…care to contribute a link to their favorite site for an AI activity? I’d be really interested in seeing what’s out there, but the field is moving and growing so fast and search engines suck so hard that I know I’m missing out.

Cure my FOMO please!

  • Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
    175·
    1 year ago

    Yes, I had heard that. But isn’t all art? None of us is truly original. We are borrowing all the time. Even the greatest ones borrow.

    • Brkdncr@artemis.camp
      41·
      1 year ago

      You make a good point, which is why some art is considered really good only because it’s unique. A lot of art is decent but derivative.

    • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      76·
      1 year ago

      Except I’m a sentient being; these so-called “AI” programs aren’t actually sentient. They have no self-awareness. It’s just a stream of IF/THEN statements with no actual awareness of said art.

      I feel that’s the difference. I have nothing against non-human art as a principle. When these “A.I.” programs actually gain self-awareness and then create art, then I will gladly consider it genuine art.

      • Perfide@reddthat.com
        82·
        1 year ago

        I really don’t care if it’s “genuine” art or not. If it looks cool, it looks cool.

      • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
        61·
        1 year ago

        It’s just a stream of IF/THEN statements with no actual awareness of said art.

        Just like your brain neurons.

        You’re comparing different things. That’s not a valid, good-faith comparison.

        Conscience arises from a complex system. Just like generative data does - to a different degree.

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          12·
          1 year ago

          Except I’m self-aware. I have my own identity. These AI programs aren’t true AI. They aren’t self-aware; they don’t have a distinct identity. One could argue that’s really the only thing that separates an artist from a box with gears in it.

      • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
        72·
        1 year ago

        There is not a single if/else in a neural network. You are confusing it with decision trees that are used for classification

        • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          11·
          1 year ago

          Could you please explain? I don’t think I understand.

          Isn’t every neural network, even the one(s) in our brain, just complicated “If A, then B” statements. Even just

          “Given Image 1, Image 2, and Image 3, generate Image 4 by mixing them together according to Criteria 1 and 2”

          would be equivalent to saying

          IF((Image1, Image2, Image3) AND (Criterion1, Criterion2)),

          THEN(Image4)

          , would it not? :/

           

          Edit: A word.

          • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
            21·
            1 year ago

            No, what you describe is a basic decision tree. Let’s say the simplest possible ML algorithm, but it is not used as is in practice anywhere. Usually you find “forests” of more complex trees, and they cannot be used for generation, but are very powerful for labeling or regression (eli5 predict some number).

            Generative models are based on multiple transformations of images or sentences in extremely complex, nested chains of vector functions, that can extract relevant information (such as concepts, conceptual similarities, and so on).

            In practice (eli5), input is transformed in a vector and passed to a complex chain of vector multiplications and simple mathematical transformations until you get an output that in the vast majority of cases is original, i.e. not present in the training data. Non original outputs are possible in case of few “issues” in the training dataset or training process (unless explicitly asked).

            In our brain there are no if/else, but electrical signals modulated and transformed, which is conceptually more similar to the generative models than to a decision tree.

            In practice however our brain works very differently than generative models

            • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              1·
              1 year ago

              I’m gonna be honest: I’m still rather confused. While I do now understand that perhaps our brains work differently than typical neural networks (or at least generative neural networks?), I do not yet comprehend how. But your explanation is a starting point. Thanks for that.

              • Zeth0s@lemmy.world
                21·
                1 year ago

                In the easiest example of a neuron in a artificial neural network, you take an image, you multiply every pixel by some weight, and you apply a very simple non linear transformation at the end. Any transformation is fine, but usually they are pretty trivial. Then you mix and match these neurons to create a neural network. The more complex the task, the more additional operations are added.

                In our brain, a neuron binds some neurotransmitters that trigger a electrical signal, this electrical signal is modulated and finally triggers the release of a certain quantity of certain neurotransmitters on the other extreme of the neuron. Detailed, quantitative mechanisms are still not known. These neurons are put together in an extremely complex neural network, details of which are still unknown.

                Artificial neural network started as an extremely coarse simulation of real neural networks. Just toy models to explain the concept. Since then, they diverged, evolving in a direction completely unrelated to real neural network, becoming their own thing.

          • セリャスト@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            1·
            1 year ago

            I would like to add that if it were the case, that generative image “AIs” were if/else statement, they could not run on graphics cards, that are optimized for the same raw matrix calculations repeated on a lot of variables. If it was just if/else statement, they wouldn’t need to do all the vector calculations stuff.

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Generative art allows more people to communicate with others in ways they couldn’t before, and to inspire and be inspired by others. The stuff people post online still requires creativity, curiosity, experimentation, and refinement. It also requires learning how to use new skills they may not have had to effectively use new tools that are rapidly evolving and improving to express themselves. Generative art is not a passive process, but an active one, where human artists get a chance to create something unique and meaningful.

        Think of it like a camera that that can navigate the multidimensional latent space filled with concepts that can give rise to novel digital art. In the real world you can up, down, left, right, in or out, but in a latent space not only can you go those places, you can go to where Muppets meets impasto. Like a camera, sometimes none of the things you capture are made by you, but you still choose how it’s captured and presented.

        You have a lot in common with Charles Baudelaire, even though you’re a hundred years apart from eachother.

        As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not wish to believe, in the absolute success of such a brutish conspiracy, in which, as in all others, one finds both fools and knaves; but I am convinced that the ill-applied developments of photography, like all other purely material developments of progress, have contrib­uted much to the impoverishment of the French artistic genius, which is already so scarce. It is nonetheless obvious that this industry, by invading the territories of art, has become art’s most mor­tal enemy, and that the confusion of their several func­tions prevents any of them from being properly fulfilled.

        -Charles Baudelaire, On Photography, from The Salon of 1859

        I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should. Generative art introduces new ways to fail that no one is ready for, so if you see someone post some malformed monstrosity somewhere, cut them some slack, they’re just learning. Remember there’s another person on the other end of the internet that was excited to share with you.

        Remember: It costs nothing to encourage an artist, and the potential benefits are staggering. A pat on the back to an artist now could one day result in your favorite film, or the cartoon you love to get stoned watching, or the song that saves your life. Discourage an artist, you get absolutely nothing in return, ever.

        ― Kevin Smith, Tough Shit: Life Advice from a Fat, Lazy Slob Who Did Good