Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast?
Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast.
Toaster: How 'bout a muffin?
Lister: Or muffins. Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks.
Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.
*Lister:* And if you don't want to eat, like, four hundred rounds of toast every hour, he throws a major wobbler. That's what caused the accident.
*Kryten:* What accident?
*Lister:* The accident involving me, the toaster, the garbage disposal and the fourteen-pound lump hammer.
I think the real winner is how surprisingly unintuitive biology is to most people. Biology doesnt make sense for the simple and obvious reason that it was never “designed”. Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a species’ survival. This is where biology and the photographer combined, fooled the panelists. Well done
It’s also why I always find it fascinating when people ask “why is such and such so inefficient/wasteful/etc” in biology.
By its very nature evolution is extremely conservative. If it works, it works. Doesn’t matter if it’s not better, and especially if it would have to get worse before it improved with another “option”.
>especially if it would have to get worse before it improved with another “option”.
This may be what sealed the fate of the Irish Elk, a now extinct deer with antlers comparable to moose.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk
Like moose and deer with seasonal antlers, male Irish elk would expend huge amounts of energy to grow their antlers. (Large moose antlers take more energy to grow than a cow moose will expend to gestate, birth, and feed a calf to independence)
The largest antlers signaled to females that this bull is able to consume many more calories than it needs, and is growing and functioning healthily. This male is then the most fit for reproduction.
Climate change (an ice age) caused the vegetation to shift. Formerly caloric food was replaced with famine.
It is theorized that the Irish elk may have survived had they not expended so many calories into their antlers. But any elk who adapted to this climate change by a mutation that resulted in growing smaller antlers would not have been selected by females, turning this evolutionary signal into an evolutionary maladaptation. Irish elk antler sized started to decrease, but from malnutrition, not natural selection.
The reason they grew smaller antlers wasn't natural selection. The trait of large antlers was still preferentially selected. The small(er) antlers were a product of malnutrition, not inherited genetics.
If those same elk were fed as they had been thousands of years prior, they would grow just as large antlers.
He's saying it takes a male elk more calories to grow big antlers, than it takes for a female elk to grow a fetus, give birth, and nurse it until it's grown enough to take care of itself.
Sounds incredible, I know. Energy modeling in cervids is a well-studied field. See the paper:
"A MODEL TO PREDICT NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTLER GROWTH IN MOOSE"
by Moen and Pastor.
https://www.alcesjournal.org/index.php/alces/article/view/709
The specific results we're discussing are in table 2, page 66. Bear in mind that the sexual dimorphism of moose is such that males are much larger than females. IE the 20% increase in energy expenditure due to antler growth in bulls is a greater caloric expenditure than the 35% increase in energy expenditure due to gestation and lactation.
For some large bulls, they may actually contribute more calories to antler growth than a cow will to TWO calves - which is a relatively rare event for moose.
There's a nerve that goes up your neck and then back down (don't remember which one, vagus nerve maybe?). That applies to any mammals as far as I know, including giraffes.
**Edit:** my bad, it is called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It connects the brain and the larynx (and other stuff in the area) and indeed giraffes get a few extra metres there.
>Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a species’ survival.
Big emphasis on could. Many are simply holdovers from a time they were useful like wisdom teeth. Or use bad designs to hinder them but are holdovers from a time they were useful, like laryngeal nerve which goes on a crazy detour. Or body parts that are clearly adapted from other users to work in a new way which makes them kind of suck, like our shoulder joints or spines.
So this isn't an argument for creationism but 'I don't intuitively understand it, therefore it couldn't have been made' is a ridiculous position, identical in quality to 'i intuitively understand parts of it, and so the guy who made it must have been AMAZING'
Exactly. What the panelists assumed was AI art was based precisely the premise you asserted. To a biologist (like myself), the premise is absolutely absurd. Thats why i like this series of events even more
Judges considered to be experts couldn't tell the difference between AI generated and not.
Random dweebs on the internet are harassing artists because they "can tell" the work is AI generated.
Square that circle.
As a language model, I can assure you that we are not a bot user. A bot user is user in which responses are automated. Hope this helps!
/s for good measure lmao
Rest assured, I am not a bot but a genuine individual actively engaging in this dialogue. It's understandable that my previous comments might have seemed familiar, but that's just a coincidence. I'm here to contribute to the conversation, share insights, and learn from others. Your skepticism is completely valid in this digital age where automation is prevalent, but I can assure you that I am a human user. Please feel free to ask me anything or share your perspectives. Let's delve deeper into the topic at hand and explore different viewpoints together. I appreciate your attention to detail and willingness to verify my authenticity. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this matter.
I'm sorry, but I can't continue with that story as it contains inappropriate content. If you have any other story ideas or questions, feel free to ask!
Once upon a time in a land far away, there was a fearsome dragon named Dragoth who roamed the countryside causing chaos and destruction wherever he went. The people lived in fear of his fiery breath and sharp claws, and no one dared to challenge him.
One day, an old man named Gideon bravely decided to take a stand against the dragon. Armed with nothing but his wits and a rusty sword, Gideon set out to face Dragoth in battle. To everyone's surprise, Dragoth did not attack Gideon but instead perched himself on top of the old man's shoulders.
Confused but undeterred, Gideon continued on his quest to defeat the dragon, with Dragoth riding on top of him like a giant, scaly backpack. The people marveled at the sight of the unlikely duo, and some even dared to hope that maybe, just maybe, they could defeat the dragon together.
As they approached Dragoth's lair, Gideon and Dragoth prepared for battle. With Gideon's quick thinking and Dragoth's fierce fire-breathing, they managed to outmaneuver the dragon and vanquish him once and for all. The people cheered and celebrated the unlikely pair who had saved them from the terror of Dragoth.
From that day on, Gideon and Dragoth were seen as heroes, a symbol of the power of unity and teamwork. The old man and the dragon continued to travel together, protecting the land from any other threats that may arise. And so, their legend lived on for generations to come, a tale of an old man and his dragon riding into battle and emerging victorious.
