>all those hours you wasted learning how to draw comics and cartoons completely invalidated by some 1s and 0s on some nerd's computer
This should be illegal.
All those hours you wasted learning how to draw comics and cartoons completely invalidated by some 1s and 0s on some...
Jace Lee
Aiden Rodriguez
Okay, now do it with furry porn. Where the real internet money is made.
Aiden Cooper
>comic book artists take 10 months to draw 20 pages of interiors
>AI-sama does it in 10 minutes
The future is here.
Bentley Garcia
what ai program is this in the video?
Levi Wood
anyone can do this in photoshop
Nolan Stewart
Then do it
Jonathan Johnson
It doesn't invalidate those paints it just sadly proves humanity has almost conquered natural selection.
Julian Garcia
They already have a dedicated AI for those, don't remember what it's called but there should be a thread somewhere on /trash/.
Tons of artists already went bankrupt.
Blake Brown
Can they do it in 5 seconds?
Sebastian Gutierrez
you know these pictures have been painted right? they exist in a solid form and are hanging in museums for centuries
Isaiah Bell
Art had to be manually painted before AI came along? Wow what a brilliant observation user. I had no idea.
Thomas Lewis
dall-e 2.
Zachary Bailey
>before AI came along
actually, art still gets painted and your 0s and 1s don't count as art
Samuel Wood
Didn't we already do an AI thread?
Sebastian Wright
Henry Ortiz
2000AD DOES IT AGAIN
THEY PREDICTED THE FUTURE
Camden Cook
It's the latest FOTM topic.
Kevin Mitchell
And there will be more once the Big Two use IA for their books.
Dylan Williams
>art still gets painted
By AI*
No one cares about your ugly human scribbles anymore
Hudson Bennett
smithsonianmag.com
> The U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) once again rejected a copyright request for an A.I.-generated work of art, the Verge’s Adi Robertson reported last month. A three-person board reviewed a request from Stephen Thaler to reconsider the office’s 2019 ruling, which found his A.I.-created image “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.”
> Thaler first brought the image created by his “Creativity Machine” algorithm to the USCO in November 2018, Eileen Kinsella reported for Artnet News. A Recent Entrance to Paradise is part of a series Thaler describes as a “simulated near-death experience,” where an algorithm repurposes pictures to create images seen by a synthetic dying brain. Thaler noted to the USCO he was “seeking to register this computer-generated work as a work-for-hire to the owner of the Creativity Machine.”
> Both in its 2019 decision and its decision this February, the USCO found the “human authorship” element was lacking and was wholly necessary to obtain a copyright, Engadget’s K. Holt wrote. Current copyright law only provides protections to “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind,” the USCO states. In his most recent appeal, Thaler argued this “human authorship” requirement was unconstitutional, but the USCO has proven unwilling to “depart from a century of copyright jurisprudence.”
Blake Johnson
Haha shit.
Kayden Roberts
> Ryan Abbott, Thaler’s attorney, tells Artnet News, “We disagree with the Copyright Office’s Decision and plan to appeal…A.I. is able to make functionally creative output in the absence of a traditional human author and protecting A.I.-generated works with copyright is vital to promoting the production of socially valuable content. Providing this protection is required under current legal frameworks.”
> Abbott describes Thaler’s effort as “an academic project” created for the purpose of testing copyright standards. Thaler has previously tested the limits of patent laws in numerous countries. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.K. Intellectual Property Office, and the European Patent Office all rejected his applications for an A.I. called DABUS to be recognized as the inventor of two products. He’s filed appeals against those rulings.
Anthony Rivera
> U.S. copyright law doesn’t explicitly outline rules for non-humans, but case precedent has led courts to be “consistent in finding that non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection,” the board says in its February 14 decision. The decision points out previous lower-court rulings, such as a 1997 decision that found a book of supposed divine revelations lacked an element of human arrangement and curation necessary for protection and a 2018 ruling that concluded a monkey could not sue for copyright infringement.
> Other countries put less emphasis on the necessity of human authorship for protection. A judge in Australia ruled last year A.I.-created inventions can qualify for patent protection. And South Africa allowed Thaler to patent one of his products last year, noting that “the invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence.” While Thaler owns the patent, the A.I. is listed as the inventor.
Blake Sullivan
>Tons of artists already went bankrupt.
Proofs?
William Bennett
> Ryan Abbott, MD, JD, MTOM, PhD isProfessor of Law and Health Sciences at the University of Surrey School of LawandAdjunct Assistant Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. He is the author ofThe Reasonable Robot: Artificial Intelligence and the Lawpublished in 2020 by Cambridge University Press, and he haspublishedwidely on issues associated with law and technology, health law, and intellectual property in leading legal, medical, and scientific books and journals.
> Professor Abbott’s research has been featured prominently in thepopular press, including in The Times, the New York Times, the Financial Times, and other media outlets based on time. He routinely gives keynote lectures andpresentsinternationally in academic (e.g., MIT, Stanford, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge), government (e.g., World Intellectual Property Organization, World Trade Organization, UK Intellectual Property Office), and industry (e.g., Google, IBM, Swiss Re) settings.Managing Intellectual Property magazinenamed him as one of thefifty most influential people in intellectual property in 2019and again in 2021.
