I mostly agree. I’d say they went uphill though, but so did every other game, but even faster. Each game improved some things, but the competition improved much more. They’ve been coasting off of name recognition ever since the first game.
I’m not going to continue this conversation, but I will say my computer science professor (years ago, before this current “AI” trend) who taught the AI course used the term AI to refer to AGI if nothing else was specified. From an academic sense, that’s what it meant if you didn’t say anything else.
AI is intelligent, it just lacks sapience, sentience and other things humans have.
It is not. A key component of intelligence is being able to infer knowledge based on generalizations of previously obtained knowledge. Convolution neural networks are not capable of this. They need to be trained on the data to predict results. They can’t conceptualize abstract ideas and apply them to predict never-before-seen circumstances.
The term was created by academics to describe the usage of computers to solve problems previously only solvable by humans or other intelligent creatures.
Correct, but that’s not what the modern usage is referring to. The academic term is referring to artificial general intelligence (AGI). The thing the capitalists are trying to sell using the term AI currently is just a predictive model.
If someone hangs a print of a famous painting on the wall, have they hung art on the wall?
No one is calling the printer an artist. Yes, the print is a piece of art. It’s a copy of something created with intent by the artist, not the printer. It doesn’t really matter that it’s a copy. That’s a very stupid argument if you’re going to “ship of Thesius” a print. It’s still a version of the original, just not the original itself.
If someone swinging a brush at random can create art…
How do you swing a brush randomly? Have you tried doing something random? You can’t really. Maybe they could build a machine that swings it randomly, though I’d say the act of building the machine is intentional, and artistic. The thing it creates is a piece of that process.
… I don’t see why using a pile of math, numbers and random noise to make an image can’t be art.
Because there’s no intention. A pile of math and numbers can be art. That’s all that anything digital is. They aren’t necessarily though. Without some intent behind those numbers being a particular set of numbers it isn’t art though.
AI image generation just happens to be a medium or tool that is nearly entirely the intent and creativity of the artist.
How so? I’m assuming “artist” here is referring to the prompt creator. Their intent is not taken into account by the AI tool. Only their prompt is. If you put the same prompt in then it’ll generate different results each time, even if the intent of the prompt creator is the same. That would imply their intent is not part of the creation process.
Point being: “art” isn’t some mystical human only thing.
I never implied such a thing. I think a sufficiently intelligent creature other than humans could create art. Again though, the product currently being called “AI” is not intelligent though. It can’t abstract ideas into concept that can be applied to unrelated subjects. That’s what would be required to make art.
Don’t gatekeep art based on the medium or method.
I’m not. I’m gatekeeping it on being creative. I don’t care that it’s digital.
I don’t completely agree. While an accident is one example where intent is missing, publishing accidental shots could be a form of art in its own way as the act of publishing itself has intent associated with it.
Yeah, find interesting accidental photos that tell a story would be a creative work of art. The photos wouldn’t be before, but putting them together could be.
Furthermore, nature photography is in my view also art, but provides much less control than studio photography, as the scene and subject are free to do whatever they want.
Like I said, composition and subject are important. That doesn’t mean you stage them. It means make something interesting out of the scene.
I don’t think recording everything would make it less of an artpiece: you would have intentionally chosen to record continuously to capture that frame, and skimmed though those frames to find the right one.
Yeah, the act of choosing a frame could be artistic. That’s not what I meant. I meant an amazing image could exist within the frames. It isn’t art just because it’s there. Sure, something could be done with it to make it art. Like you imply, intention is the important part. You’re agreeing, but you’re adding intention to all the examples I’m giving. Without the intention I assume you agree that they aren’t art.
There are limits to what repeatedly prompting an AI model can do, but that doesn’t stop you from doing other things with the output…
Sure, you can do things with the output. I’ve proposed the idea of making a piece about the soulessness of AI generated images, and making a collage of AI generated images next to artist created ones, to show how it’s missing the creative spark a human can add. This would be taking AI generated images and making art out of them. They wouldn’t be art right out of the model though.
