How about people who need a camera to create their art? Are they less of an artist than a painter?
I’m sick and tried of people re-hashing a discussion that has been settled for almost two centuries. Yes, photography can be art. There’s art in how you use the tool. Not all people making photographs are artists or are even out to create art, and then it isn’t art, and that’s also fine. Why are people having such an issue applying the same to AI as a tool, saying not “Your shit sucks because it’s AI” but “Your shit sucks because you’re a hack”.
Cameraman is an artist, he does way better than ai piss bro to master his art genre.
It’s 2025 and you don’t know why AI sucks? At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it, you had time to develop critical thinking.
How about using AI-assisted tool in creating your art?
I’m a professional underwater photographer who teaches the subject at a university as a side job. I teach my students to hover underwater on scuba without stirring up the bottom to get the perfect shots. They’re having to control their buoyancy, adjust camera settings and lighting, frame their shots, and more. It’s extremely difficult, detailed work to get an underwater photo.
Does the fact they use lightroom and AI de-noising filters invalidate all that work?
Technical aside all generative AI is denoising. At least all diffusion models, don’t really know the tech behind the rest.
Models made for generation will be able to denoise complete noise, reading things into it, but will also be able to only denoise a little bit. Models made for denoising might lack the capacity and training for a complete denoise to be faster, but ultimately it’s still the same technology.
Is everyone who ever took generative AI for a spin an “AI piss bro”?
I won’t, for a millisecond, deny that there’s a fuckton of AI piss bros who wouldn’t be able to see artistic intent if it kicked them in the head. They write a random prompt, hit “generate” and declare it art, and yes of course that’s all thoughtless garbage. But it’s also perfectly possible to take thoughtless photographs, that doesn’t mean that all photographs are thoughtless garbage, or all photographers “photography piss bros”.
At this point all I can recommend for you is to ask ai about it,
So you can more confidently dismiss me as an ai piss bro, I presume. Certainly would make not engaging with the argument easier.
Back to rock, huh?
i say this as nicely as I can, you dont need expensive and exploitative algorithms to make art. i dont really care if you say you cant make anything, put a pen to paper and draw. your terrible scribble has infinitely more value than anything a tech company’s software can generate using stolen data. and after you crumple that up and throw it away, get another sheet of paper and do it again, and again, until your wrist snaps apart, and I guarantee you will not only have learned something about yourself but you will be more of an artist than any tech bro using chatgpt
People use AI for making “art” not because of their lack of ability to create art per se, but they use it rather as a way to cut costs in their commercial projects and skip contracting real artists. This is why it’s malicious. I wouldn’t care if somoeone uses it for pure, private leisure.
I get the message and agree but busty dragoness is not an art lol let’s be honest here. It’s a well crafted image
It never ceases to amaze me that nsfw goon creators think of themselves as artists
Just cause you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it not art. Art is anything created by an organic being that relays a mood or a message wether it be intentional or not.
Art is something that conveys some message and meaning. Gooning is just opposite
Cmon you surely realise that these nsfw furry commissioners cannot be called artists.
Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.
Organic being is also wrong btw. Sentient instead.
On the most basic level art is means of communication.
As you can see portrait of big tiddy dino waifu on porn site has no message nor communicates anything. There is no meaning to it. There could be but there isn’t. Though OP picture actually communicates something so it is an art in this example, meta art
“art can’t be erotic” is some stupid american conservative puritan take.
I mean if you call a dino with huge tits an art then you are only embarrassing yourself
There is nothing about bahonka honkas on a reptilian that immediately disqualify it from being art. You can have tremendous brushwork, lighting or technique on your scaly porn.
Besides if it manages an emotional response it’s art. Getting you horny is an emotional response.
Not really lol. Please, no one sane would consider dino with a dick an art. What kind of bubble are you in? Some kind of coomer circles maybe but those people are not to be taken seriously
You would be ridiculed at any art institution mercilessly if you made it as some sort of bachelors. Actually I want to see it lol
If the rule is “emotional response except for THAT ONE, eww” its not really an rule. Its some puritan bullshit.
I never said it was high art, it still qualifies as art.
Is a brazzers porn director an artist? If your definition says he is then it is a wrong definition.
