@PashAka

KOOL

How so? 

While I believe this to be both false and prejudiced(Brad explained how it works and it isn't a simple search, more like a learning curve of a "child" in its infancy), don't you feel proud of yourself when you search in your head for an image of a person you haven't seen for a long time and succesfully retrieve it? You should. It's an accomplishement not everyone can have bragging rights for. You're basically diminishing yourself and your abilities by trying to diminish "the machines". You should be even more proud by the fact that they(automation procedures) are modelled after the species you belong to, cause it's the perfect way to do things, as far as we currently know. It's not more different than when we invented levers or engines to make our life easier and our production faster.

We use automation techniques in many aspects of life to produce results faster and smoother(e.g. coding, various constructs and materials, even safe-proofing and other tasks). Also, cause I'm a modder I know a thing or two in 3d-modelling. They use automation techniques too(like rendering their models - this is a tool that helps perfecting their work and it is all machine made, based on instructions its programmers gave it). Does that diminish their work as artists?

I think the basis of art, that it is basically something that starts as an idea in someone's head or equivalent of a head and brain(e.g. I believe in God, or Creator. God/Creator is an artist like that. and eventually transformed in something more tangible, somehow managed to escape you. I'm kinda dissapointed with people that stop at nothing, including giving ground to others in the future that would be present in such a discussion to derive arguements about the validity of someone elses work, just to prove a theoretical point, which is basically their opposition to an innovation.

I also find it regretfull that you are derailing a perfectly good subject with some great works of what "logos" is able to do and a glimpse of what we will see in the future. To the rest of the guys that contributed the results of their minds efforts, keep it up, it's great to see what others come up with!

Absolutely. Art is a conscious act. That lets out machines. They cannot be considered creators any more than a paintbrush can be.

A program, no matter how complex requires a programmer. A computer sitting on a desk in a room without an activator will not spontaneously create art. That very fact ends the argument.

From my perspective, AI art works quite a bit better than working with 90% of artists to get a typical task done.

And I’ve know plenty of artists who photobash or do paint overs and do so professionally. 

This was made to provide our engineers direction. 

Brad....that 'hubcap' is almost right...but again doesn't read correctly in perspective...

Quoting Frogboy,

reply 139

From my perspective, AI art works quite a bit better than working with 90% of artists to get a typical task done.

And I’ve know plenty of artists who photobash or do paint overs and do so professionally. 



This was made to provide our engineers direction. 

This is a chilling statement coming from a CEO, how many more years before using AI art (which learns from others art) to give "direction" to artists before just replacing them altogether.

I hope your art deptartment has lots of industry contacts.