11
RMC/RM2 / Re: Question about Flying spell
« Last post by rdanhenry on May 04, 2024, 04:29:02 PM »It would only work on an intelligent object. If you want to move something else under your control, that would be telekinesis.
This just proves how off track you are regarding the subject.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'.
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'.
I have never thought about the need of acrobatics for flying. Do you ask for acrobatics rolls on basic flying or only if the target is trying a complex maneuver when flying, like attacking?I would say basic magical flight (i.e. flying in a fairly straight line under decent conditions) requires a bit of practice, like learning to ride a bicycle. After all, you are moving by force of intent, not by muscle power.
I have always thought that basic magical flight is easily controllable.
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.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.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.QuoteUnless 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 generatorAgain, 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.
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.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.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.
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 generatorAgain, 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.
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.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.
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.
Now on the other hand, I don't like where this is going. Because derivative work (of any kind - physical, technical, artistic, social...) has the capability to supplant a very large portion of the workforce. I would have no issue with it if we globally had a society where redistribution was a thing, but we don't. Being barred from gainful employment because there is someone, somewhere, that can do the same for one tenth of the wages is bad enough. But being barred from gainful employment because what you are doing is, not obsolete (it is still valuable since it is still in demand), but brought down to the initial cost of acquisition. AIs and robots are the ideal slaves: you buy them once, and then they have a marginal upkeep cost until you decide to upgrade. As long as we, as a society, don't have a solution for all those who will be put out of work, and merely shrug them off by saying "they can just find another job", we will have a major social problem with AI.This is one of two pieces of the problem that I partially agree with, but have my doubts it'll really become a problem for professional artists. The digital camera is almost comparable to what AI art is doing.