Usually it’s not a very high standard but it is a standard, and even without getting into proper erotica and staying with pulp: Lemon stealing whores exist. Even Gonzo in itself is a choice, breaking through the traditional structure, opting to completely eradicate the fourth wall, the pretence. I bet it takes quite some skill to portray the fantasy of being a camera man on a porn set vs. the reality of it.
Art is not like enlightenment, it’s more like meditation. You don’t need to be good at it to be doing it.
On the most basic level art is means of communication.
Nope that’d be language (in whatever form). The core of art is intent. It’s the science of subjective choice, there’s no requirement to be intersubjective. It can be just you and the medium, and that medium can even be yourself, c.f. ars vivendi. Plenty of philosophers are artists.
I disagree
With all of what I said? Damn.
With your definitions everything becomes an art. Even painting your walls and baking bread hence it must be incorrect definition as obviously not everything is an art. There is a difference between craft and an art. You can be a good crafter of nsfw images but that doesn’t mean you are an artist.
Craft is about objective, not subjective, choice. Craft is saying “The wall of this mug needs to be thicker or I won’t have enough clay to trim the surface smooth”. Art is saying “I’d like to do some more experiments with copper inclusions, they tickle my aesthetic sense”. Sorry I watched a lot of Florian Gadsby lately.
The creation of a bread recipe often involves art, it is a conversation between your personal taste and the medium. Figuring out how to bake 100 of those a day in a reliable, reproducible manner, is craft. Different bakers land on different points on that spectrum. It’s no different with goon artists, but they probably all have created a recipe or two.
“Nothing will stop real artists from making art.”
Exactly. AI images are not going to eliminate art. They just make it more difficult for artists to compete under capitalism.
The solution is to abandon capitalism. Not stop tech development.
Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first.
How do you believe the idiom applies here? They’re not shitting in their hands. They’re actually building it.
I meant in response to your solution of abandoning capitalism. Not that I wouldn’t be overjoyed that we’ve done so but we’ve shown no real effort to impede it’s continuous infection.
I’d rather we not fuck over artists in the meantime.
Fuck over artists vs fuck over artists and everyone. How about some simple regulation and laws to cope with the new technology maybe?
Art is inherent in us. Just like the need to put boobs on mythical lizard creatures.
Drawing boobs is second only to the instinct to draw cocks.
If that Heavy Metal episode of South Park has taught me anything, it’s that everything looks better with boobs.
“real art”. Gatekeeping art now, are we?
Lemmy users are notoriously delicate. They cannot survive outside heavily moderated and curated online spaces.
Hence, gatekeeping is a needed tactic to ensure these spaces were they thrive keep a metastatic state.
In fact, a common practice in Lemmy is to gatekeep subjective experiences, like humor, art, memes, taste in music, movies or games.
You name it, you will have dozens of users telling you that “no, in actual fact, your subjective experience about <THING> is wrong, and has to conform to mine, or else”
Yes.
Art is made by living things. Until AI is alive it cannot make art. Current models don’t fit the bill. That’s not saying that a far more advanced future AI couldn’t make art, but at present AI can’t make art.
And by what definition would an advanced AI be “alive” enough to create art?
When it can be proven to think for itself and not regurgitate what it thinks you want to hear. When it steps past lines of code, not as a façade or fascimile, but as its own being with its own goals and its own sense of realised existence.
If I may rephrase it: Art can be created by an AI only if it has agency and self-awareness (or, more general, conciousness).
Is that necessary though to create art?
Quite a loaded philosophical question, but an important one if we want to talk about the essence of art and the beings – either natural or artificial – that create it.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
By that definition, those without a (known) sense of self-awareness or conciousness, couldn’t. And yet, we can see behaviour that we would call “art”. Be it a bird, which mimicks sounds or invents a dance to impress females, or a fish that draws patterns into the sand for similar reasons.
Do you think animals, apart from humans, can create art?
I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s dolphin poetry. Most animals simply don’t seem to be able or interested, though, the development of art as a reflective practice (as in: the science of subjective choice) requires a lack of pre-programming, reliance on self-reprogramming, that’s mostly limited to humans as far as we’re aware.
Cats seem to like music in pretty much the same way as we like purring, as in: It resonates with them, but so far there’s no cat composers out there, reflecting the thrill and joy of the hunt in terms of music. I’d totally listen to that.
