You don't see that often such a blatant example of #whataboutism as the one Lizard is making.

What he is saying is that Bill can cheat at his exams, because John did also cheat.
"Whatabout John"?

Wrong.

This attitude is normalizing cheating and this is fundamentaly wrong.

Cheating is wrong.

Whataboutism is a logical fallacy.

You can't use whataboutism to give Putin a pass and normalize his terror, killings, rape and plunder.

Which sentence I wrote is giving Putin pass to anything ?  I can easilly quote myself calling Putin an id.iot and Russia an aggressor multiple times for doing what they are doing.

Now, can you quote yourself one single sentence calling John a terrorist ? Once, for multiple invasions.

Should we all just be focused on Bill and let John do its thing with his killings ?

Or its alright, because John is an democrat ? We can focus on Bills obviously aggressive history but John killing 56 MILLIONS of natives is whataboutism and shouldn't be mentioned?

Well in that case ill be whatabouting without regrets.

Lizard, if you cannot distinguish terrorism and fascism from democracy, then talking to you is pointless. You are quoting Russian propaganda.

No you are the one not being able to distinguish , or better to say find the common traits they offer. Cause what happened on the middle east was same blatant agression as its happening now in Ukraine against the will of all the others in the democratic world.

Well you aint just gonna troll here peacefully without hearing the truth. Talk to Assange and Snowden about democracy. You are quoting your propaganda spreading lies and wrapping them as it suits you. Russia and US are highly aggressive countries despite the differences in how the government calls themself within the society. While Russians are killing innocent Ukrainians US tankers are blatantly stealing Syrian oil on daily basis as we speak.

Quote from: SVH on April 12, 2023, 14:46

You can also argue that if the Western world did not participate in the coup in 2014 in Ukraine and Nato stayed with it's promise not to get closer to Russian's border all of this would not have taken place.

This is BS.
NATO is not expanding. NATO is joined.
NATO didn't expand in Finland last month. Finland decided to join the alliance.

There was never a promise, let alone a treaty denying the right of any other sovereign country, be it from east or west, to join NATO. There is no such thing.

Your are falling hard for the russian propaganda, mouthing Putin's words.

Here we go again 

You are the only spreading the propaganda about this matter...because it was clearly promised multiple times


Once again , one of those times on February 9. 1990, memorandum transcript published by National Security Archive at George Washington University in Washington, DC. Secretary of State Baker reassured Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev �not once, but three times� NATO will not expand to the east.

I'll quote Baker: �not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO�s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.�



The document itself, black on white:

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16116-document-05-memorandum-conversation-between



I really don't understand Russians and Americans thinking that the rest of world is stupid not seeing the dominance games they are playing on cost on innocent people in the world.

Also, forgot to mention that I personally got signatures in the bottom corners. I really wonder if they are real, and if they are,  it pulls a lot of questions.

First one is , is the technology really just using training to create something new or its directly scrapping parts of existing artwork, because how to justify signatures if they turn out to be real. ( Which I can not claim now, but personally I think its a matter of time someone will start creating art based on his name a get a signature if that's the case)

I am really curious to have the same conversation with all of you in a couple of years.

Right now there seem to be a lot of artist who jump on the trainwagon, seeing there is easy money for them to be made with AI generated images. So they claim it's "just a tool" for them and everything is fine and it's not basically the first step towards the end of human made art. Hey, that's just advanced technology, we have to go with the time and can't stop progress, right?

But I am curious to see what they think once they realize that this is not just a "tool" for them, but also for the customers.
How long will it take till the last customer has realized that instead of going to a microstick agency site or a self hosted photographer/artist site or even commissioning an artist/photographer for lots of money, all he needs to do is to go to midjourney, DALL-E or whatever other AI image generation sites are or will be out there and can just describe to the AI what he needs, instead of entering the words in a microstiock search bar or describing it to the artist? 1 year? 5 years? The way things are progressing why do you think the customer will even have a need for you as a traditional or digital artist or photographer in the future? Someone who needs an image will not need you as a "middle man" to describe stuff to the AI and re-sell what the AI creates for you, he will eventually just go to the AI site and describe what he needs to it himself. "AI picture describer" is not something I really see as a job to bring in money in the future.

And the whole problem goes much further than this. The next step after AI generated paintings and photos will be AI generated videos, AI generated stories, AI generated music. In a 100 years there won't be any artists left, because who ever will persuit art, if no one can live from it anymore, because an AI can do it faster and cheaper than you anyways. And that's incredibly sad, because humanity is basically killing off part of what makes it human.  I am glad I will  not live long enough to see that art-deprived mankind where human creativity has been snuffed out.

I don't agree, even until now customers were free to invest in their own tools (lets say cameras, or paint and brushes ) , invest even more time and learn how to use them and create professional level images. Is it really as simple as that ?

Even with AI, someone will not just be able to buy some credits and create something they need at the level of someone else who invested enormous time into that. Sure, serious hobbyist will be able to go really high in the quality of their work but they were able to do so in photography also.