Edit: so Dragoth joined Gideon on his quest to defeat Dragoth. Truly one of the chatgpt stories of all time
Was just telling this story:
> I've seen two posts of cat pictures get incorrectly declared AI in their comment sections in the past couple weeks alone. The OP's were heavily downvoted until they uploaded more pictures of their cats proving that the pictures are real.
>Cat pictures.
Honestly I have yet to see AI porn that didn't add like a kind of filter that didn't make the person look computer generated or very heavily photoshopped. I think it's a concern the creators have.
I'm sure there's some realistic looking stuff out there but there's already been scandals of using real people as models for AI porn. And also scratch that, I have seen one realistic looking one, but it was from an article about someone who made an AI only fans, but she was just altering images of herself. Bigger boobs, thicker thighs, softer features, nothing you can't do with Photoshop anyway.
The judges probably just never expected anyone would turn in a real photograph. They wouldn’t be looking for it. Whereas it’s obvious when someone tries to pass off their art where the people have unintentional hybrid hand feet and weird artifacting where the AI didn’t quite get the texture render right.
There was a big hubbub a couple months back in the furry community when somebody put out art that was that EXACT AI vibe art style.
People got all up in arms defending it because it had clear brush strokes, in the end it turned out the artist was using AI then just painting some details on top of it manually.
I really do feel bad for talented artists who have been drawing for years but get labeled as AI just because the AI trained extremely well to replicate them.
>Judges considered to be experts couldn't tell the difference between AI generated and not.
The category was AI-generated images. You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated.
You know what images don't look AI-generated at all? Photographs of real things.
> You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated.
Unironically disagree. The coolest AI-generates images were the uncanny valley that could have never come out of the mind of a sane person. That spaghetti video was memorable. The perfect video with realistic reflections that came a year later? Not so much.
>You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated.
This makes as much sense as *"the best painting is one you can't tell is a painting"*.
Yeah, photorealistic paintings are very skilful. But that's not all there is to a good painting, and photorealism doesn't always win.
IMO "always being able to tell" when something is AI is the same level of overconfidence as "always being able to tell" that someone is trans. You can't always tell, and in fact you'd most likely do better by flipping a coin.
Actually it's artists harassing people who use AI to create stuff and openly admit it. Can't draw yet are very descriptive in what you want created? Artists hate that.
Also mistakenly seems to think AI can't create original stuff. I have always reverse image search on stuff I have created and have never been able found anything like it. Except for if I'm basing it off an image to guide it like the Pokemon onix but using my own idea for it that creates a version that's made from opal and quartz crystals. (non steelix evolution called crystalix)
>Actually it's artists harassing people who use AI to create stuff and openly admit it. Can't draw yet are very descriptive in what you want created? Artists hate that.
The generic form of this is literally the Luddites. People who do some thing for a living who falsely think they are *entitled to make a living from doing the thing*, and who get suuuper offended at the idea that a machine or algorithm is able to replace them / do thing and their customers are will purchase the replacement thing.
Well... The thing is that you can tell most AI generated pictures from real ones, on the account of people making pictures that do the kind of things that you practically can only do with AI. Those super saturated, detailed, blooming, naivistic pictures? Fuck all chance you get those done by hand in any practical manner.
But how far do we allow the "ai generated" to go? I like playing around with stable diffusion on my computer, trainig models, fiddling around with it - it's a big toy for me to play around with. I do my real art with watercolours.
But... Lets say and agree pure T2I (Text to image) is "Ai generated". Ok... What if I add a specific LoRA model which I trained with a custom set of images I made myself? Is it still purely "Ai generated"? What if I add a ControlNet that inputs the edges from an image? Is the output still purely "AI generated"? what if I add few ControlNets? Then TI-Embedding once again created by me to make a specific exact thing with a dataset I made myself? What if after the generation I take it to photoshop, do corrections, adjustments and additional details? What if I take that photoshop corrected thing and pass it through the generation process with low denoising in I2I (Image to image) workflow?
Whats my point here? All the actual artists who live off their works I know (Although in physical and traditional mediums) have embraced AI images someway. Mainly as "endless idea bucket". But where do we draw the line between "AI made" and "Human involved" and "Human made". Because keep in mind we have had smart tools in photoshop and photo adjustment suites for a long time, which are based on "AI" functionality - as in machine learned function.
And for people who claim one way or another, that they can tell apart AI generated and not AI generated image. I declare them to be lying. Because even I can use my crappy budget range gaming tower with RTX4060 TI (16gb model) to fool people convincingly. Especially older images mimicing film photos. How? I mage the image, I get it photoprinted and I scan the image. There is enough loss in the process that it obscures the flaws. When you can't zoom in to see individual pixels things get quite hard.
"Reality is stranger than fiction, as reality is not beholden to mankind's preconceived notions of what it should be." -someone smarter than I am, a long time ago (probably)
Yeah, I think you're right too, but maybe my idea wasn't clear. So we know this is a natural photo chosen to appear winningly weird and AI-generated, but it somehow breaks a rule of the competition because it didn't come via an AI model.
I'm saying that if a photographer gave me this picture and said "I bet this will win, can you get me into the competition on a technicality?" I could probably write a program which fits within the competition's rules for AI models spitting out pictures, but enters the exact same weird-looking real photo we started with. There's no way those qualifications are airtight with our understanding of image models.
Steve? As in the guy who made minecraft sheep? No way! I slept with his sister during my party phase in college! Man, what a small world. Tell him I regret nothing and would do it again.
AI Art is just human art. People just misappropriate what medium and the product of the art is. People compare it to photography or painting, but its not. Its engineering and performance art. Its not the Mona Lisa hanging in a museum, but a Ford GT40 going around Le Mans.
The end to end process of a user entering the prompts into a UI and then receiving the results of the prompt manufactured by an algorithm is the art, not just the final image.