Removed by mod
Relevant Oglaf (NSFW but not nearly as NSFW as this comic often gets): Dimorphism
But why give a lizard boobs? They don’t have boobs!
Because it’s hot
It’s not a lizard.
It’s a dragon.
Dragons could have boobs, I’ve never seen one.
Because they don’t need no AI to sexually objectify women’s bodies!
That’s not a woman, that’s a dragoness.
Have you ever seen a giant, flying, fire breathing dragon IRL that didn’t have boobs?
That’s where the fire is stored
Warm cushions when not breathing fire
Non-mammals lacking mammary glands?! Say it ain’t so.
And the first thing that came to mind after typing that? Lobster-titties
Would they come in their own armoured bra?
I would pay to see Snake-tits.
I thought it was a meme…
I require a computer to create art. I suck at everything art related. Can’t draw, can’t paint, can’t play a musical instrument. If I have an image in my head, the best way to create it, for me, is to tell an AI what I want and then look through the results for what is closest to the image I had in my mind.
We all start out like that. There is no magic artist that “just paints it” or even draws it, it’s hours of training.
Folks, it’s not magic! Just get to it and you’ll get better. Copy other artists to learn styles and how to do things, and one day you’ll wake up with your own unique style that is just you.
You are less of an artist than the person comissioning an artist.
Haven’t seen this on here yet
I’ve seen it 3 times already.
Busty dragonesses are not art, but this is.
dra… dragonessi…dragoness…es
This is gonna confuse an archaeologist in a few millennia.
Archaeologists:
Archaeologists will just call it a ritualistic artifact. Like they already do with every piece of ancient porn they find.
Around the 2000’s a new pagan religion emerged, by the name of Furry. The believers of Furry followed human-animal hybrid spirits, often honoring them through depictions in the arts and even some costumes. A lot of these spirits might have been fertility gods.
Although we studied this acient relicts in great detail, we can not make sense out of the high representation of fertility related dieties in comparison to other typical deities i.e.war or hunting gods. A possible explanation could be a crisis of reproduction caused by the cost of living during this period of time.
ahaha the irony of them understanding the socioeconomic problems but not understand social subcultures like furries.
… actually, as big of a problem as social inequality is, I could see that.
Wanking: The Ritual
New on Steam!
And the movie will be called The Wankening with Mahk Wahlberg.
arouse
I’ve always been confused about this train of thought, because it seems to justify the opposite of what it’s trying to say.
I mean, if the argument is people will use whatever garbage they have on hand to make art… presumably that includes generative AI? Look, I lived through four decades of people making art out of ASCII. My bar for acceptance for this stuff is really low. You give people a thing that makes pictures in any way and you’ll get a) pictures of dicks and b) pictures of other things.
I don’t think GenAI will kill human art for the same reasons I don’t think AI art is even in competition with human art. I may be moved or impressed by a generated image, but it’ll be for different reasons and in different scales than I’m… eh… moved and impressed by hot dragon rock lady here. Just like I can be impressed by the artistry in a photo but not for the same reasons I’m impressed by an oil painting. Different media, different forms of expression, different skill sets.
In the absence of needing to use skills to make a living, I have no problem with AI art. In a hypothetical anarchist mutual aid society, people could make art with whatever methods they prefer. Some might create AI models to make art because they’re interested in that sort of thing. Others will make art in the traditional ways, also because they’re interested in that sort of thing. There doesn’t have to be tension between the two, and their basic needs are all there.
When people have to use their skills to make a living, though, then there’s a problem. So many of the places that were paying artists are now whipping something out with an AI model. That leaves artists without a way to cover their basic needs at all.
I don’t know how much that logic tracks, at least long term. And I don’t know that I’m going to be more inclined to be on the side of human labor over automation now when I wasn’t for garments, car manufacturing and other commodities. The John Henry of visual arts I am not.
I do have a couple of seemingly opposing but not contradictory points to add to that, though. One is that historically anti-automation, anti-industrialization movements have a pretty bad track record at succeeding. The other is that I think you’re giving “AI art” way too much credit. Small and medium-sized commissions may get impacted (I am on record saying that AI is the new “cousin who knows Photoshop” and I stand by it). For anything an actual professional needs to book and hire based on quality? Nah.
