iteygib

Case in point: you made a conclusion without fully reading something, based on a pre-existing bias you had after someone made a claim that went against it. This is modern internet in a nutshell, and that's not even considering whether this forum, like any other, is not just a lot of the same people behind multiple accounts.

Here's a thread to get you started: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38309611

This is the usual Musk play book. He is a salesman, not a tech guru, and plays the "good guy card" when it suits him in order to fool his followers en masse. A few months ago this forum was very much for the profit model of Altman after his ouster, and now it's the other way around.

Why believe any sort of discussion on the internet at all anymore? Can hackernews prove the discussions here are not by Tesla staff? By OpenAI staff? By bots? By AI responses? There is a saturation point being hit by the credibility and reliability of this medium we call the internet. This was obviously always the case to some degree, but the profit model of most businesses now are built on the backbones of social media hype, all of which is completely, and easily, falsifiable, more than ever before.

Thanks for mentioning this. It is about context. The combination of random mutation + environmental context gets misconstrued as pseudo-intellectual design, or propagates an errant belief in a premiere universal set of genetics.

For example, we cannot even truly estimate the number of species of life on the planet, each of them showing their own specific genetic makeups to handle differnt situations, but the tweet only mentions the human genome.

I would say it's dependent on the motive. For example, I would imagine most artists hope that their work inspires other artists, but only to a degree outside of direct copying. They might not equate the automation of their style via a model against the work/process of a human, regardless if that human is either inspired by their style or is just performing direct copying.

They are all artists though regardless. They are actually doing the work and doing the actual painting and require painting skills. What they are painting it itself or where they got the idea from is irrelevant. They painted it, as in the physical work and talent to achieve the result.

In the case of AI Art, there is no point in the process where you are participating in the creation of the actual initial image unless the actual source/model is based of your own artwork that you created. What you are really doing with AI art is generating a concept based on a request you make (the prompt), and then modifying the result with other tools until you get what you want (inpainting masks, animate it, etc.).

The equivalent of this would be something of like a patron/commissioner and something like a sound engineer. You aren't creating the source material, but you can ask an AI art generator to create something based on your request, and then modify and tune it afterwards to your liking. It is more of like a producer/sound engineer/post-production role.

I completely agree with you. I think AI art is a good tool, but referring to the users as "artists" is confusing to actual practice. You aren't creating the content, but rather are dictating it like a patron or client. You are just telling an engine what you hope to see, in the same way someone might tell you what to paint while watching over your shoulder.

It's also not a tired argument. You are just posting in a place that is very pro tech and not art-oriented. If you posted this in an art forum you'd get the opposite reaction.

They didn't make the content, they just adjusted it based on samples from others who made the art by hand.

"Artist" in the context of image creation means you're the main supplier of the talent. In other words, you painted the picture yourself and spent time developing your talent. I can make a video recording of you making the picture from scratch with your own hand.

AI "artist" isn't an artist. It's someone who uses an external product to automate the talent for them by creating an average image based on samples created by artists, of which were curated by individuals with particular tastes. It's why AI art mostly looks the same.

It's also the reason a DJ a is called a disc jockey and not a musician. They are labeled differently to show the difference in the generation of the supplied content.

You might as well say that someone who Googles "picture of a dog" is an artist as well since they learned the ins and outs of the search engine. A better term for AI Artist would be something that mentions the collage aspect of it.

To sell something you bought.

AI art and social media appear to me to be the same thing. Automated propagation of styles or interests or products that lead to a homogenous landscape of essentially nothing.

If nicotine gum makes you dizzy, then it's the dosage. 2mg is the smallest amount I have seen in gum. Over that, especially for the first time, is too much. It's like drinking a very large cup of coffee (100mg+ caffeine) if you have never had coffee before. You could feel sick.

I have been using it for about 3 years, perhaps at a max of twice per week. I started using it for the same reason as you, I had issues staying awake. I only drink coffee when absolutely needed as I get very irritable withdrawals when off it. I gave the gum a try after hearing about the use of it from a Hamilton Morris podcast.

I personally have not felt any lingering affects outside of some drowsiness after wards. It seems like an easy enough habit to drop as well, as I have done so for a few months at a time for surgery recoveries. I am in agreement with the study linked in this article that nicotine by itself seems the same (for me, better) as similar stimulants like caffeine. I would never smoke however, as that seems to be the real issue.

I use nicotine gum (2mg) to concentrate on reading or programming tasks from time to time. I have never smoked. I prefer it over caffeine as I do no get the irritable withdrawals. The only noticeable side affect I experience is some sleepiness after the effect wears off (around 30-40 minutes).