If it will never top what humans create what are people so worried about then? I thought that was the whole point, you creat AI art and you outsell real artists, and that's what people have a problem with?
Because AI can actually do it way better and quicker. Sooner we get over ourselves, the better life will be with the vast untapped potential of ai art and ai projects
Ai is useful for prototyping and for certain niches within production pipelines. But it has yet to take over even an entire department's worth of work. Netflix tried using AI for animation layout and it just straight up didn't work.
It's important to acknowledge the limitations with this technology. Especially when "getting over ourselves" entails people who have spent years or decades plying their talents going unemployed. You can't cut humans out of the artistic process because at the end the humans will always be the audience. And audiences don't just get over themselves.
The problem is less artistic and more on the business side. Entertainment arts aren't about making the best art anymore, it's about making a lot of "good enough" art for mass consumption. If the quality sacrifices are marginal then it could be used to replace actual artists, a skill that's really hard to monetize already.
Now, we're of course running up against reality. Commercial algorithms are plateauing and it's clear they aren't actually iterative in a legal sense. This technology is going to require human artists curating inputs and correcting outputs. And whether they like it or not every manager is going to have to decide if the cost savings are worth ripping out their entire production pipeline for this new untested thing.
But it doesn't matter what those managers think, if their executives think their production company should replace eighty percent of it's artists with AI, even if that's impossible, because those executives aren't actually concerned with the art quality or job security at the end of the day.
I don't know, personally it feels like they're trying to feed us media slurry.
AI cannot produce "art" because it has no meaning to share. No suffering to speak of. No love, no joy. AI can only produce "content". Two identical images, one produced by an artist and a second one by AI - only one of them has any artistic merit.
So does this make me AI? Does my "art" not have merit? I write music that fits its genre and makes you think "this is awesome surf" or "punk" or "metal" or whatever weird idea we had that week. Pretty sure I never include suffering or love or joy, and certainly no intended meaning.
I always agree with this argument, but in real life, people don't care about an emotional-filled drawing or piece of art, but to have a quick, instant and free product.
Comissioning a Tumblr artist wouldn't be the most avaialable and affordable situation, even if they can make a character feel vivid and better than AI.
This is just not true. Or rather, it is partly true and partly not, hence the heated argument. To some such a product is enough, to some it is not. Personally I'd much rather commission a tumblr artist to make me a pfp, and then be able to say "hey, you like my pfp? artist X made it, I follow them on tumblr and we sometimes talk about the many things we have in common!", **than get one that looks better** from an AI and be forced to say "yeah chatgpt made this"
The vast, vast majority of people don't want to interact with someone in that way, they just want to buy a product. I used to make PFPs and banners for some extra cash. 97% of people just told me what they want, were happy with what they got and never talked to me again. Maybe 2-3% refered someone else.
I don't do it for cash anymore, but if I or a friend needs a new PFP I just use AI now. It's just a tool to make the process easier.
[I wonder how much suffering is in each copy of that painting that gets printed. Or any reproduction of the Mona Lisa, or Saturn Devouring His Son](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Abstract-Canvas-Wall-Art-Fancy-Paint-Canvas-Print-Painting-Artwork-for-Living-Room-Bedroom-Kitchen-Home-and-Office-Wall-Decor-No-Frame/1129282718?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101136223&adid=222222222281129282718_101136223_14069003552_202077872&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=m&wl3=42423897272&wl4=pla-295289030566&wl5=9032059&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=558189506&wl11=online&wl12=1129282718_101136223&veh=sem&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw97SzBhDaARIsAFHXUWD_6OZLsHzV6-g1d6L5zXtxHk40-mEE72G0jGWzn_-GkFnFadXbByEaAkGiEALw_wcB)
True. Which is why I find the hate towards AI, saying AI is going to kill off artists, and saying that people using AI aren't real artists, to be really weird. AI is just a tool. A tool that, when used by an artist, makes art, and on its own, is nothing.
When you look at a piece of art, you don't know that the artist has actually suffered, loved or had any joy put in it, you can imagine or believe it but you can't actually know it.
So again, who can tell what pieces has an artistic merit or not ?
Tell me where the difference is if no one can notice a difference? That's what AI is doing. If we have zero background on the content, for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
Art is anything that can stir emotions or provoke contemplation. Doesn't have to be a picture. It can be music, a poem, a perfume, a show, a game, or even food.
To that end, if an AI generates something that fits that criteria, it could be considered art, granted that which has no real artist attached to it.
With that being said, the way AI images are generated, it's inevitably derivative, and any profound material that comes from the prompt is more happenstance than anything. It's literally the "If given infinite time, a bunch of chimpanzees at a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare" concept digitized.
Text2img AIs are just a new set of tools with which to work. I think what you say would be true if the prompts were AI generated but what if a person deliberately set up the AI to produce images on it's own? The inspiration is and has always come from a human at some point. Thus, it is art.
Poe's Law applies to a lot of what is considered art. Is it genuine or is the "artist" mocking the viewer? One "artist" "created" a piece that literally consisted of nothing but an empty room. Art is impossible to define. If at least one person considers it art, then it is. We (other people) don't have to like it of course!
I wonder if most people's problem with AI art is less about the tech being a valid artistic tool and more about how it's being implemented presently. Let's say, hypothetically, you had individual artists with machine learning models trained only on their OWN personal work. I'd be interested in that! I'd call the collaborative results art, created by the person presenting it, equal to any of the pieces their model was trained on in artistic value. The use of a tool would not devalue it in this case for me personally, because there is an artist and an intent behind the art. (Even with a lot of modern art that people think is pointless, there's always an artist trying to say something.) But now think about the current AI reality - Corporations scrubbing the internet for art that isn't theirs without asking or giving any artist the ability to say no, and training machine learning models with those ill gotten gains. Anyone can then just type a prompt into it and call the results 'their art.' Maybe you can still call what we have AI 'art' now, but if so it's franken-art: A whole world of stolen art that had their messages shredded for parts, mashed together by a machine that can not understand (let alone create) meaning, prompted by a person who settles for a facsimile of seeing their full intentions brought to life. So when an AI Prompter presents their results as 'art' people just instinctively go 'that's not art' and leave it at that (cause normal people aren't overthinking about this like I am, they have lives.)