There may still be an impact on that high end, because I expect that generated elements will become a tool in an artist’s toolset more than anything else. That may speed work up and require fewer people, but not “leave artists without a way to cover basic needs” necessarily. Just like photography, just like CG, just like Photoshop and so on. There was doom and gloom around all of those as well, and hyperbolic claims from tech peddlers, too. Go look up some of the claims of early photography entrepeneurs about what the technology would eventually be able to do, some are hilarious.
I also expect sooner or later people will get good at spotting telltale machine-generation quirks and put additional value in organic, human-looking creative products. People are already misidentifying human art as AI art, artists will likely lean into that. Think vinyl into CDs back into vinyl or the premium on less processed foods more than… I don’t know, cars that don’t have rattling doors or whatever.
That’s a guess or a forecast, though. We’ll see where it goes.
When people have to use their skills to make a living, though, then there’s a problem.
Progress leaves many professions behind. It’s lamentable, but a price worth paying.
Which is nice to say when your profession isn’t the one on the chopping block.
I’m a programmer. It is.
I’m also a programmer. No, we’re not at risk.
Nothing will kill art itself, GenAI will simply be incorporated as another tool
Killing the ability to make money from art AND the bs that corporations are pulling in regards to AI, profit and making line go up is what people are mad about, but that anger is constantly misplaced leading to lines of thought like this lol
I believe this states the take many have - much like nobody batted an eye about auto-contrast, content-aware fill, or line smoothing. They weren’t trying to replace humans with programs, weren’t causing huge environmental impact, and weren’t trained on stolen content. It’s the ham-handed implementation that most are opposed to, combined with the obnoxious techbro mentality.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more. A good gen AI artist would also be a good prompt engineer, which would also mean an expanded skillset. Game developers, architects, engineers, could also speed up their work to hit the ground running instead of doing a bunch of repetitive stuff.
Everybody has to adapt to AI. Adapt or die, it’s quite simple.
You’re thinking of art in terms of a product. It’s not. Art is an expression of creativity. People drawn to it will do it just because they can. They make money from it because capitalism doesn’t give them many other opportunities to provide a basic living.
“Adapt or die” is a cute phrase when it’s not being applied to yourself.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not? Some people use paintbrushes, some people use computer aided design and let it be printed or built by others, some people use AI. Why aren’t those expressions of creativity?
Adapt or die is a fact of life. We all have to adapt to change, if I didn’t have to, I’d be perfect. I’m nowhere near perfect. Neither are artists.
Using AI to generate the things that are in my head is still an expression of creativity, is it not?
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Adapt or die is a fact of life
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
We do decide that. Because progress will not be stopped. If we’d let people’s jobs stand in the way of progress we’d still be picking berries naked in the woods.
Progress does not at all require an “adapt or die” mindset. Not at all. And it’d still be barbaric if we did. More barbaric than picking berries naked in the woods.
Yes. Not at the expense of other forms of art, though.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
Because you decided it is. Society does not have to be built that way.
I didn’t decide anything, it’s just life. Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works. That’s just evolution. You don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.
Which art forms are dying because of AI?
Maybe ask artists who have their work stolen to feed AI models that then take their job. Again, this is a problem because capitalism made it one.
Move or get left behind. It’s how nature works.
We are not nature. We can make different decisions besides brutal evolutionary pressure.
I don’t understand why generative AI will kill making money from art. As you said, it’s just a tool.
If an artist can make a web comic in a fraction of the time they used to, they can multiply their output and thus possibly sell to more.
You’re presenting the scenario of an artist using a tool to create more art. I think the concern is someone who would have hired an artist uses the tool themselves to make art instead of hiring the artist. Hence the comment @[email protected] made that GenAI won’t kill art, but it will kill the ability to make money from art.
This isn’t a new thing that just started with GenAI though. Entire professions of commercial art evaporated with the introduction of computers. How many typesetters were employed by major newspapers around the world 50 years ago? With the introduction of computers the number has drastically reduced. This is also true of graphic artists that used to work all day over a light box, waxer, and Exacto knife. Now all of that is done with far fewer people in a computer. I don’t see how GenAI different from those technologies and how they impacted artist jobs.
If 1 person can make 10x the art, then 1 person can do the job of 10, meaning 9 people are out of work.