The biggest problem that I see is in the actual amount of work someone is going to be able to produce in small amount of time when he finds his style which will have to be tricky to reproduce if that someone wants to stay recognizable. We are talking about the ability to create a full portfolio in couple of sleepless nights which until now it would takes years to create.

I'm sure there will be superstar AI artists with unique styles which will brand their work under their their name, earn based on social presence, more or less like in any form or art in the history.

Also I'm really against stuff that started to happen when people use at the end of their prompts "in style of artist name". In my opinion that's not only stealing the style, that's stealing the whole identity and brand that someone worked his butt for.

In case of machine learning I'm really not against that that much because there is not an artist in the history of the world that has not stolen part of his style or work from someone else. But when you mention that name to get more attention, or to build your style...that's a problem.

 

not sure how much applies to your life changes, but it's amazing (sort of) how 'christians' can cherry pick what proves their 'belief' while ignoring evolution, climate change, slavery, human rights, and most recently the freedom of women to make their own choice about their bodies

If it was only that, there a new groups that showed up recently that also want to control and force the control on all people about the choices on their own body limiting their human rights if they refuse which puts them in same category with religious fanatics but they will just close their eyes and try to justify that with almost the same stupid arguments religious fanatics use.

So the payed services are rushing down to 0, and the free ones are running from 0  in opposite direction towards them.

Where will the hug happen ?

I can hear Semprini's orchestra playing in the background 

 

Quote from: Lizard on September 19, 2022, 12:05

Quote from: Uncle Pete on September 19, 2022, 11:15

Quote from: sharpshot on September 18, 2022, 05:53

Quote from: offisapup on September 18, 2022, 01:11

Quote from: stockastic on September 17, 2022, 22:19

Ok then, I can read a book that you wrote - take detailed notes page by page - then "write" my own book and sell it. Hey, I just used yours to "train" myself.  Or as you put it, to "move towards" my own version. You can't point to any identical sentences so my conscience is clear.

Hey, that's how QUentin Tarantino makes his movies.

And how The Beatles wrote several of their songs. Then Oasis did it, and got all the criticism.

Really? Several? Name a couple, and the source material, I'd be interested.

Quote from: offisapup on September 18, 2022, 23:28

Quote from: cascoly on September 18, 2022, 13:51

Tarantino first buys the rights to the book, even if the result has little relation to the original

No pretty much every single scene in Tarantino's films comes from a film he saw. He has taken hundreds of those influences and made something completely different (which is exactly what AI is doing). And he hasn't bought the rights to any of the films he's borrowing from but if you read his interviews, he's acknowledged quite openly where he's taken some of his moments from.

That's not unusual as for years the movie and TV industry has been doing "inspired" scenes by using bits of previous works. The film Noir, some of the methods and blocking, are identical to older films. Those old films, sequences were copied from other old films. People like Lucas and Spielberg are known for filmmaking craft. They use classic scenes, remade and woven in to fit their movies.

This is interesting for people asking about the legal aspects:  https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/22/commercial-image-generating-ai-raises-all-sorts-of-thorny-legal-issues/

"...there isn�t a direct legal precedent in the U.S. that upholds publicly available training data as fair use." There's already a case in the system arguing that rights are being infringed upon. If the case ends up being, the scraping the web for PD sites and who knows where else is not fair use, then the AI creators will have to license the data they use. How much would those initial 5 million images cost?

Oh a couple of IS and SS subscriptions and we get our 2 cents and the system puts us out of business, with our own images.

I Saw Her Standing There - Chuck Berry, "I�m Talking About You"

Lady Madonna - Humphrey Lyttelton, "Bad Penny Blues" + Dan Burley, "South Side Shake"

I Feel Fine - Bobby Parker, "Watch Your Step"

Come Together - Chuck Berry, "You Can�t Catch Me"

Revolution - Pee Wee Crayton, "Do Unto Others"

Yesterday - Nat King Cole, "My Love"

Hey Jude - John Ireland, "Te Deum"

Run For Your Life - Elvis Presley, "Baby Let�s Play House"

Great list, some inspired is not copying. Louie Louie, Hang on Sloopy, Call any Vegetable, and many more could all be the same song. But thanks, that was interesting.

n 1973, The Beatles were sued by Big Seven Music Corp which handled Chuck Berry�s �You Can�t Catch Me�. They claimed that not only was the beat from �Come Together� just Berry�s song slowed down, the lyrics were also stolen.  For reference, the lyrics in question are John Lennon�s �Here come ol� flattop, he come groovin� up slowly� to Berry�s �Here come a flattop, he was movin� up with me�.

Both parties settled out of court, but Lennon wasn�t done.  He vowed to record three more songs owned by Big Seven Music Corp.  Big Music responded politely by doing the same thing to John Lennon, releasing a series of unauthorized outtakes designed to embarrass Lennon.  When it was time to take the wreckage to court, both sides lawyered up in what must have been an epic legal showdown.  In the end, it was John Lennon that won, to the tune of 85 grand.

That's what the courts thought.

Hey here's another, a movie, and I liked both of them.

Pee-wee's Big Adventure (1985) / Bicycle Thieves (1948)

Is using an image to train AI infringing? Since that's in the courts now, the answer should be interesting to all of us?