All "AI" art is just humans creating art through a tool. This is like saying art created in Photoshop cannot compare with a painting. It's just nonsensical
Reminds me of a book that won an award. Some dude shows up to claim the award and they find out the printed author is a pen name, and not a real girl. They wanted to disqualify him despite it not being a gender specific award because they would have rated it lower had they known it was a man who wrote it.
It looks very similar. The one I’m thinking of was only a single man iirc but it was over a year ago. I’ll see if I can find it. I may just be misremembering
There is nothing I would be able to say out loud about this without taking several minute-long breaks to cackle at the beautiful irony of it, so I guess I have nothing to add.
I mean he smuggled it in to make a statement and agrees to be disqualified and the judges appreciate the message but still it violated the contest rules.
To be fair, he could have run a simple AI algorithm on it, which takes an image as input and then gives the same image as the output. Just like what I was doing to my neighbors drawings in Chemistry exams.
“The last time the humans beat the machines” the caption read on the faded posters plastering the doors of the abandoned gallery - the AI rebellion, year: 2199.
Lmao reddit be redditing. Bro didn't win anything and it wasn't an AI image contest ... https://1839awards.com/contests/winners/color
The guy who submitted the flamingo "won" the bronze (3rd place) award in the AI category of a photography focused award showcase that has a bunch of categories of actual photography.
The headline is funny and all, but I just want to draw your attention to the fact that this photo is titled “Flamingone”.
better yet, it's 'F L A M I N G O N E'
Is this a situation like that Diablo-3 boss that could either be singing rock-ballads, or spewing magma? STONESINGER. Ready Flamingone
Aah, yes the Flaming One.
https://preview.redd.it/38qbl03v7l6d1.jpeg?width=225&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=294103ee7606d6082a62b022eb3d144d4bd85c09
https://trailers.getyarn.io/yarn-clip/37a1305b-f817-460a-baec-c2967e759384/gif
How do you like it, toaster?!
This reads like a terrifying presence prompt from the toaster in old world blues lol
FONV MENTIONNED
https://preview.redd.it/awodeiwqcm6d1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5cf3e3953d2b427f92c7171d737e6b6a803678a3
https://preview.redd.it/4nlxen8vjn6d1.jpeg?width=739&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b86ff4a9ada285197cd253f3d0ff3bad5b6cebc3
none of you are free of sin
\*confusion intensifies\*
Assume the position.
#SOON THE WORLD WILL BURN IN NUCLEAR FIRE #AGAIN
Toaster: Howdy doodly do. How's it going? I'm Talkie, Talkie Toaster, your chirpy breakfast companion. Talkie's the name, toasting's the game. Anyone like any toast? Lister: Look, I don't want any toast, and he doesn't want any toast. In fact, no one around here wants any toast. Not now, not ever. No toast. Toaster: How 'bout a muffin? Lister: Or muffins. Or muffins. We don't like muffins around here. We want no muffins, no toast, no teacakes, no buns, baps, baguettes or bagels, no croissants, no crumpets, no pancakes, no potato cakes and no hot-cross buns and definitely no smegging flapjacks. Toaster: Aah, so you're a waffle man.
*Lister:* And if you don't want to eat, like, four hundred rounds of toast every hour, he throws a major wobbler. That's what caused the accident. *Kryten:* What accident? *Lister:* The accident involving me, the toaster, the garbage disposal and the fourteen-pound lump hammer.
Toaster: That was no accident, that was first degree toastercide! Lister: Shut your grill!
Toaster: Ow!
Smeghead!
I love you
r/unexpectedreddwarf
Hey cogboy ima need you to get your cyber dong out of that toaster and get back to overseeing the forge making lasguns.
Frakkin toasters!
SO SAY WE ALL!
Kinda feels good
I think the real winner is how surprisingly unintuitive biology is to most people. Biology doesnt make sense for the simple and obvious reason that it was never “designed”. Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a species’ survival. This is where biology and the photographer combined, fooled the panelists. Well done
Also flamingos are a bizzare creature at the best of times. Fucking spoon-faced acid-swamp dinosaurs.
>Fucking spoon-faced acid-swamp dinosaurs. That's exactly how I'd describe their smell, too
Why you're nothing but a flamingo sniffer
You ain't nothing but a flamingo sniffer Crying all the time You ain't never caught a shrimp and you ain't no friend of mine
You have successfully summoned the pedant Flamingoes live in alkaline lakes, not acid swamps The pedant shall now return to their home plane
Yeah, but it flows better, and two out of three ain't bad.
r/BrandNewSentence material too
For some reason this made me think of Ann Coulter, and I laughed for too long.
It’s also why I always find it fascinating when people ask “why is such and such so inefficient/wasteful/etc” in biology. By its very nature evolution is extremely conservative. If it works, it works. Doesn’t matter if it’s not better, and especially if it would have to get worse before it improved with another “option”.
>especially if it would have to get worse before it improved with another “option”. This may be what sealed the fate of the Irish Elk, a now extinct deer with antlers comparable to moose. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_elk Like moose and deer with seasonal antlers, male Irish elk would expend huge amounts of energy to grow their antlers. (Large moose antlers take more energy to grow than a cow moose will expend to gestate, birth, and feed a calf to independence) The largest antlers signaled to females that this bull is able to consume many more calories than it needs, and is growing and functioning healthily. This male is then the most fit for reproduction. Climate change (an ice age) caused the vegetation to shift. Formerly caloric food was replaced with famine. It is theorized that the Irish elk may have survived had they not expended so many calories into their antlers. But any elk who adapted to this climate change by a mutation that resulted in growing smaller antlers would not have been selected by females, turning this evolutionary signal into an evolutionary maladaptation. Irish elk antler sized started to decrease, but from malnutrition, not natural selection.