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
and means lower costs, see: “reasons people like the march of progress for 100”
Objectively incorrect. The actual costs of AI “art” are astronomically higher than the costs of hiring artists. When was the last time an artist needed a fission reactor and enough potable water to supply a moderately sized city over the course of their lives, much less for the completion of a project?
The corpos running the scam just haven’t made the financial costs to end users align with reality yet. They’re trying to destroy livelihoods and get businesses stuck in vendor lock-in first so that they have no competition when they open the valves of the real costs. Generative AI under this hyper-capitalist regime is a net negative for the species.
Someone doesn’t understand the Luddite movement what so ever… Sad. Really really sad to see this level of ignorance blindly defended on Lemmy. Genuinely, pitiful. Educate yourself on the history of … everything. The Luddites and the guilded age would be excellent places to start.
Or it means 10x the art in the world.
If a process that takes 10 weeks for producing an animated movie/show now only takes 1 week, that’s a significant reduction in production timeline meaning more can be produced, or that time can be used to improve other production tasks
Not under capitalism. It means 10x the poverty for artists, which was already made fun of as an underpaying career path…
You ignorant lot are truly pathetic. Educate yourselves on the Luddites and the guilded age for starters… An increase in productivity is not as black and white under capitalism.
I think the argument is that an AI “artist” is incapable of creating art. Their “tool” does the work for them. Whereas other artists use digital tools but as just that - tools. The art comes from the artist.
The thing is, an AI ‘artist’ isn’t making art. They are generating images with no real meaning or effort put into them.
That depends on what they’re doing. If they’re entering a prompt and rolling with what they get out of it, then sure.
If they’re inputting a prompt and refining it with solely AI tools then meeeh, that starts to fade a little. I’d ask why someone is spending hours going back and forth with an AI instead of doing some of it manually, but it’s hard to tell one way or the other from the final output.
If they’re inputting a prompt, refining it with AI tools and heavily editing what comes out in image editing software that’s approaching some strange digital mixed media weirdness I don’t think we have particularly good intuitions for.
If they’re inputting a prompt and using the output as some building block like a texture on a 3D model or for a content aware fill in photo editing or for a brush or a stamp I genuinely have no mental model for what impact that has in my assessment of the “meaning” or “effort” going into a piece, if I’m being perfectly honest.
Reductionism isn’t serving us particularly well on this one. Makes the pushback feel poorly informed and excessively dogmatic.
if you hire a graphic designer to make you a thing, and keep rejecting designs and saying “do it a little more like this” “change this part though” for hours, would that make you an artist?
this is exactly the same only the graphic designers who really made it aren’t getting paid.
riding in a plane doesn’t make you a pilot. driving a car doesn’t make you a mechanic. sitting next to an band and saying “more cowbell” doesn’t make you a musician…. brushing your teeth doesn’t make you a dentist….
ai could be used by artists, as one of many tools, to make art, but just generating a picture from a prompt doesn’t make you an artist.
but fraudulent, compulsive liars and narcissists will do anything to pretend like they have talent short of actually developing talent in anything (because you need to accept failures and learn from them to improve)
if you hire a graphic designer to make you a thing, and keep rejecting designs and saying “do it a little more like this” “change this part though” for hours, would that make you an artist?
I mean… you just described the process of making films, TV and videogames pretty much exactly, so… yeah?
Did you think George Lucas made all those Tie Fighters in a shed with a bunch of glue and sticks? Spielberg didn’t design the look of Indiana Jones. We know who did it. We’ve seen all the iterations in the concept art. Movie nerds are obsessive like that. Peter Jackson famously had a literal approval stamp for things in The Lord of the Rings trilogy, or so the DVD extras will tell you.
Collaborative art is all over the place, and people in hands-off coordination roles that are merely guiding the work of other artists get credit all the time.
But again, you’re missing the point and not reading the post you’re responding to. You literally repeat my exact point as if it was a counterpoint. This entire conversation is built on a single preconceived idea and people literally can’t see past that, even when the things they’re responding to are entirely unrelated to the responses they’re giving.
funny how you completely miss my point and say i’m doing that….
being a director and directing actors doesn’t make you an actor, so no… you’re stupid and you’re not an artist.
maybe you could call yourself an “AI image generator prompt writer”… but not an “ai artist”
Oh, so it’s a nomenclature problem that you have?
