Post by StriderPulse599 in Sin or Live comments

Viewing post in Sin or Live comments

No, human artist can't do this.

The main source of uncanny valley in AI art is light and colors. That's because those come from photos and 3D renders which have heavy post-processing.

No, you can't apply those things to a drawing. For example: a great LUT that looks amazing on any photo would turn anime style drawing into a complete mess. Not to mention that the entire drawing is split into dozens of layers, and you need to manually create masks for a lot of effect.

Then comes the fact that there isn't any drawing software besides photoshop that has all the tools for the job. You'd be surprised how many artists use AI art to get colors and gradients.

Watts (about 100)39 days ago(-1)

I'm gonna be honest, your comment is so completely incomprehensible that I'm not even going to bother trying to write out an actual response. It's a Gordian knot of sheer nonsense and I'm not putting any more time into this reply.

Untangle the meat between your ears, please.

StriderPulse59938 days ago (1 edit) (+1)(-2)

Because you know nothing about art, that's why you also didn't realize I was an artist and not an AI-defender.

Edit [Guy ran away back to Twitter]: Google my nickname. I'm a graphical programmer that works on both game engines and drawing software.

Watts (about 100)38 days ago(-1)

Bud, if you're gonna insist on acting like a troll, at least actually try when you're posting straight slop like this.

The reason I didn't engage with any of your arguments is, as I said, is that it's nonsense. None of it logically follows the stuff I mentioned, you're just spouting word salad and acting like you know the first thing about anything. This is part of the reason I'm blocking you, the other being that you're either a troll or legitimately too unintelligent to be able to argue in a coherent fashion. I also imagine this is for your benefit as well in the long run.

It also doesn't matter whether or not you're "an artist", as you're defending AI art by continuing to argue with me. (Your previous comment literally said, verbatim, "No, human artist can't do this," seeming to me to indicate that you take the side of AI.)

Please just stop drinking leaded or irradiated water or whatever it is that you're putting into your body, I beg of you. There are sources of water around you that aren't going to actively destroy your cognitive functions, I can almost guarantee it.

Watts (about 100)37 days ago (1 edit) (-1)

Okay, let me break it all down for you, then. How you're so insistent on not actually explaining anything is beyond me, but I guess I have to be the one to spell things out for you because you're more interested in coming off as correct “as an artist” rather than actually responding and supplying information to reveal to me how I might be wrong, but I guess that's the state of the internet now - here's something for you to ponder on that I’ll get to later in this post; it benefits both you and the other party you're talking to to explain what you mean when you say something.

Anyway, I'm more than willing to admit that I don't know anything about being an artist in the textbook definition sense, but that doesn't detract from the fact that making art is something that an actual human being can do because it's something that human beings have been doing since the internet existed.

And since I'm, apparently to you, clearly not an artist (in whatever insane definition you have stuck in the corner of your mind), you need to talk like an actual person and not just say things that don't mean anything to others. That’s kind of the point of communication - to deliver information to others. Mentioning “LUT” and your use of "uncanny valley" both mean nothing to me, so again, the points that you made previously are irrelevant because I don't know what it means, and I have very obviously written it off because of that. (This is what I mean when I say things like "word salad" or "word garbage" when I’ve responded to you. This is something that goes back to the phrase "address the points that I am making". It's only apparent to me now that you're arguing from your position of knowledge rather than discussing the concepts I am trying to get at.) You need to treat your audience as though they don't have the same experience as you do, because I don't, and I’d be more than willing to bet a large sum of money that most people also do not have your specific experiences. Talking down to other people when you're "not defending AI" sounds functionally identical as if you're defending AI, hence why I was saying that you are.

Furthermore, what kind of "AI" are you talking about, here? Are you talking about the use of LLMs and are you using "AI" as the catch-all term as I have been (because that's how almost everyone else uses it based on all of the discussions that I've seen online), or have you been using it in reference to computers participating in repetitive actions? Because if you're using it in the latter manner, you're using it in a way that NOBODY ELSE ONLINE DOES - least of all, me. But for the sake of clarity and because apparently you need me to spell things out as explicitly as possible for you, I'll refer to LLMs as LLMs from here-on-out rather than the catch-all term of "AI" because you're apparently more interested in showing off your knowledge about your field (or using it in the "technically correct" term) rather than socializing with other human beings, online or off.

The fundamental argument I have against the use of LLMs is a concept that I originally learned about from DOOM (2016), and the idea is that while the scientists in said game might have been able to get some useful stuff out of using the technology they developed from studying Hell, but it still made the rest of the world terrible. The idea is that the scientists that made the enemies in the game were fundamentally still using evil technology, and even if it's "for the greater good", it's still degrading the rest of the world.