Faces? "IBM allegedly created, collected and stored millions of face templates�highly detailed geometric maps of the face�from about a million photos that make up the �diversity in faces� database. Janecyk claimed that IBM obtained the photos from Flickr, a website where users upload their photos. "

The future of this, when it's out of beta testing and to the point where the developers are confident in their ability to produce a useful commercial product is known as pay-per-query.

Hats off to the OP that page is interesting to see what come up for a search. That could be useful in itself for ideas?

Want something more personal and scary?  https://exposing.ai/  I didn't find myself. Not sure if I care? But it was interesting that Flickr and other databases are forming a collection of faces.

I agree but as they even changed the songs after being accused does nothing but proves they inspired themself a bit to much. Copying the exact bassline can not be inspiration

And the whole industry is full of examples like that. Bob Dylan career skyrocket after he did what he did with House of the rising sun or Blowing in the wind of which he changed complete verse later if I recall that right. He didn't even credit House of the rising sun and a career of a pure genius started like that.

Hello I love from the Doors is an example of a blatant ripoff and pretty much everyone did it in the music history not only at that or this times. Some things go a bit beyond "inspiration"

Quote from: Lizard on September 01, 2022, 20:20

 If you don't want zombies, use something like cute

First and only try on your Bulldog.

I can only repeat the exact same answers I wrote above already:
If you only tried Bulldogs once, you don't have much to draw conclusions from.
If I use cute, I get zombies.

And since you apparently reply before reading, just repeating your original statement and this conversation is going in circles, this is pointless and I am out of here.

No angry 

Yes i do cause I tried the elephants, tried the horses and I was getting the same thing before like your example. So I started researching, reading other peoples experiences , looking for other peoples prompts etc.

Here is a little hint to get you going... for starters , htf can it know that you want a photography from your prompt to begin with ? You didnt even mention what media should it generate. And thats just a drop in the ocean.

If you can not get a result from something you just started with , you might want to consider that you don't know how to use the thing and that this is the main part of your problem. 

 

Quote from: Lizard on September 01, 2022, 20:20

Also, keep in mind this was my first and only try on this topic ,

Which is exactly why you shouldn't make any conclusions. You had one try and got 4 non-zombies. I made several tries and got zombies 75% times. So obviously I have the bigger "control group" to draw conclusions from.

Quote from: Lizard on September 01, 2022, 20:20

 If you don't want zombies, use something like cute

First and only try on your Bulldog.

Spent like 5000 credits until now on various styles, so Im pretty sure those 20k generations probably made me a bit above your control group and that I know what I'm talking about.

And that's why I didn't get zombies at first like I did when I was starting. I got cutoff ears though and I would have to waste few attempts to try and bypass that minor thing.

From 100 generations Im getting like 20-30 or so errors when I spend few credits on attempts and catch the right description. Usually 5 legs on animals , strange paws, different eyes or so. And for starters that's not bad at all. 

And photography is its by far weakest spot.   

Quote from: Lizard on July 26, 2022, 10:28

Funny Scientific Fact:

In fact, carbon dioxide, which is blamed for climate warming, has only a volume share of 0.04 percent in the atmosphere. And of these 0.04 percent CO2, 95 percent come from natural sources, such as volcanoes or decomposition processes in nature. The human CO2 content in the air is thus only 0.0016 percent.

Is that the best you can do? Just make up some stuff?

It's neither funny, nor scientific, nor a fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere

0.04% ... FACT...Now go and accuse real scientists they are inventing stuff you don't like!

The current molecular composition of Earth�s atmosphere is diatomic nitrogen (N2), 78.08 percent; diatomic oxygen (O2), 20.95 percent; argon (A), 0.93 percent; water (H20), about 0 to 4 percent; and carbon dioxide (CO2), 0.04 percent. Inert gases such as neon (Ne), helium (He), and krypton (Kr) and other constituents such as nitrogen oxides, compounds of sulfur, and compounds of ozone are found in lesser amounts.


SOURCES:

https://www.britannica.com/science/atmosphere

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2019/07/30/co2-drives-global-warming/

https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/air-quality/resources/glossary/carbon-dioxide

https://ballotpedia.org/Carbon_dioxide

https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html


So, its a FACT, its SCIENTIFIC, and its FUNNY and there's nothing you can do about it.   

 


Whether most scientists outside climatology believe that global warming is happening is less relevant than whether the climatologists do. A letter signed by over 50 leading members of the American Meteorological Society warned about the policies promoted by environmental pressure groups. �The policy initiatives derive from highly uncertain scientific theories. They are based on the unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuel and requires immediate action. We do not agree.�2 Those who have signed the letter represent the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists in the United States, of whom there are about 60. McMichael and Haines quote the 1995 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is widely believed to �prove� that climate change induced by humans has occurred.3 The original draft document did not say this. What happened was that the policymakers� summary (which became the �take home message� for politicians) altered the conclusions of the scientists. This led Dr Frederick Seitz, former head of the United States National Academy of Sciences, to write, �In more than sixty years as a member of the American scientific community ... I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report


https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.670.5931&rep=rep1&type=pdf