Brody Perez
> Professor Abbott is a mediator and arbitrator withJAMSand a panelist with a variety of national and international dispute resolution service providers. He is a CEDR-accredited mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb). He has worked as a partner in legal practice, where he primarily focused on transactional matters and intellectual property litigation in the life sciences, and he has been general counsel of a biotechnology company.Professor Abbott is a licensed physician, patent attorney, and acupuncturist in the United States, and a solicitor advocate in England and Wales. He is board-certified by the American Board of Legal Medicine (ABLM).
> Professor Abbott is a graduate of the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine (MD), the Yale Law School (JD), University of Surrey School of Law (PhD), as well as a Summa Cum Laude graduate from Emperor’s College (MTOM) and a Summa Cum Laude graduate from University of California, Los Angeles (BS).
Zachary Wilson
imagination-engines.com
> Diamonds - While employed as a materials scientist for aerospace giant McDonnell Douglas in 1986, Thaler invented the fastest diamond deposition technique in the world. Using high-energy lasers borrowed from the 'Star Wars' initiative, Thaler was able to grow single crystals of diamond as well as convert the native carbon within tungsten carbide and high-speed steel tools to the diamond phase. Of course, at the root of his success was the use of artificial neural networks to determine the sweet spots for diamond growth within a high-dimensional process space.
> Brain Trauma and Death - In 1992, Thaler shocked the world with bizarre experiments in which the neurons within artificial neural networks were randomly destroyed. Guess what? The nets first relived all of their experiences (i.e., life review) and then, within advanced stages of destruction, generated novel experience. From this research emerged both a compelling mathematical model of near-death experience (NDE) and the basis of truly creative and contemplative artificial intelligence.
Ian Parker
> Cognition, Consciousness, and Creativity - In the 80s, after witnessing some really great ideas emerge from the near-death experience of artificial neural networks, Thaler decided to add additional nets to automatically observe and filter for any emerging brainstorms. From this network architecture was born the Creativity Machine (US Patent 5,659,666, US Patent 7,454,388). Thaler has proposed such neural cascade as a canonical model of consciousness in which the former net manifests what can only be called a stream of consciousness while the second net develops an attitude about the cognitive turnover within the first net (i.e., the subjective feel of consciousness). In this theory, all aspects of both human and animal cognition are modeled in terms of confabulation generation. Thaler is therefore both the founder and architect of confabulation theory and the patent holder for all neural systems that contemplate, invent, and discover via such confabulations.
> Mental Illness and Creativity - While the connection between psychopathologies and creative genius has long been suspected, Thaler has recruited the Creativity Machine Paradigm to demonstrate how cognitive pathologies develop as this contemplative neural system pushes itself toward higher levels of creative achievement. With the ability to compute both ideational novelty and cognitive pathology within these neurodynamic models, he has discovered an inevitable tradeoff between madness and inventive genius. In a nutshell, creativity occurs over multiple swings through neuronal chaos and tranquility, as ideas subliminally incubate. Typically, the more intense these swings, the more original is the creative output that is accompanied by periodic hallucinations, false perceptions, attention deficits, and an inability to differentiate fantasy from reality, all characteristic of what is considered mental illness.
Nolan Barnes
Cope. Corporations always find a way. If Disney can save money using AI artists, they will bend the law to suit their demands. Welcome to capitalism baby, if it's profitable it's legal.
Tyler Brooks
> The Tempo of Ideation - While several institutions attempt to build neural network-based brain simulations, none have considered how freshly forming ideas within one part of the brain are located and evaluated by other portions thereof. The methodology, Thaler claims, involves the rhythm (i.e., the frequency and clustering) with which stream of consciousness is occurring within certain pieces of cortical "real estate." In fact, he has derived a master equation that quantitatively predicts the rhythm of idea generation both in Creativity Machines and the human brain, as a function of novelty of the notions being generated.
> Artificial Invention - Over the last decade, Thaler has produced a totally new AI paradigm called "DABUS" that conceives new inventions and art forms. These are not parametric optimizations, but whole new concepts formed by the linkages between myriad artificial neural networks. To find out more, check out the Artificial Inventor Project. To discover more about the patent producing these inventions, see US Patent 10,423,875. (And no, DABUS is not the combination of a generator net with another net distinguishing 'real' from 'fake'. That issue was elegantly solved long ago with Thaler's patent US07454388-, "Device for the autonomous bootstrapping of useful information," that issued 11/18/2008.)
Henry Rodriguez
Nah, they'll keep using real human artists, man. The output would be the same, but the license would cost them more than the amount of pay they give most of their artists, aka barely minimum wage. There's not going to be a robot revolution for a long ass time.
Joseph Smith
...
Adrian Sanchez
> Sentient AI - So that Thaler's artificial inventors could appreciate their creations, he equipped them with learning rules to bind memories, contained within a series of nets, together to produce not only complex concepts, but also the consequences of said concepts, what psychologists would call affective responses. The incorporation of certain "hot-button" nets within these memory chains triggered the secretion of simulated adrenaline or serotonin to either reform or reinforce those concepts resulting in the most salient consequences. In other words, feelings or sentience was the result.
Evan Morales
>133021682
Learn to read, ESL pajeet.