And I don't use Twitter, actually, because that website is straight-up ass in more ways than one. Matter of fact, I hardly use social media more than I need to because of people like you that get stuck up on textbook definitions (or whatever you think you’re spouting) rather than socialize and act like rational people.

When you go into any kind of situation where you have to communicate with other living beings, it's more expedient to refer to things as they are by the other people in the room, or, it’s wise to at the very least ask what other people mean when they use words that can be misinterpreted. I'm spelling this out for you explicitly because this has been an insane conversation, and frankly, you need to talk to other human beings more often. This kind of stuff is socialization 101. I learned this in both middle and high-school, and that's because I was so socially inept that I didn't learn it earlier, so it makes me think you're even more socially incompetent than I was as both a child and an edgy teenager.

But damn, you sure showed off how much of a technically correct artist you are, so congrats. There’s a win for you. You got me on that point.

Edit: Apparently you're so avid for posting that it seems to me like you should have already known a good portion of the things that I've mentioned, but all of this just goes back to the idea that people like you are more interested in coming off as correct and being the one to "win an argument" rather than actually have the argument so that both sides can benefit, and that's coming from a guy that is solely interested in arguing with other people on this account, so you very clearly need to log off and touch some grass. Surprisingly, you're somehow even more terminally online than I am, and I mean that in the most derogatory sense possible to all parties involved.

You won all of the internets, so please, go back to Reddit, kind stranger.

StriderPulse59933 days ago (1 edit) (+1)

I already told you: AI steals from post-processed photos and 3D renders. This is why it's often really good at colors/gradients, but produces the weird light that looks like inbreed between 2D and 3D.

2D artist cannot replicate that. They work with limited color pallet, not entire RGB range. Stylized 2D art also has completely differnt range of post-processing effects that can be used, so you can't really replicate it.

"LUT" is literally one google away from explanation, while "uncanny valley" is a common English phrase. You're not my audience, and I'm not wasting my time to explain every single little thing to someone who only wants to get mad on the internet instead of learn.

What kind of AI I'm talking about? Dunno, you didn't specify either despite starting the discussion, just said bunch of words like "art" just like me.

Last time I checked, one of main supporting characters in DOOM (2016) and Eternal is VEGA. Guess that the life lesson from this arcade gore shooter is that we should leave all of our facilities under control of AI, listen to it's directives, and keep the pesky human scientists on tight leash (especially the ones without organic body).

Dude, you crawled back to the discussion after blocking me, saw my edit, and unblocked me just to post a giant wall of internet expert. I don't think this can get any more Reddit than that.

Watts (about 100)31 days ago (1 edit) (-1)

Ok, so, at the moment, there's two points I actually care to respond to in that post:

First, I've been all-inclusive when I refer to art - not just any kind of artistic creation, I've been using "art" as a catch-all term for literature, music, movies, paintings on walls that were found in caves, all of it. This entire time, YOU have been the one with the stick up your ass about me "clearly not being an artist", yet you have the utter audacity to suggest that YOU weren't the one to draw a line in the sand when it comes to "being an artist"? Holy fucking shit, Batman, that certainly sounds like cognitive dissonance to me - or at least it's some kind of walk-back of what you said before. I've also been using it pretty clearly - you just don't know what any of it means, but that's something for the next point.

Second, I specified DOOM 2016 because I didn't play Eternal, so any of the information or lore that comes from the sequel is not something I am cognizant of, and it's something I am entirely ignorant of. Regardless, sci-fi AI is not the same thing as real-world LLMs, like at all, so I'm kinda confused on why you're even bothering to bring it up when you don't even know the difference between machine-learning "AI" and "AI" that's just repetitive tasks done by a computer, stop trying to muddy the waters to defend a point that you apparently don't even have? I'm confused, are you bringing up the fictional character of VEGA as an AI to try and twist my point into being actually incorrect? My guy, you don't know what you're talking about, stop confusing yourself, it's not real. I don't recall the lore regarding VEGA's existence, but generally in fiction, AI is depicted as being as intelligent as human beings - if not more so, so it theoretically could make sense to install it as a kind of guidance for humans. Not to mention that there's plenty of hypotheticals that I could come up with that could justify the use of a super-human fictional AI, so unless you're going to legitimately argue to me how this video game is actually real (or something as equally psychotic), I don't know why you're trying to get me with the idea of a non-existent character being included in it. Because it's fiction. There's lots of shit in fiction that people do with a story that I also disagree with on some level - but I'm not just going to outright disregard an entire piece of media just because it includes something that has a passingly vague resemblance to a real-world thing that I wasn't even aware of because it didn't hit the cultural consciousness at the time it released. Do you think I enjoy and reference Postal and Postal 2 because of their "moral outlook"? What about the Portal games with GLaDoS? Or Silent Hill 2 with James Sunderland? Please, god, tell me that I misinterpreted what you meant, because that is an incredible fucking statement. After thinking this through, I think I should spend even more time dogging on you for making that post, just by thinking through those two points. I cannot imagine someone so far up their own ass could be so fucking insane, but good lord. You AI-cultists really know how to pick your battles, but god damn you're apparently not defending AI after all this? Really? No, I think you're so full of crap with that suggestion that it's spilling out of your ears, your rationale for everything (especially with this post) is beyond twisted and it's really laughable.

