Peanut
The perfect uncanny height of the head, the perfect level of darkness to peak the imagination. The setting could straight up be from a junji ito manga. Great job, love this very much.
i absolutely love the first one, minus the leg issue.
I think the whole system needs a step back into public use and public domain. I’ve cursed the Mickey mouse protection act for ages, and limiting use for training at this scale is absurd. I see more harm in the intent of creating a model to collect and organize people’s personal information, not using media to train tools.
Apart from personal security issues, I think treating training as copyright infringement is absurd unless the model is shown to specifically reproduce a near exact copy of a work reliably and unintentionally. Intentionally reproducing any work with any tool is infringement irrelevant to the tool used. Are we going to ban robots from learning in any real world scenarios that contain brands or access to copyrighted content? It’s silly and egotistical.
If we are worried about existing artists maintaining their careers, that’s a different argument about the economy that will be relevant to more and more fields in the near future, and one we should already be working to solve. Although we’ll probably just allow the rich to reap all of the benefits of our technology and modern society, and the rest can find a more devalued job, or sell their soul to the rich as a footstool or ethical sellout, as has been the trend of the past fifty years. They can continue using their extra money to suppress opposition and increase advertising again.
The technology or information used for training isn’t the issue here.
Really hate how everyone is flipping their lid about large language model datasets and output, when the actual focus should be models specifically built for use against the general public. It’s like flipping out at someone for reading a letter you put on the bulletin board to their robot while ignoring the person looking through your personal thoughts with a machine built specifically to read your mind.
Maybe they’ll succeed and hinder progress in AI, so we fail to develop sufficiently advanced AI before our world collapses from environmental failure. At least the advertisers will know how to push our buttons the right way to get us to buy something we don’t need.
Big issue here is religion is based very deeply in things that are directly opposed to any reasonable understanding of how our world actually works. LGBT is based on personal feelings and desires, and there is little excuse for denying people what they say about themselves. I can say that all evidence suggests fairies do not exist, and we shouldn’t be including them in school curriculum, no matter how big of a belief group exists for them.
But you cannot argue LGBT people do not exist. I’m a boy. I like other boys. It is inexcusable that half of the world would have me arrested or murdered for the fact, and allowing that same hated to permeate our society would be an injustice.
As a long time artist in traditional and digital mediums, I get frustrated by this attitude. Is there a reason images made with this tool are considered less “art” than Pollock or Newman? Are photographers not artists, because their medium is too easy? I admit midjourney is bottom of the barrel for AI art tools, but they obviously had an intent and goal while creating these images. While I prefer stable diffusion, as I like precise control over every aspect of my creating an image, it gets the exact same response.
When people are creating detailed interactive worlds by dictating to AI art tools, will you refute the medium at every level of complexity, effort, and intention? It’s as ridiculous as when people were saying 3D art wasn’t “art.” Or anything made in Photoshop. Judge it how you wish as an individual piece, but don’t be so dismissive of new tools. They are a part of our life and creativity now.
How about an art director using Disney/Warner money to direct a bunch of interns? The artists are being used as a tool for someone else to make their art without the effort that work should require. Does it belong more to the interns that worked on each piece? Or the director who had the vision and direction? while you might not care for simple prompt direction, or want to take credit for anything you’ve made with these tools, even easy work made with a powerful tool can be interpreted for its own merit, and could give smaller creators an effective “team” to compete with people who have endless resources.
You can also spend time and effort in conjunction with these tools to create something specific to what you had envisioned. Does this lack value due to the medium?
I think art is a complex concept with high subjectivity, but this type of selectivity happens every time a new tool or medium is introduced. Judge each work as you will, but don’t go around claiming “this thing isn’t art” because of reasons that lose meaning or truth in any other medium or context.
But how else could Disney afford to own everyone else’s rights and properties? Why not think about the little guy! (Mickey mouse is little, right?)
That being said, I find it weird people are going after training data for llm’s after completely ignoring the models built specifically to compete with and take advantage of people’s unconscious habits and lifestyles.
AI in general will be very important to comfortably survive the near future as a species. Data is an important part of that.
we absolutely need to do something about the megacorps funneling every new gain as a society into increasing the already absurd wealth divide. The technology is good. The general web scraping isn’t bad if the tool is not specifically evil in function. We just need to as a global community demand that the technology be used to benefit everyone equally as it continues to be developed.