It's fun to see Daniel Solis on the channel! He won't remember this, but I met him at a gaming event at a museum in Durham, North Carolina, where he was demoing "Belle of the Ball," and also had copies of "Kiji" and "Koi Pond." I didn't have any clue about UA-cam or the gaming industry at the time, but I remember thinking what he was doing was so cool. My assessment has not changed. Nice discussion. :)
Thank you again, Jason, for putting together a good discussion! I loved the contributions from both Daniel and Chris! I am still concerned with the point of what I believe lies in between the two types of art that Daniel mentioned of gallery art and commercial art, which is an important distinction, even though as he said, of course, there is an overlap. I really wish we valued more in the discussions of this topic the human emotional process in creating art, which is not only still valuable in commercial art, but it is a crucial element in everything that is called art, even if faint or even if a software can immitate it. I have the impression that that is also significantly missed in the discussions about human vs. machine learning. Is it maybe that in our efforts to be objective we overlook the romanticism of art as superfluous or ephemeral, ignoring its contributions to the end products? What do you think? Also, this gap between non-artists defining what is art vs. artists is very old, this impression that others don't get what it is to grow as an artist, to then equal it to machine learning in this case, is unsettling but also very old and this is flourishing in that gap, with a "little" incentive of dollar signs.
Like so many artisans before us...carpenters, potterers, seamstresses, and countless others...who have faded into the past, this will prove a very difficult time. While there's no chance of putting the djinni back in the bottle, it will require a serious conversation on how we proceed. As always, it's a great discussion.
When a human is inspired, the similar work can be intentional homage and have weight behind the output. There is meaning conveyed in the act of homage. A computer isn't doing any of that. It's just brute force using. It's the difference between asking to borrow a hammer and stealing it. Both acts look very similar - but humans know why one is wrong.
When tech enthusiasts invoke the Luddites, they don't realize that the Luddites were absolutely correct. Their actual complaint was not that technology is bad. Their complaint was that the owners of the technology are not going to share the wealth generated by the productivity. It's fine to say that society kept going... but it also became a late stage capitalist hellscape because the way people use technology is what really matters. The Fryx family isn't exactly doing harm with their decision... but their decision at scale will be devastating.
@@revimfadli4666 No. That's just consumption. The system exists to brute force other people's work devoid of intentionality. If I designed a system where one could ask the machine to take a penny from everyone on Earth and then a user prompted the machine to do that - but in a more specific and targeted way - is that user doing anything creative with the tool designed to take money from people? How are prompts and inputs any different than just commissioning a cheaper artist to recreate the work of a more established artist? Generative AI is just the "cheapest artist" at the bottom. Ironically, it's vastly more expensive and controlled by people that already have enough wealth and power to build it in the first place. Ask yourself why they would want to build it? What profit is there in being the "cheapest copycat" at vast expense? Some have suggested the point is to seize control of the culture. If the sum of our cultural, artistic expression has to be run through their machine, then they control the culture and can shape society. Just look at UA-cam itself. Ask any big UA-cam creator how many hoops they have to jump through to produce their work - but also why they jump through those hoops anyway. These systems (monopolies) are designed to reinforce and justify their own existence.
@@gargrazz well the fact that you came up with the idea to take money from people was itself a human creative process wasn't it? If you can't differentiate between merely recreating a replica of established works, vs prompts which have been wildly out of the box, then you're just proving your lack of creativity or effort in coming up with good ideas. Do you recall Pixar ever making those cursed movies that were "recreated" by memes?
![React Tutorial For Beginners [ReactJS] | ReactJS Course | ReactJS For Beginners | Intellipaat](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9vZ8ELqerPo/mqdefault.jpg)
![React Tutorial For Beginners [ReactJS] | ReactJS Course | ReactJS For Beginners | Intellipaat](/img/tr.png)
It's fun to see Daniel Solis on the channel! He won't remember this, but I met him at a gaming event at a museum in Durham, North Carolina, where he was demoing "Belle of the Ball," and also had copies of "Kiji" and "Koi Pond." I didn't have any clue about UA-cam or the gaming industry at the time, but I remember thinking what he was doing was so cool. My assessment has not changed. Nice discussion. :)
Thank you again, Jason, for putting together a good discussion! I loved the contributions from both Daniel and Chris! I am still concerned with the point of what I believe lies in between the two types of art that Daniel mentioned of gallery art and commercial art, which is an important distinction, even though as he said, of course, there is an overlap. I really wish we valued more in the discussions of this topic the human emotional process in creating art, which is not only still valuable in commercial art, but it is a crucial element in everything that is called art, even if faint or even if a software can immitate it. I have the impression that that is also significantly missed in the discussions about human vs. machine learning. Is it maybe that in our efforts to be objective we overlook the romanticism of art as superfluous or ephemeral, ignoring its contributions to the end products? What do you think? Also, this gap between non-artists defining what is art vs. artists is very old, this impression that others don't get what it is to grow as an artist, to then equal it to machine learning in this case, is unsettling but also very old and this is flourishing in that gap, with a "little" incentive of dollar signs.
Like so many artisans before us...carpenters, potterers, seamstresses, and countless others...who have faded into the past, this will prove a very difficult time. While there's no chance of putting the djinni back in the bottle, it will require a serious conversation on how we proceed. As always, it's a great discussion.
Great discussion, as always, Jason! 💯 Salient Points 🎲
When a human is inspired, the similar work can be intentional homage and have weight behind the output. There is meaning conveyed in the act of homage. A computer isn't doing any of that. It's just brute force using. It's the difference between asking to borrow a hammer and stealing it. Both acts look very similar - but humans know why one is wrong.
The courts are 100% going to funk this up so bad.
When tech enthusiasts invoke the Luddites, they don't realize that the Luddites were absolutely correct. Their actual complaint was not that technology is bad. Their complaint was that the owners of the technology are not going to share the wealth generated by the productivity. It's fine to say that society kept going... but it also became a late stage capitalist hellscape because the way people use technology is what really matters. The Fryx family isn't exactly doing harm with their decision... but their decision at scale will be devastating.
Does this apply to the human paying homage through inputs, prompts etc into the system?
@@revimfadli4666 No. That's just consumption. The system exists to brute force other people's work devoid of intentionality. If I designed a system where one could ask the machine to take a penny from everyone on Earth and then a user prompted the machine to do that - but in a more specific and targeted way - is that user doing anything creative with the tool designed to take money from people? How are prompts and inputs any different than just commissioning a cheaper artist to recreate the work of a more established artist?
Generative AI is just the "cheapest artist" at the bottom. Ironically, it's vastly more expensive and controlled by people that already have enough wealth and power to build it in the first place. Ask yourself why they would want to build it? What profit is there in being the "cheapest copycat" at vast expense? Some have suggested the point is to seize control of the culture. If the sum of our cultural, artistic expression has to be run through their machine, then they control the culture and can shape society. Just look at UA-cam itself. Ask any big UA-cam creator how many hoops they have to jump through to produce their work - but also why they jump through those hoops anyway. These systems (monopolies) are designed to reinforce and justify their own existence.
@@gargrazz well the fact that you came up with the idea to take money from people was itself a human creative process wasn't it?
If you can't differentiate between merely recreating a replica of established works, vs prompts which have been wildly out of the box, then you're just proving your lack of creativity or effort in coming up with good ideas. Do you recall Pixar ever making those cursed movies that were "recreated" by memes?
Hi, a new tcg is coming out, Altered, I would love to have you cover it. It's a non-violent inclusive take on tcg's !
If it has solo or coop, then contact us over at OSCS!