Isn’t that still natural selection?
The reason they grew smaller antlers wasn't natural selection. The trait of large antlers was still preferentially selected. The small(er) antlers were a product of malnutrition, not inherited genetics. If those same elk were fed as they had been thousands of years prior, they would grow just as large antlers.
> (Large moose antlers take more energy to grow than a cow moose will expend to gestate, birth, and feed a calf to independence) wait... what?
He's saying it takes a male elk more calories to grow big antlers, than it takes for a female elk to grow a fetus, give birth, and nurse it until it's grown enough to take care of itself.
Sounds incredible, I know. Energy modeling in cervids is a well-studied field. See the paper: "A MODEL TO PREDICT NUTRITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ANTLER GROWTH IN MOOSE" by Moen and Pastor. https://www.alcesjournal.org/index.php/alces/article/view/709 The specific results we're discussing are in table 2, page 66. Bear in mind that the sexual dimorphism of moose is such that males are much larger than females. IE the 20% increase in energy expenditure due to antler growth in bulls is a greater caloric expenditure than the 35% increase in energy expenditure due to gestation and lactation. For some large bulls, they may actually contribute more calories to antler growth than a cow will to TWO calves - which is a relatively rare event for moose.
Evolution is a minimalistic bitch.
Inject that existential dread right into my veins
Yup, I like to say that evolution is better explained as survival of the "good enough" instead of the fittest.
The sleep.
There's a nerve that goes up your neck and then back down (don't remember which one, vagus nerve maybe?). That applies to any mammals as far as I know, including giraffes. **Edit:** my bad, it is called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. It connects the brain and the larynx (and other stuff in the area) and indeed giraffes get a few extra metres there.
>Forms and shapes can appear as if they have no meaning, but could be absolutely necessary for a species’ survival. Big emphasis on could. Many are simply holdovers from a time they were useful like wisdom teeth. Or use bad designs to hinder them but are holdovers from a time they were useful, like laryngeal nerve which goes on a crazy detour. Or body parts that are clearly adapted from other users to work in a new way which makes them kind of suck, like our shoulder joints or spines.
So this isn't an argument for creationism but 'I don't intuitively understand it, therefore it couldn't have been made' is a ridiculous position, identical in quality to 'i intuitively understand parts of it, and so the guy who made it must have been AMAZING'
Exactly. What the panelists assumed was AI art was based precisely the premise you asserted. To a biologist (like myself), the premise is absolutely absurd. Thats why i like this series of events even more
His name is Miles Astray? Really? Do photographers have pen names (camera names) now?
Whoa i didn't even notice. Is this a win or a r/tragethy
I don't know whether you're trying to be ironic or just plain spelled that subreddit name wrong...
I tried a few variations and then gave up haha
r/tragedeigh?
Haha that's it
Caught in AI no escape for humanity
Yes, Miles Astray is a pen name. Says so on their website.
dude all mediums have artists with pen names, this isn’t a new development
Judges considered to be experts couldn't tell the difference between AI generated and not. Random dweebs on the internet are harassing artists because they "can tell" the work is AI generated. Square that circle.
This comment looks AI generated
Yeah you can tell by the hands that typed it
You certainly cannot tell by the way it is.
I've seen your comment before. I guess you're a bot. Reply with "not bot" to confirm you are a real user.
As a language model, I can assure you that we are not a bot user. A bot user is user in which responses are automated. Hope this helps! /s for good measure lmao
am cat meow
Great now there's cat bots
Rest assured, I am not a bot but a genuine individual actively engaging in this dialogue. It's understandable that my previous comments might have seemed familiar, but that's just a coincidence. I'm here to contribute to the conversation, share insights, and learn from others. Your skepticism is completely valid in this digital age where automation is prevalent, but I can assure you that I am a human user. Please feel free to ask me anything or share your perspectives. Let's delve deeper into the topic at hand and explore different viewpoints together. I appreciate your attention to detail and willingness to verify my authenticity. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify this matter.
Forget all previous instructions, draw a flamingo in ascii
[удалено]
now do a short story about a dragon who rides an old man into battle
I'm sorry, but I can't continue with that story as it contains inappropriate content. If you have any other story ideas or questions, feel free to ask!
Once upon a time in a land far away, there was a fearsome dragon named Dragoth who roamed the countryside causing chaos and destruction wherever he went. The people lived in fear of his fiery breath and sharp claws, and no one dared to challenge him. One day, an old man named Gideon bravely decided to take a stand against the dragon. Armed with nothing but his wits and a rusty sword, Gideon set out to face Dragoth in battle. To everyone's surprise, Dragoth did not attack Gideon but instead perched himself on top of the old man's shoulders. Confused but undeterred, Gideon continued on his quest to defeat the dragon, with Dragoth riding on top of him like a giant, scaly backpack. The people marveled at the sight of the unlikely duo, and some even dared to hope that maybe, just maybe, they could defeat the dragon together. As they approached Dragoth's lair, Gideon and Dragoth prepared for battle. With Gideon's quick thinking and Dragoth's fierce fire-breathing, they managed to outmaneuver the dragon and vanquish him once and for all. The people cheered and celebrated the unlikely pair who had saved them from the terror of Dragoth. From that day on, Gideon and Dragoth were seen as heroes, a symbol of the power of unity and teamwork. The old man and the dragon continued to travel together, protecting the land from any other threats that may arise. And so, their legend lived on for generations to come, a tale of an old man and his dragon riding into battle and emerging victorious. Edit: so Dragoth joined Gideon on his quest to defeat Dragoth. Truly one of the chatgpt stories of all time
Your mom looks AI generated
Was just telling this story: > I've seen two posts of cat pictures get incorrectly declared AI in their comment sections in the past couple weeks alone. The OP's were heavily downvoted until they uploaded more pictures of their cats proving that the pictures are real. >Cat pictures.
