Quite a lot of instances now of AI being used as a tool in creativity:
Lord of the Rings by Wes Anderson Trailer | The Whimsical Fellowship (https://youtu.be/KrjL_TSOFrI)
(https://i.imgur.com/Tv0wvSN.png)
Star Wars Characters as Baroque Portraits (https://youtu.be/wjKVp13pRGk)
(https://i.imgur.com/vks3zEb.png)
Will it become 2000 AI?
Quote from: Tyranno-Mek on 13 May, 2023, 05:50:00 PMQuite a lot of instances now of AI being used as a tool in creativity:
Lord of the Rings by Wes Anderson Trailer | The Whimsical Fellowship (https://youtu.be/KrjL_TSOFrI)
(https://i.imgur.com/Tv0wvSN.png)
That's not great, I would have easily believed it's Steve Buscemi.
Tyranno-Mek is a chat-bot and I claim my five pounds!
Nah, this is Buscemi-Gollum:
(https://i.imgur.com/sGVFq8S.png)
Hrmn - the AI bots don't know their British comics very well, though.
This is apparently Judge Anderson:
(https://i.imgur.com/a026IYJ.jpg)
And you can guess this fella:
(https://i.imgur.com/If4mGZ5.png)
The only part of any creative digital process I can consider AI appropriate for is blocking. Because it's meticulous and methodical and just inherently not fun, perfect for a automation to pick up the slack on.
Everything else is just by design stolen valour.
ChatGPT is terrible at writing, but it's actually pretty good at editing. I used it to edit my end-of-module essay for the Open University course I'm taking, and whilst I didn't adopt all its suggestions, most of them were improvements.
A fraudulent KS ripping off Aly Fell's Trick of the Light KS popped up this week - now thankfully cancelled - apparently this was all done via AI.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/541881725/illusionary-radiance?ref=discovery_category_newest
ChatGPT has been referred to elsewhere as fancy autocomplete. And that's about right. I have functionality in BBEdit that attempts to predict what word is next. ChatGPT just takes that further, in part by ripping off and remixing content created by thousands of people, and doing so without permission.
The thing is, this isn't intelligence. The system has confidence but it's often wrong and so people using it need to understand its massive limitations. (I mean, this is a system that will make up facts and sources, apologise when challenged, and then pivot to a different lie.)
The visual side of things with Stable Diffusion and others is further along, but we're still in uncanny valley territory, and there are massive copyright questions to answer, given how these systems have been trained.
I can't imagine 2000 AD will use AI art. But I have seen some writers (not 2000 AD ones) now arguing they don't need artists because they can do that part with these 'AI' tools. I'm not sure we're there yet. And even when we do get to that point, I don't want to be there. Tech should free us from mundane tasks; it shouldn't rob people of the fun and creative stuff.
Quote from: IndigoPrime on 14 May, 2023, 10:19:20 AMI can't imagine 2000 AD will use AI art. But I have seen some writers (not 2000 AD ones) now arguing they don't need artists because they can do that part with these 'AI' tools....
Surely I don't need to point out that this was predicted a long, long time ago ! ;)
(https://i.imgur.com/Zm90qbR.jpg)
To be fair to Jimmy Who?, Kenny Who? was already ripping off Cam Kennedy's style.
A colleague has been experimenting with ChatGPT's abilities - they've used it to develop a letter of recommendation, for example. From their perspective, they're still supplying the required data, but the AI is doing the sentence and structure formation. Proof read to make sure it fits the requirements, and Bob's your auntie's live-in-lover.
Apparently, it's also pretty good at debugging code. Sort of a super-debugger. Why spend all day searching for an elusive logic-bug when the AI can point at it within seconds?
With the art, it seems more like the AI is busy combining different aspects of other peoples' compositions.
ChatGPT can be sufficient at rewriting basic things, if supplied with a good prompt, and if the person who gets the output is skilled enough to spot and correct errors. The problem right now is people seem to think it can output anything, with a minimum of human effort. There's a gulf between a basic letter, say, and an engaging magazine article.
As for code, I've been chatting to people about this. As a co-pilot, it seems useful. As a pilot, it'll fly you into a cliff.
QuoteWith the art, it seems more like the AI is busy combining different aspects of other peoples' compositions.
I mean, that's basically what it's doing with writing as well. It's just taking bits and pieces of what it's scraped online and attempting to mash them back together to fit a prompt, and using alternate language so the person who uses the text doesn't get sued for plagiarism.
Quote from: Tyranno-Mek on 14 May, 2023, 01:50:25 AMThis is apparently Judge Anderson:
(https://i.imgur.com/a026IYJ.jpg)
She knows what you're thinking!
* And doesn't like it one bitI've seen some astonishingly good AI generated images over the past few months, but nah - I won't be having any of that for the comics I purchase.
I typed in "Clint Eastwood as Judge Dredd" and got this horrid image:
(https://www.udrop.com/cache/plugins/filepreviewer/945434/6a287c461bd0044fe61e522af297543a57c0f312901d2dd17637afdf368627fd/1100x800_cropped.jpg)
Looks more like Clint as Iron Man.
Quote from: Tyranno-Mek on 14 May, 2023, 03:24:58 PMApparently, it's also pretty good at debugging code. Sort of a super-debugger. Why spend all day searching for an elusive logic-bug when the AI can point at it within seconds?
Be careful here - anything you upload into ChatGPT it will retain a copy of and it will be added to the training pool so bits of it could get regurgitated at other people. Depending on what code you're working on this could be a major problem. I'm pretty sure my boss would be unimpressed to find I'd given copies of the companies IP to it and I'm pretty sure it could be grounds for dismissal under my contract. Certinaly not something I'd like to test anyway.