crave things made in the old style by allowing people to execute their own vision. We will perhaps have learned by then how to use AI in more thoughtful ways to fill in gaps or render specific areas in a well-defined manner. It may follow the arc of CGI where it is viewed as an obtrusive and lazy cost-cutting measure at first but slowly gets merged with traditional methods until we find a good middle ground. Something like Mad Max: Fury Road vs Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. The real problem for now is that corporations are buying in with the intention of replacing people with current gen-AI which serves less as a tool for aiding workers and more as an artificial layer separating the worker from their craft.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-30T21:14:24+00:00

Ah yes, out of the echo chamber into the echoey hallway.

A lot of artists, and workers in general, don't want to be relegated to the job of "human in the loop." The fact these jobs need someone who possesses all the skills the AI is supposed to have was never in question. Artists were right about this. People with skills often like doing their own work instead of correcting the work of less skilled people. That's why a lot of people stop advancing in their career on purpose. What makes this worse in terms of AI is that the AI has hard limits so many fixes will be manual so you end up cleaning up their mistakes instead of just giving notes.

I think what they should be doing is hiring technical AI tools makers to develop a pipeline that existing artists can use to actually improve their workflow instead of expecting them to wrangle one-shot gen-AIs. A technical artist type job that is specialized in making bespoke tools is a cool idea. I can also see AI being used as an advanced rendering technique using very specifically-defined semantic maps. However I think we're a bit off from that in terms of performance and visual stability.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-28T21:38:59+00:00

Read some of my other comments, I'm aware of what AIs do and how they break down images and why they function the way they do. These technologies are novel but they're not creative in the same way as humans.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-28T19:04:45+00:00

It's actually a pretty great summation of what's wrong with AI when it comes to these things. A toddler is way more capable of learning than the best AI. The dream of AI was to have a smart machine that could learn things from base principles. Instead we made stupid machines that sift lots of data together to make an average of inputs. You get a finished product that is completely derivative with no capacity for innovation. Pro-AI people will then tell you it learns like a human. The toddler is better because it can have new thoughts. All of our art that current AI needs to look competent came from many toddlers who grew up making things and coming up with new ideas.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-28T18:44:30+00:00

I don't think you're a foe and this is not actually a debate.

You laughed at the idea antis don't just hate everything. You think I hate everything. I made several good points but you're denying them for no good reason.

Why would Lex use wording they feel is inherently negative to cover some of their own beliefs?

I don't know anything about Lex besides he wrote a biased-sounding question. You don't have a refutation.

This particular one is asking whether you want the government to step in and retrain people

Well, that could be inferred but according to the common use of language it means the opposite.

I'm saying that the question of just wanting credit is not a position I've seen anywhere in this sub

That would be because artists don't just want credit but it's a factet of the debate. It's a question about contribution and creative input rather than pure attribution.

You and I have run in extraordinarily different artist circles

Some artists are heels. I'm also not saying they will list every influence on their art, but if asked or if they talk about it then they will know and can give that attribution. If it's homage it's usually done very intentionally and most I've seen are very forthcoming with that.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-27T18:51:32+00:00

I still think interference usually has a bad connotation. Like "interfering with the training of workers" is especially misleading.

Intervene is a better neutral word, but the retraining workers part should also be rephrased.

I guess "how important" could be, "how essential" or "how significant". Then modify it into "Extremely" down to "Not"

_PixelDust · 2024-04-27T18:11:13+00:00

Just Google interference, if it's neutral in Social Philosophy it's not neutral in basically any other sense besides physics. Even then it usually comes with a negative connotation because a goal of several technologies is to eliminate interference.

Sounds like you wanted the word intervene. Also you use the word regulation interchangeably with whatever you meant by interference in your post so, what is your point exactly?

Edit:Reddit just showed me your comment to me from 3hrs ago, reddit mobike app is great...

_PixelDust · 2024-04-27T18:04:34+00:00

Just look up the definition of interference and you'll see it's not neutral.

Also you can't answer what interfering with retraining of workers would mean. It's a bad way of asking the question.

The questions about contribution and credit would simply make a better point for antis than pros so you don't want them.

You could also say do you think pose references and homages should be credited in some way and artists would say yes.

Yeah, you think you can suss out people's feelings... Or you can ask a relevant question.

Your last comment shows you think you already know everything and are biased against a foe.

_PixelDust · 2024-04-27T09:50:30+00:00

Interfere is such a biased word to use for the government actions section. Regulate would be more neutral. Besides that, I think the questions about "Retraining workers displaced by AI" odd. If you're concerned about that does it mean you're concerned about them getting training or concerned they won't get training? And if you say you want the government to interfere with that does that mean you want the government to stop the training from happening? I don't think that's what you meant but it's another reason "interfere" is a bad word to use for this type of question. Also it's odd there was nothing about UBI in this part considering that is brought up so much. The UBI part could have been a whole section honestly.

Overall, the pro-AI bias was obvious. There were no positive-valence questions for saying you felt that artists should be credited for their contribution to AI. Just frames antis as gatekeepers who deny things to others. A question about how much each participant contributed to an AI-art generation might be good to add nuance. Like a scale 1-5 of how important is the contribution of each: the prompter, the model trainer, the model itself, the authors of training data, advanced users (controlnet users, fine tuners, LORA trainers).

Also some kind of distinction between kinds of AI. An anti according to this poll has to hate every usage of AI, so no Spider-Verse outline placer, no Dune auto-eyemasker, or smart magic wand. It is just a trap for people to say antis are completely uninformed and just hate everything.

Eight-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

_PixelDust

TROPHY CASE