They can. However, what we mean by regurgitate is that they are mixing all those images into a colourful vomit, and vomit-inducing mess that is obvious. Nothing original, nothing ‘made’, just pure regurgitated slop.
Yes, we can and we will. It doesn’t do what you’re saying it does. We have seen some of the images it generates and a prompt for it, they were off a lot.
Also, even if it did, that’s not the point of art. Good art is a process, failing is as much a part of that process, as is compromising, working around things etc. What such a thing would do is remove all that and create something lacking beauty, a ‘soul’ to be poetic about it.
All such things would do if they could do it ‘perfectly’ is teach people to never learn how to do things themselves which is a shame, because it would be wonderful to see what they could create if they had learned to actually make art instead of relying on something ‘perfect’ though as we’ve established, it isn’t.
Presumably at some point a human being was involved in the decision making process to try and use this image to convey… some kind of message to other human beings, and at least one human being in that process couldn’t be bothered to give the AI slop more than the most cursory glance.
Unless of course one could design a fully-automated system of generating pseudo-scientific clickbait factoid garbage accompanied by AI-generated illustrations, entirely dedicated to producing as much vaguely plausible-seeming garbage as possible, 24 hours a day, just spewing out the opposite of useful knowledge at an unfathomable rate.
But what kind of monster would deploy that weapon on humanity?
They? You mean the A.I. that made this? You think they ever gave shits?
AI won’t make anything without being prompted.
LLMs, MLs and similar don’t make anything, they regurgitate all the stolen work somebody else made.
No, that’s not how they work. They’re not spitting out the exact image they ingested.
They can. However, what we mean by regurgitate is that they are mixing all those images into a colourful vomit, and vomit-inducing mess that is obvious. Nothing original, nothing ‘made’, just pure regurgitated slop.
Regardless of the ethical implications, you can’t honestly say that what they do isn’t a technological marvel.
You can ask for a picture of just about anything, and if you’re specific enough you can get it to generate exactly what’s in your head.
Yes, we can and we will. It doesn’t do what you’re saying it does. We have seen some of the images it generates and a prompt for it, they were off a lot.
Also, even if it did, that’s not the point of art. Good art is a process, failing is as much a part of that process, as is compromising, working around things etc. What such a thing would do is remove all that and create something lacking beauty, a ‘soul’ to be poetic about it.
All such things would do if they could do it ‘perfectly’ is teach people to never learn how to do things themselves which is a shame, because it would be wonderful to see what they could create if they had learned to actually make art instead of relying on something ‘perfect’ though as we’ve established, it isn’t.
Presumably at some point a human being was involved in the decision making process to try and use this image to convey… some kind of message to other human beings, and at least one human being in that process couldn’t be bothered to give the AI slop more than the most cursory glance.
Unless of course one could design a fully-automated system of generating pseudo-scientific clickbait factoid garbage accompanied by AI-generated illustrations, entirely dedicated to producing as much vaguely plausible-seeming garbage as possible, 24 hours a day, just spewing out the opposite of useful knowledge at an unfathomable rate.
But what kind of monster would deploy that weapon on humanity?
Aw, fuck.