Topic: Rolemaster Unified art: what happened?

[Cory Magel]

We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.

I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.

The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.

Maybe it's just your reality. Or maybe you misunderstood. What I disagree with is that: We aren't talking about inspiration. Without the inspiration of the user providing, well, inspiration (parameters) to the AI it would be creating entirely random results at best. Currently, without that input, obviously nothing is produced.

Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator

Again, I disagree. It many cases the only major difference between original and derivative art is the fact that the person largely copied by hand rather than cut and paste.

[5th Knight of Xar]

We're not arguing about inspiration. I think there is where you get this wrong. Programs can't be inspired, they act from programmed algorithms, in this case AI image generators copy/cut/paste human artist's works put very simple, to generate new images. AI generators don't paint images pixel by pixel.

I don't agree. Firstly, the person plugging the information into the AI program is still looking for something. They still have some inspiration they've going for. So far as 'copy/cut/paste' I think you're splitting hairs. Like I said, artists copy each others style all the time. It's why there's 'Impressionism' and not just 'Monet'. In the theoretical sense they are copying/cuting/pasting like work.. or pixels. Their just doing it using physical media. We could say digital art created by a human is doing what you claim AI art is doing.

The person looking to generate something is programming the AI generator with the input used. You do not have to agree with any of it, that is your choice, but I'm telling you how it is in reality.

Maybe it's just your reality. Or maybe you misunderstood. What I disagree with is that: We aren't talking about inspiration. Without the inspiration of the user providing, well, inspiration (parameters) to the AI it would be creating entirely random results at best. Currently, without that input, obviously nothing is produced.

Unless the fictional artist is copy pasting parts of other artists works into a new creation, there is no similarity between a human and an AI generator

Again, I disagree. It many cases the only major difference between original and derivative art is the fact that the person largely copied by hand rather than cut and paste.

I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.

[Cory Magel]

I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.

I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.

[5th Knight of Xar]

I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.

I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.

This just proves how off track you are regarding the subject.

[Thot]

[...]
 AI generators use and merge pre-existing images, they can never in the near future learn to paint something on their own without relying on scraped databases of images and photos made by humans, scraped and used without said artists consent.

This comment isn't aging well even now...

[Thot]

I wonder, how many people who wholeheartedly oppose AI art are aware of Sora, or sono.ai?

The world is changing, whether we like it or not. We might as well get better images from it.

[Cory Magel]

I'll end my part in this AI discussion. You'll find enough publications online regarding AI image generation if you truly want to learn, I know as I've had a particular interest in the subject, ever since these generators first surfaced.

I understand how it works. Because I don't agree with you on aspects of it doesn't mean I need to 'learn' more. More likely it means you need to learn that your point of view isn't 'reality'.

This just proves how off track you are regarding the subject.

Or how stuck in your ways or closed minded you are.