Isn't that what we all are? We see things, learn things then recombobulate them into something we call original.
The AI Future of Trek
- Thread starter ernie90125
- Start date
Isn't that what we all are? We see things, learn things then recombobulate them into something we call original.
Personally, my experience of AI is that I like to click the button to see what comes out, but when someone else tries to show me what it made for them I really don't care. I want to see the art they made themselves, not what a computer did for them.
I'm not even talking about ethics here, or creatives getting put out of a job because some executive finds creativity too expensive, which are some pretty big concerns! Even apart from that, I just don't care about AI art unless I typed the prompt myself. It's like someone showing me the awesome pebbles they found on the beach. That's great, except you didn't do anything, they don't mean anything, and I can find my own pebbles.
I'm not even talking about ethics here, or creatives getting put out of a job because some executive finds creativity too expensive, which are some pretty big concerns! Even apart from that, I just don't care about AI art unless I typed the prompt myself. It's like someone showing me the awesome pebbles they found on the beach. That's great, except you didn't do anything, they don't mean anything, and I can find my own pebbles.
AI doesn’t seem able to do that, though. It lacks the human ability to throw multiple things in a thought blender to spit out something different.
Yet. I remember drawing lots of known TV and movie spaceships, before creating my own.
I did the same. AI can’t do that on its own, however.
Yet. It is still very much in its infancy.
As I said in an AI art thread ages ago, I used to draw the Enterprise and didn't ask anyone's permission to do so. It's taken for granted that humans learn by copying. The issue is that AI can copy and remember exactly so it's remixes tend to be far more on point than those of a 5 year old.
In my perspective, a human sees, learns, recombobuates, and calls it original. But with a human, this recombobulation is based upon:
-this particular human's view
-their experiences
-their likes and dislikes
and all the other things that make this human themself.
An AI just straight-up takes stuff, mixes it together arbitrarily and calls it a day.
That's a brand-new sentence.
Not familiar with Robert Heinlein's work?That's a brand-new sentence.
No. Looked who that is up and can't find how this author is relevant to me calling 'A flat cat would disembowl a fucking tribble' a brand new sentence.
So which scenario is more genuine and artistically creative?:
1. A singer writes a book about his life and experiences. Feeds it to an AI to help create a song. Makes a few changes to it and releases it.
2. Gets his business partner and song writer to develop the lyrics. The song has nothing to do with the singer's philosophy and is crafted solely to sell records and downloads.
I would argue option 1 is much more pure to the human spirit despite being reliant on A.I.
1. A singer writes a book about his life and experiences. Feeds it to an AI to help create a song. Makes a few changes to it and releases it.
2. Gets his business partner and song writer to develop the lyrics. The song has nothing to do with the singer's philosophy and is crafted solely to sell records and downloads.
I would argue option 1 is much more pure to the human spirit despite being reliant on A.I.
It's the second one.
Well, relevant to this discussion David Gerrold ripped of Heinlein's flat cats from "Rolling Stones."No. Looked who that is up and can't find how this author is relevant to me calling 'A flat cat would disembowl a fucking tribble' a brand new sentence.
'Star Trek's' Famous "Tribble" Episode Was a Sweet Ripoff
The little furry alien balls who make adorable noises have achieved legendary status among famous sci-fi creatures. But did you know they were kind of a ripoff?
How so? I would also pose this question to Victoria who liked your response.
Similar threads