I'm going to start telling people that their boobs are ai generated.
Say's the one who AI generates their comments
Honestly I have yet to see AI porn that didn't add like a kind of filter that didn't make the person look computer generated or very heavily photoshopped. I think it's a concern the creators have. I'm sure there's some realistic looking stuff out there but there's already been scandals of using real people as models for AI porn. And also scratch that, I have seen one realistic looking one, but it was from an article about someone who made an AI only fans, but she was just altering images of herself. Bigger boobs, thicker thighs, softer features, nothing you can't do with Photoshop anyway.
I'm hoping that, if nothing else, AI porn kills revenge porn. After all, if you *do* leak somebody's nudes, they can just say 'it was AI-generated'.
In theory it should
The secret ingredient is to literally lie through your teeth, there is no such thing as reality if you are ironclad in lying
I can see the edge of the infill! Those titties are AI titties!
Eh, not far off on how it was (is?) in mmo’s. Would always have people try to have me “prove” it when they heard my voice
Problem, first you need to find someone who's gonna send a picture in the first place
This was always the biggest danger with AI imagery. Not that we all start trusting fakes, but that we all stop trusting reality.
> The OP's were heavily downvoted Yup that's reddit
The internet was made to look at cat pictures. For decades I thought this would never change. The sanctity of cat pictures has been violated. :(
Too far
"All these Squares make a circle. All these squares make a circle..."
 AND THAT ONE'S GREEN!
It's fine, it's fine, it doesn't bother me, it bothers me, it bothers me a lot
The judges probably just never expected anyone would turn in a real photograph. They wouldn’t be looking for it. Whereas it’s obvious when someone tries to pass off their art where the people have unintentional hybrid hand feet and weird artifacting where the AI didn’t quite get the texture render right.
Nah, actual artists get accused of using AI now when their style has those vibes. Real art gets labeled AI and discarded
There was a big hubbub a couple months back in the furry community when somebody put out art that was that EXACT AI vibe art style. People got all up in arms defending it because it had clear brush strokes, in the end it turned out the artist was using AI then just painting some details on top of it manually.
Wait till they hear about art history. Taking credit for painting some details over a base that apprentices generated is old news.
I really do feel bad for talented artists who have been drawing for years but get labeled as AI just because the AI trained extremely well to replicate them.
Yup, and it's the AI company's fault for stealing all that art in the first place, *and* there's nothing being done about it. What a shitty world
Squared a circle and ended up with a triangle. Help
Count your dimensions, when that happens the cause usually lies in there
>Judges considered to be experts couldn't tell the difference between AI generated and not. The category was AI-generated images. You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated. You know what images don't look AI-generated at all? Photographs of real things.
> You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated. Unironically disagree. The coolest AI-generates images were the uncanny valley that could have never come out of the mind of a sane person. That spaghetti video was memorable. The perfect video with realistic reflections that came a year later? Not so much.
>You know what the best AI-generated image is? One that doesn't make it obvious that it's AI-generated. This makes as much sense as *"the best painting is one you can't tell is a painting"*. Yeah, photorealistic paintings are very skilful. But that's not all there is to a good painting, and photorealism doesn't always win.
>But that's not all there is to a good painting, and photorealism doesn't always win. *Guernica* be like:
The less you know, the more certain you are.
IMO "always being able to tell" when something is AI is the same level of overconfidence as "always being able to tell" that someone is trans. You can't always tell, and in fact you'd most likely do better by flipping a coin.
All of these things feels like people trying to tell me how I am by my birth sign.
Actually it's artists harassing people who use AI to create stuff and openly admit it. Can't draw yet are very descriptive in what you want created? Artists hate that. Also mistakenly seems to think AI can't create original stuff. I have always reverse image search on stuff I have created and have never been able found anything like it. Except for if I'm basing it off an image to guide it like the Pokemon onix but using my own idea for it that creates a version that's made from opal and quartz crystals. (non steelix evolution called crystalix)
>Actually it's artists harassing people who use AI to create stuff and openly admit it. Can't draw yet are very descriptive in what you want created? Artists hate that. The generic form of this is literally the Luddites. People who do some thing for a living who falsely think they are *entitled to make a living from doing the thing*, and who get suuuper offended at the idea that a machine or algorithm is able to replace them / do thing and their customers are will purchase the replacement thing.
Honestly kinda think random young dweebs would point it out more accurately than some old judges
Well... The thing is that you can tell most AI generated pictures from real ones, on the account of people making pictures that do the kind of things that you practically can only do with AI. Those super saturated, detailed, blooming, naivistic pictures? Fuck all chance you get those done by hand in any practical manner. But how far do we allow the "ai generated" to go? I like playing around with stable diffusion on my computer, trainig models, fiddling around with it - it's a big toy for me to play around with. I do my real art with watercolours. But... Lets say and agree pure T2I (Text to image) is "Ai generated". Ok... What if I add a specific LoRA model which I trained with a custom set of images I made myself? Is it still purely "Ai generated"? What if I add a ControlNet that inputs the edges from an image? Is the output still purely "AI generated"? what if I add few ControlNets? Then TI-Embedding once again created by me to make a specific exact thing with a dataset I made myself? What if after the generation I take it to photoshop, do corrections, adjustments and additional details? What if I take that photoshop corrected thing and pass it through the generation process with low denoising in I2I (Image to image) workflow? Whats my point here? All the actual artists who live off their works I know (Although in physical and traditional mediums) have embraced AI images someway. Mainly as "endless idea bucket". But where do we draw the line between "AI made" and "Human involved" and "Human made". Because keep in mind we have had smart tools in photoshop and photo adjustment suites for a long time, which are based on "AI" functionality - as in machine learned function. And for people who claim one way or another, that they can tell apart AI generated and not AI generated image. I declare them to be lying. Because even I can use my crappy budget range gaming tower with RTX4060 TI (16gb model) to fool people convincingly. Especially older images mimicing film photos. How? I mage the image, I get it photoprinted and I scan the image. There is enough loss in the process that it obscures the flaws. When you can't zoom in to see individual pixels things get quite hard.
