Schadenfreude much? 🤔

!detroit@midwest.social ☆ !michigan@midwest.social ☆ !music@midwest.social

It’s a valid idea for posts with original content. With all the pearls I cast before swine, I probably should at least put a CC-BY-ND license on my—ahem—humble screeds.

If you’re suggesting this becomes a part of the UI, unless you know how to program I’d say get in line.

I don’t know (because I don’t really care) if over in the Lemmy laboratory they’re working adding an email-like automatic signature option but if so, you could always add your license of choice as a signature. Ciao!

!detroit@midwest.social ☆ !michigan@midwest.social ☆ !music@midwest.social

Although I mirror your general sentiment, who is to say that the admins of lemmy.world, or kbin.social, or lemmy.ml, etc. etc. aren’t already doing what which you accuse “media”. It’s not at all implicit that privacy is guaranteed in this new Fediverse. Corrections welcome.

I often find it close knit wit.

Say goodbye to your Prev button

I’d just like my pre-0.19.x Prev button back, please.

After (as of this reply) eight hours, you have produced nothing more than anecdotal evidence if not outright invented. I must assume at this point you are spreading disinformation for whatever your goals may be to that end.

Thank you for wasting everybody’s time.

OK, I’ll bite. You got something more substantial than “I read it on the internet” to back that up? One reputable source on your accusation? Not sayin’ you’re lying/wrong, just asking for some verifiable proof.

Thanks!

deleted by creator

Gopher lost out to WWW in part because Gopher was proprietary

That may be so but gopher was never any fun in comparison to www

There’s a person that serves a weather reporting system via a finger interface at (finger://graph.no/)…

That’s neat! Thanks!

I still think we are more or less on the same page. I also agree with your position on NFTs. Nevertheless, “machine-generated art” as you’ve called it IS legitimate creation, just like canned baked beans is legitimate creation, just like the act of making scrambled eggs is creation. Notice that I never mentioned anything QUALITATIVE about the process. I’ve never referred to these works as “art” (however you’d like to define that) but “illustrations” which is all they are and again, for the most part, they are visibly AI…but there are exceptions, rarely without human intervention (retouching). If someone wants to sell their AI-generated illustrations, what’s the problem? Same with NFTs. What do I or you care? It’s your moral obligation to part a fool from their money.

That said, since we’ve veered way off course of the original question, MY PERSONAL OPINION is there is next to no expression of the human condition (define that as you will) in StableDiffusion/Midjourney/whatever-engine “art” and is merely (“merely,” he says!) putting the “infinite monkeys theorem” into practice. While chance and chaos is good (and not only in art), a foundation is always necessary. If “you”, untrained in composition, art history and materials, you think describing images using a certain language/method is “art”, become a writer. We’re all waiting for your bestseller.

Have a wonderfull day and thanks for the chat!

As I’d just written in another reply here, there is a world of difference in describing an illustration and creating an illustration.

Our thinking is not that different. There is a world of difference of describing an image and creating it.

But I have to strongly disagree with the rest of your assessment. Beyond the flood of six-fingered waifu, I’ve seen some beautiful, legitimate works created by this new tool. If you have to use an “ai algo” you’ve already defeated the purpose. It’s illustrations we’re discussing here, not banknotes.

BTW, do you consider Photoshop/Krita/GIMP artists “scammers”? Blender/Maya/Cinema4D artists? Who are these “actual artists” of which you speak?

In any case, we’re still in uncharted territory. And personally I’m not crazy about the work in question. It LOOKS (by my “actual artist trained eyes”) AI generated, regardless of the human Photoshop retouching involved.

While my thinking is in line with what @TheLobotomist@lemmy.world and @NateNate60@lemmy.ml have already said, why can’t “AI artists” just do what everybody in a profit-seeking situation does and just lie about it? “No your honor, our studies have shown cigarette smoking is not hazardous to your health,” “yes, your honor, OxyContin is completely safe,” or in this case “yes, your honor, I created this illustration.” If your conscience is really bothering you, you could claim it was AI-assisted. I wouldn’t think there’d be a “Big Eyes” prove-you-painted-that courtroom case. Am I wrong?