…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!

  • man_in_space@kbin.social
    2·
    2 年前

    There is no functional difference other than the fact that a computer is doing it. It analyzes the common features of the source(s), determines how to square that with the prompt, and generates the image.

    We already have machines that invent things for us. A machine that makes art is no different on first principles.

    • EveryMuffinIsNowEncrypted@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      1·
      2 年前

      AI as a tool is not what I object to; what I object to is merely using AI to lazily slap together content without actually having creativity be the onus behind it, and then calling it art on the same level of art that does.

      In short, there has to be an artist for something to be art; and for there to be an artist, there must be creativity, which requires sentience. Whether that sentience is from a true AI or a human is irrelevant, as long as it is there. If there is no creativity behind the “art”, then generative AI in this case is not a paintbrush, but an assembly box pumping out bobbles.