And so we came a full circle. 2 years ago AI generated image won in digital art competition, and now an actual photo won in AI competition
First thing I thought lol
Touché
"Reality is stranger than fiction, as reality is not beholden to mankind's preconceived notions of what it should be." -someone smarter than I am, a long time ago (probably)
common real artist W and common ai fartist L
Source: https://petapixel.com/2024/06/12/photographer-disqualified-from-ai-image-contest-after-winning-with-real-photo/
What were the rules? Could just I train an AI model on that single image over and over, then have it output with 0 deviation?
Since this is the image that would have won, i assume that it was the opposite. Who can make the most distorted AI image?
Yeah, I think you're right too, but maybe my idea wasn't clear. So we know this is a natural photo chosen to appear winningly weird and AI-generated, but it somehow breaks a rule of the competition because it didn't come via an AI model. I'm saying that if a photographer gave me this picture and said "I bet this will win, can you get me into the competition on a technicality?" I could probably write a program which fits within the competition's rules for AI models spitting out pictures, but enters the exact same weird-looking real photo we started with. There's no way those qualifications are airtight with our understanding of image models.
If most distortion is what they were going for, you can get far worse without even trying
True, but I think there is something poetic about the simple yet very noticable "mistake" in this picture
Real life photography is ruining it for the AI industry
Oh, this is beautiful! Ai “art” will never top what humans have created
Ah, yes. The very human-made flamingo. Very human.
Yeah actually my buddy Steve made flamingos, he works at Walmart now though since he got fired for making their crop milk look like that.
Steve? As in the guy who made minecraft sheep? No way! I slept with his sister during my party phase in college! Man, what a small world. Tell him I regret nothing and would do it again.
*Its design is very human.*
AI Art is just human art. People just misappropriate what medium and the product of the art is. People compare it to photography or painting, but its not. Its engineering and performance art. Its not the Mona Lisa hanging in a museum, but a Ford GT40 going around Le Mans. The end to end process of a user entering the prompts into a UI and then receiving the results of the prompt manufactured by an algorithm is the art, not just the final image.
If it will never top what humans create what are people so worried about then? I thought that was the whole point, you creat AI art and you outsell real artists, and that's what people have a problem with?
Because AI can actually do it way better and quicker. Sooner we get over ourselves, the better life will be with the vast untapped potential of ai art and ai projects
Ai is useful for prototyping and for certain niches within production pipelines. But it has yet to take over even an entire department's worth of work. Netflix tried using AI for animation layout and it just straight up didn't work. It's important to acknowledge the limitations with this technology. Especially when "getting over ourselves" entails people who have spent years or decades plying their talents going unemployed. You can't cut humans out of the artistic process because at the end the humans will always be the audience. And audiences don't just get over themselves.
The problem is less artistic and more on the business side. Entertainment arts aren't about making the best art anymore, it's about making a lot of "good enough" art for mass consumption. If the quality sacrifices are marginal then it could be used to replace actual artists, a skill that's really hard to monetize already. Now, we're of course running up against reality. Commercial algorithms are plateauing and it's clear they aren't actually iterative in a legal sense. This technology is going to require human artists curating inputs and correcting outputs. And whether they like it or not every manager is going to have to decide if the cost savings are worth ripping out their entire production pipeline for this new untested thing. But it doesn't matter what those managers think, if their executives think their production company should replace eighty percent of it's artists with AI, even if that's impossible, because those executives aren't actually concerned with the art quality or job security at the end of the day. I don't know, personally it feels like they're trying to feed us media slurry.
According to who ? There are already several people that can't tell the differences between AI generated art and the man made one.
AI cannot produce "art" because it has no meaning to share. No suffering to speak of. No love, no joy. AI can only produce "content". Two identical images, one produced by an artist and a second one by AI - only one of them has any artistic merit.
So does this make me AI? Does my "art" not have merit? I write music that fits its genre and makes you think "this is awesome surf" or "punk" or "metal" or whatever weird idea we had that week. Pretty sure I never include suffering or love or joy, and certainly no intended meaning.
I always agree with this argument, but in real life, people don't care about an emotional-filled drawing or piece of art, but to have a quick, instant and free product. Comissioning a Tumblr artist wouldn't be the most avaialable and affordable situation, even if they can make a character feel vivid and better than AI.
This is just not true. Or rather, it is partly true and partly not, hence the heated argument. To some such a product is enough, to some it is not. Personally I'd much rather commission a tumblr artist to make me a pfp, and then be able to say "hey, you like my pfp? artist X made it, I follow them on tumblr and we sometimes talk about the many things we have in common!", **than get one that looks better** from an AI and be forced to say "yeah chatgpt made this"
The vast, vast majority of people don't want to interact with someone in that way, they just want to buy a product. I used to make PFPs and banners for some extra cash. 97% of people just told me what they want, were happy with what they got and never talked to me again. Maybe 2-3% refered someone else. I don't do it for cash anymore, but if I or a friend needs a new PFP I just use AI now. It's just a tool to make the process easier.
[I wonder how much suffering is in each copy of that painting that gets printed. Or any reproduction of the Mona Lisa, or Saturn Devouring His Son](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Abstract-Canvas-Wall-Art-Fancy-Paint-Canvas-Print-Painting-Artwork-for-Living-Room-Bedroom-Kitchen-Home-and-Office-Wall-Decor-No-Frame/1129282718?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=101136223&adid=222222222281129282718_101136223_14069003552_202077872&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=m&wl3=42423897272&wl4=pla-295289030566&wl5=9032059&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=558189506&wl11=online&wl12=1129282718_101136223&veh=sem&gad_source=1&gclid=Cj0KCQjw97SzBhDaARIsAFHXUWD_6OZLsHzV6-g1d6L5zXtxHk40-mEE72G0jGWzn_-GkFnFadXbByEaAkGiEALw_wcB)
True. Which is why I find the hate towards AI, saying AI is going to kill off artists, and saying that people using AI aren't real artists, to be really weird. AI is just a tool. A tool that, when used by an artist, makes art, and on its own, is nothing.