I mean, I do get it, because the word “artist” is horrifically confusing in English. In most languages “artist” is just someone that engages in an artistic endeavour of any kind. This is true of English, too, but their default artist is a painter or illustrator, and that is the default “art”, so people get weird about it. Fun fact, in Spanish the default “artist” is an actor or a performer instead. Weird, that.
But if that’s your problem, that people who use AI are makes-artistic-things-artists and not makes-visual-art-artists I don’t think anybody is gonna get particularly belligerent about it. Photographers don’t draw pictures, either, and you don’t see anybody complaining that they don’t get the same word as painters. I don’t mind. Call them “AI directors”, it’s all the same to me. We can be friends. If you’re saying that you’re A-OK with people crapping out images from prompting all day as long as they don’t call themselves “AI artists” you’re actually way more lenient than I am about these things.
You’re still missing the point that the use of AI to generate specifically images isn’t limited to “feed a model a prompt, share whatever comes out”, and there are multiple layers of interaction and application from… well, that, to fairly minor automation tools. Putting all of them in the same boat is reductive and I’d argue outright incorrect.
and blocked
i did not miss your point. i entirely understand it and i’m arguing against it.
but you’re too diluted to understand that you could be wrong, so you have to lie to yourself….you’re not an artist
Typing a prompt still isn’t making art. If you look at art, everything has intent behind it, nothing is random, everyone has their own style that evolves. Like if you’re drawing a meadow, there are lots of choices you make in the progress, like what plants you draw, in what style, in what stage, are any of them damaged for example. Art isn’t just about the end result, it’s the process itself.
Typing a prompt is describing an image, not making it.
Dragging a mouse isn’t making art. Dragging a live mouse could be, PETA wouldn’t like it though.
You did not read the whole post you’re responding to, did you?
It’s not often that you can see the exact moment an actual human brain ran out of token space, but here we are.
Finish Him!
This pretty well encapsulates my feelings, except for the issue of training the models. AI is cool tech, but the fact remains that people are making money off of scraped content. Not to mention the environmental aspect.
Honestly I find it difficult to reconcile.
In a perfect world, we would have open source models trained on public domain and properly licensed content.
I don’t think AI is going to replace artists any time soon. On the personal side, people create for the joy of it, whatever that means to them. On the professional side, people have a hard enough time communicating what they want to an actual person, much less a computer.
As someone that likely has moderate aphantasia, I really struggle with describing what I want. Being able to tell an image gen to make so many variations of X, and then commission a friend to take inspiration from Y and Z to make something original is really freeing for both sides, imo.
I’ve never gotten exactly what I’m looking for, but it almost always gives me something to point to, without doing a bunch of test drafts. I suppose that’s technically taking work away from the artist, but so does having an ‘undo’ button in procreate.
Idk, it’s a more complex issue than many make it out to be. I’m still further on the fuck ai side than not, just due to its current implementations.
End rant.
I mean Adobe firefly addresses the properly licensed dataset issue and afaik it’s all viewable (though I’d much prefer something anyone could use offline locally). Environmental impact will always be an issue unless we see some evidence of mitigation either from direct green energy use or at least creating additional green energy generation from any organization doing the base model training.
Environmental impact of gen AI pales in comparison to the environmental impact of alternatively making all the generated pieces manually. Let’s say Shutterstock switches purely to genAI images trained on their own licensed stock images. Do you think their total carbon output will go up or down now that they’ve stopped doing photoshoots of people and objects in seemingly random situations?
There’s a good amount of research going into reducing the compute needed for training and inference, as well as a ton of R&D going into making far more energy efficient hardware for training and inference
Just like how 3D rendering has gone from dedicated $40,000 workstations and render farms to something that’s just done for funsies on your phone, the capabilities of these really powerful models will eventually be squished onto the cheapest, lowest power mass market computers of the day
The biggest long term challenge will be the training data and licensing of outputs. If AI outputs are stuck in a legal state where you simply can’t use them commercially, the whole industry will collapse and return to the most ignored corners of university computer science programs. If models aren’t required to get licensing for all training data we’ll probably just keep seeing companies hoovering up data in the most unethical possible ways to train their big models
Furries: “I would like to purchase this rock.”
I wouldn’t purchase this without nipples at least
Yes add the mouse button please
*Scalies