You know what, okay, once again I have to capitulate the point that I'm probably a bit Reddit, but with how ass your reasoning seems to be from where I'm sitting currently, I have to admit that by using it for so long, I imagine that you would be pretty damn good at identifying it, so there you go. Have a fuckin' field day with that one, cause this post made me laaaaaugh, holy fuck. I am cackling like a goddamn WITCH right now - now it's funny, now I'm really fuckin' interested in this. And that comment you just made is part of the reason why I unblocked and responded to you - because it certainly seemed like it'd be funny to respond to you, and you know what, I apparently have some really good intuition. But yeah, sure, I'm Reddit, according to you. I'll be fine with taking that one to the grave, 'cause jesus-H-christ-on-a-bike, the Reddit moderator atomic blast of rot you are giving off really puts my pithy little farts into perspective. Good job. Keep up the good work, you earned all of my Reddit updoots today, m'lady.

Watts (about 100)28 days ago (2 edits) (-1)

I find it laughable that you say I'm posting a wall of internet expert - and while I don't disagree that I'm posting walls of shit to read (my other post on this comment would obviously fall under that categorization to some degree), you are the one who originally responded to me with your comment telling me about how human beings "can't recreate what LLMs do" as if that was the point of the discussion, rather than it being that human beings can do as good as LLMs, and not in some absolute scientific "what qualities of X, Y, and Z are there in this piece of work". You are the one claiming to be a programmer who knows all sorts of stuff about this and that when it comes to art, but I'm the one who is apparently trying to be the "expert". In what regard and where have I made this claim? I don't recall saying anything like that, but I do recall repeating what others have said things that to me, make sense. I'm not an expert on any topic - but apparently you are.

Anyway, back to what you were saying with that post - I've tried looking up what LUT means - but it doesn't make any sense to me, so I’m also not going to bother trying to learn about something if the other person I’m talking to acts like they’re hot shit when they're clearly not. Thing is that if you're not willing to try to teach others that "aren't your audience", then where does "your audience" start and end? Does someone become "your audience" if they listen to you unconditionally without any kind of question or pushback when they want clarification or explanation? Because that sounds more like you'd just want a doormat to talk at, rather than someone who would be interested in engaging with what you're saying.

But you know what, you're right - I'm not your audience, because you came into this thread all high and mighty about how "what LLMs do can't be recreated by human beings" and got butthurt when I called your word-sewage incomprehensible. As a teacher, generally you need to be able to not only give explanations for stuff that people don't understand, but also talk to the other person as an equal so they don’t feel disrespected, and you kicked off this entire discussion by speaking as though you're the authority on everything that you're talking about, rather than trying to inform me about what I'm wrong about. Again, the "respect" part is the big thing here - or, at least for this discussion.

I don't necessarily have a problem with being told that I'm wrong for one reason or another, but how you do it is the important part, and you've been doing it pretty poorly, so why should I bother learning anything from someone like you? I'm better off getting it from a book or anywhere else that isn't so up-its-own-ass. Even based on my original post, you expected that type of person to learn from you? What kind of delusional fantasy-land are you living in? Obviously if you talk shit to someone who acts like I do, they're not exactly gonna want to listen to you, ya fuckin' ding-dong. What did you think this is? We’re in the comment section of a porn game. On the internet. This all seems like it just comes down to you not understanding what the tone is of the current discussion - it just goes to show that you didn’t either think or care to employ any kind of social comprehension.

But don't worry - I'm gonna keep posting like I have been, because your posts come off as though you're insecure and need to make up for it through talking down to me (or trying to, at least). Sadly for you, I'm also not just gonna let you spew your insecure garbage at me without telling you what it is - obviously. I really don't know what you expected out of this entire exchange. Again, comments of a porn game. There’s not usually a lot of knowledge that’s being exchanged under these sorts of circumstances in my experience, but you keep your weird expectations.

itch.io

Viewing post in Sin or Live comments