The difference is photography can be art, but it isn’t always. Photo composition and content are used to convey meaning. The photo is a tool under the artist’s complete control. The photo is not art on its own. Just like if you accidentally spill paint on a canvas it isn’t necessarily art, a photo taken without intent isn’t necessarily art. If I accidentally hit the camera button on my phone that doesn’t make me a photographer.
AI generated images can not do this. The user can give a prompt, but they don’t actually have control over the tool. They can modify their prompt to get different outputs, but the tool is doing its own thing. The user just has to keep trying until they get an output they like, but it isn’t done by their control. It’s similar to a user always accidentally doing things, until they get what they want. If you record every moment of your life you’re likely to have some frames that look good, but you aren’t a photographer because you didn’t intend to get that output.
Go read the OP again. All of it. You didn’t read it, or you missed part of it, or you misunderstood something.
This is not me saying “I think you’re wrong.” It is saying your comment is fundamentally missing context that is in the OP. You’ll know what we mean when you see it.
It doesn’t retain pixels at all. A better way to describe what it retains (though not accurate) is brush strokes. It retains much more of the information than the raw byte count could imply. It’s effectively compressed by capturing relationships of pixels rather than the pixels themselves.
If you go by the language, AI (artificial intelligence) is intelligent. No, it isn’t. The words don’t mean anything until proven. I would argue art requires intent and intelligence. “AI art” does not.
The term is created by capitalists selling a product. That doesn’t make it an accurate description.
I would say the difference is that intent is not controlled by the artist. Sure, they give a prompt, but they don’t actually control the mechanism that creates the output. In fact, the people who create it can’t even parse what it’s doing. It’s just a bunch of seemingly random weights.
When you’re holding a paintbrush, or sculpting clay, or whatever else you’re doing, you’re controlling the tool and manifesting your intent through it. With AI you aren’t. There can be intent by the creator but there’s no intent in the tool.
Only people who don’t understand art say that people “aren’t real artists.” It’s the most obvious way to know that someone’s opinion isn’t worth listening to.
Everyone supports terrorists. The difference is if you support the state doing terrorism. If you’re using violence for political gain, that’s the definition of terrorism. States do that all the time. That’s one of the primary roles of police in the US in fact.
Sure, but there’s no obligation to give a company the username with their company name.
Sure, but why even do that minor thing for them? Just ignore it like it deserves.
Why comply? As far as I’m aware there’s no legal obligation to do so. They think they can just ask for things and get them. Fuck them.
I wonder if maybe doctors and modern medicine had anything to do with these recoveries…
Discord has quite a few good features that IRC doesn’t. I will agree that it being used as a replacement for a forum, while also being unsearchable, is amazingly stupid. However, it’s used by almost everyone for a reason, and to ignore that (if you were to develop and alternative) ensures you won’t succeed. Yeah, we don’t need every feature from Discord, but easy voice/text/video chats, image/file sharing, and all the other useful things are required. Yeah, we can probably lose the emotes and crap and be fine.
Fallout:Brotherhood of Steel…
From what I’ve heard, Chinese gamers are significantly more likely to leave a negative review if there are issues. I don’t know if that’s good or bad. I think it’s good for consumers to demand the products they buy to be as good as possible, but it also just makes developers want to avoid them, or do things like Steam has and separate reviews by language by default.
It’s possible to keep all your binaries and config files on a separate partition and mount them in the root directory to be used with multiple distros. I’m not sure how well this would work if you’re switching to a very different distro though. I haven’t tried this, so it may be a very bad idea. I know it’s possible though.
It’s mostly not UE5 exactly. UE5 just let’s devs turn on features that are performance hogs easily. Squad, for example, just upgraded from UE4 to UE5 but they took their time and did things in a smart way (like not using Lumen), and performance increased for a lot of people, with much higher detail too.
UE5 isn’t the issue. It’s devs who turn on all the features they can and ignore optimization because “the engine just handles it.” It’s got some really impressive technology, but it’ll ruin your game if you let it.