I strongly disagree. 99% of the work is being done by an algorithm. It's like if we had autonomous driving and you said you were actively driving all day, because you told the car where to go, and then took a nap in the car until you had arrived.
AI art is antithetical to art. Art requires artistic intent.
It could have some limited application for very early exploration in commercial art, or perhaps as very limited tools used in existing art software, but generative art is inherently pointless and you need artists to be able to do incremental iterations properly, which is required for real work, which isn't supported yet. I'll sure it'll get better and more convincing, but it's still inherently pointless to use AI for art, since the is supposed to be human expression.
If all children of American politicians were legally required to attend public schools and integrate into common classes I think we’d see sweeping implementation of gun laws real quick. Might also force them to improve the quality of public schools.
Is that an euphemisms for masturbation?
If you can't live off of doing something, you cannot dedicate very much time to it and not everyone will have a fulfilling life doing what they want on only a hobby basis.
It is not to the benefit of everyone, if most people in that sector lose their jobs they've spent all their working life striving to master. Artist still do commissioned work today.
If there is only only going to be a small niche of people able to do it, it will displaced all the rest of the people currently working in that industry. In which case AI is literally stopping people from doing art for a living, if they can get paid to do it.
People who followed their idea for a fulfilling life
I don't know about you, but I want AI to do the tasks in my life that prevents me from living a fulfilling life. I don't want it to do the things that I would have made my life fulfilling for me.
I think we might be coming at this from a different angle. You seem to think only about whether art will survive, whereas I'm thinking of the artists.
The issue isn't ego from any artists I've talked to. The issue is that most enjoy DOING their art for a living, and AI threatening their ability to make a living doing the thing they love, by actively taking their work and emulating it.
Add to that, that no one seems to believe AI does a better job than a trained artist, and it also threatens to lower the quality bar at the top end.
Personally I think that if AI is free to use and any work done by AI cannot be covered by copyright (due to being trained on people's art against their will), then I don't have an issue with it.
Thank you for suggestions.
My reasoning for cooler I picked was partly because of Noctua's reputation for reliability and good noise levels. I am open to other options, but I'll be sitting pretty close to the pc and can be sensitive to noise. I've tried to look up information about the coolers you've mentioned, but I'm struggling to get a good feel for them. I do not care and colour, but I prefer avoiding RGB if I can.
I think you're right. I somehow missed that the torrent came with it's own large set of fans.
My basic view of India is of a super diverse country with a fascinating history and cultures, and really great food. Politically I see a country that unfortunately is leaning in a more authoritarian direction as time goes one, and one that is getting increasingly unequal to its inhabitants. I really think India has so much potential but little will to actually improve.
I didn't really follow the online conversations around the movie, but I did watch it and it's not entirely that long ago since I watched the animated movie either. If I was to try to judge the movie without the context of the orighinal, I'd say it was fine, nothing about it was terrible but I also didn't find anything about it particularly good or memorable. I think Will Smith did a fine job and I don't think he'd be anywhere near the top of the list of what I would criticise about the movie in that case.
But I do think context matters, and in context I think it comes out looking pretty poor. Genie as written for the live action movie pales in comparison to the animated one. In terms of craft I think the live action one feels like a soulless board-room directed husk, and I really miss the feeling of a creative voice in the whole thing.
If you're going to remake something, I it should be better, or enough of a reinterpretation to be considered distinctly different.
I am glad others liked it, but if I someone asked me which they should watch I would tell them the original animated movie because I think it is a better piece of entertainment, and that makes the modern one feel like an absolute waste of time, money, skills and effort that could have been spent so much better.
Do you mean back when he played a caricature of a conservative "talking head"?
On the Hobbit movies, I don't even think studio meddling was the biggest issue.
Peter Jackson had so much time to prepare for the original trilogy, where as he took over the Hobbit movies quite soon before they were scheduled to shoot and he couldn't use the preparation the previous director had done.
So he had no time to prepare and basically had to wing it with 3 movies and little to no prep.
I understand the excitement, but it is very much a situation of a layman trying to describe to experts what the expert and all their peers need.
I think it is just because AI has been hyped so much, and has genuinely made such impressive progress that people get swept up by the excitement, and idea that they could make their ideas into something tangible. They just don't know the amount of consideration that goes into translating that.
Right now AI art is like Google translate poems.