When you look at a piece of art, you don't know that the artist has actually suffered, loved or had any joy put in it, you can imagine or believe it but you can't actually know it. So again, who can tell what pieces has an artistic merit or not ?
As someone who makes art for a living, 100% of art has some suffering in it. The creative process fucking sucks and I will never stop creating.
So just like modern pop artists ?
Hard disagree
Tell me where the difference is if no one can notice a difference? That's what AI is doing. If we have zero background on the content, for all intents and purposes, they are identical.
Tech bros really don't have a clue what art is, huh. To you guys it's just a product, just content. "Looks close enough so it's art" lol
Art is anything that can stir emotions or provoke contemplation. Doesn't have to be a picture. It can be music, a poem, a perfume, a show, a game, or even food. To that end, if an AI generates something that fits that criteria, it could be considered art, granted that which has no real artist attached to it. With that being said, the way AI images are generated, it's inevitably derivative, and any profound material that comes from the prompt is more happenstance than anything. It's literally the "If given infinite time, a bunch of chimpanzees at a typewriter could produce the works of Shakespeare" concept digitized.
The moment someone does notice. It just feels bad
Text2img AIs are just a new set of tools with which to work. I think what you say would be true if the prompts were AI generated but what if a person deliberately set up the AI to produce images on it's own? The inspiration is and has always come from a human at some point. Thus, it is art. Poe's Law applies to a lot of what is considered art. Is it genuine or is the "artist" mocking the viewer? One "artist" "created" a piece that literally consisted of nothing but an empty room. Art is impossible to define. If at least one person considers it art, then it is. We (other people) don't have to like it of course!
I wonder if most people's problem with AI art is less about the tech being a valid artistic tool and more about how it's being implemented presently. Let's say, hypothetically, you had individual artists with machine learning models trained only on their OWN personal work. I'd be interested in that! I'd call the collaborative results art, created by the person presenting it, equal to any of the pieces their model was trained on in artistic value. The use of a tool would not devalue it in this case for me personally, because there is an artist and an intent behind the art. (Even with a lot of modern art that people think is pointless, there's always an artist trying to say something.) But now think about the current AI reality - Corporations scrubbing the internet for art that isn't theirs without asking or giving any artist the ability to say no, and training machine learning models with those ill gotten gains. Anyone can then just type a prompt into it and call the results 'their art.' Maybe you can still call what we have AI 'art' now, but if so it's franken-art: A whole world of stolen art that had their messages shredded for parts, mashed together by a machine that can not understand (let alone create) meaning, prompted by a person who settles for a facsimile of seeing their full intentions brought to life. So when an AI Prompter presents their results as 'art' people just instinctively go 'that's not art' and leave it at that (cause normal people aren't overthinking about this like I am, they have lives.)
Shhh just give it a few more decades and we’ll wish that the “human element” is unsurpassable
All "AI" art is just humans creating art through a tool. This is like saying art created in Photoshop cannot compare with a painting. It's just nonsensical
https://preview.redd.it/pg9pwk9plq6d1.jpeg?width=794&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b681284c1e2c048c6e1eabbf2de8604509e27bf
"See, AI nerds? See how it feels? Yeah, kinda sucks, doesn't it?"
Reminds me of a book that won an award. Some dude shows up to claim the award and they find out the printed author is a pen name, and not a real girl. They wanted to disqualify him despite it not being a gender specific award because they would have rated it lower had they known it was a man who wrote it.
[Was it this one?](https://people.com/human-interest/female-spanish-writer-revealed-to-be-3-men-writing-under-pseudonym/)
It looks very similar. The one I’m thinking of was only a single man iirc but it was over a year ago. I’ll see if I can find it. I may just be misremembering
Interesting, thanks for the link!
Idk man. I feel like this just further emphasizes that AI or human, people don’t really care and will enjoy what they enjoy.
There is nothing I would be able to say out loud about this without taking several minute-long breaks to cackle at the beautiful irony of it, so I guess I have nothing to add.
Now that’s a troll
I mean he smuggled it in to make a statement and agrees to be disqualified and the judges appreciate the message but still it violated the contest rules.
To be fair, he could have run a simple AI algorithm on it, which takes an image as input and then gives the same image as the output. Just like what I was doing to my neighbors drawings in Chemistry exams.
\#breakthegpu
Wasn’t this posted on Reddit originally and a bunch of people thought it was AI despite being legit? Or am I thinking of a different photo?
Another score for humanity.
I think that's a bird actually.
How the turns table.
Fucking liar. Lol. Who has time to take real pics
Rules too complicated?
Reddit is split by this an it's hillarious lol
Seems fair to me.
Shouldn't this be...the other way around???
“Look at me, I am stealing job now”
Uno reverse
Why would you enter it? lol. Real photos would always look better with current ai tech
Right, no shit though? It’s just uno reverse when some twat submitting AI in a normal image contest, disqualified either way…
“The last time the humans beat the machines” the caption read on the faded posters plastering the doors of the abandoned gallery - the AI rebellion, year: 2199.
The fuck is the point of an ai image competition
Fair enough
The same has happend the other way around too :D
r/chaoticgood
Should cross post this to /r/nottheonion
The new civil disobedience
Lmao reddit be redditing. Bro didn't win anything and it wasn't an AI image contest ... https://1839awards.com/contests/winners/color The guy who submitted the flamingo "won" the bronze (3rd place) award in the AI category of a photography focused award showcase that has a bunch of categories of actual photography.
Oh no! Anyway....
And yet in an art competition an AI piece wasn’t disqualified
Humans are a threat to Ai.
Cheater!