AI - Cheating or just evolution?

[guitfnky]

anyone who thinks music is stagnant isn’t listening to the right stuff. there’s no shortage of amazing music being put out regularly. not likely to find it by listening to the radio though.

Yes, but I'm referring to the next level. Something like the invention of electricity was for music. Without which there would be no electric guitar, the rock genre, nor disc recordings, television, cinema etc...


It will be possible to put Ozzy's voice on an Elvis record and vice versa. Making old-fashioned instrumentation on Elvis records sound modern. Making those poorly recorded Misfits albums sound like Metallica. The music will be completely manipulable.

sure, but that’s not much more than a novelty. humans already do that sort of thing by covering old songs with new instruments. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but at the end of the day it’s hardly revolutionary.

besides, that’s not creating new music—that’s (as you say) manipulating others’ music.

[avasopht]

sure, but that’s not much more than a novelty. humans already do that sort of thing by covering old songs with new instruments. sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but at the end of the day it’s hardly revolutionary.

besides, that’s not creating new music—that’s (as you say) manipulating others’ music.

You can already create new music by manipulating existing samples.

But with AI, it could be music you've created made to sound like it was played by a band and recorded in the 60s with a vocal choir (if that's your thing).


Basically, it can give you more options as a creator in the same way it already is for graphics artists and the movie industry.

There are a few AI engineers who created vastly superior de-ageing for a scene in the Mandalorian (which is built by a company that has the biggest VFX studio in the world).




For someone like me, it means I can get the sampled record sound without having to sample records.

It's all up to your imagination. There was a time when the use of samples and synths (or whatever you use) was looked at the same way.

[littlejam]

hello,

i would rather create the artwork myself
music, movies, writing, photos, food

otherwise, you're cheating

cheers and eat well,

j

[visheshl]

Here's my take on this... people who play acoustic instruments could feel that people who use electronic hardware instruments, are cheating, people who use both could feel those using computers for music are cheating, those using regular DAWs and vsts etc may feel that those using AI are cheating....
But the fact remains, people who play acoustic instruments do it because they enjoy doing it, people who play with drum machines, synthesizers etc or Modular do it because they enjoy doing it, people who use software like Ableton or reason for live performances do it because they like doing it...and all of them have their own audiences too... similarly there may be people making music with AI in the future and there may be a separate audience for them too...all have their own space in the world...i think...in fact i used to feel DJs are cheating at a time in my life...but now i appreciate what they do...

[bxbrkrz]

They should have used the word 'pragmatic' instead of 'diversity', while pretending to make the world a better place.

Yes online shoping is bad

Well, nobody in their right mind would develop a marketing campaign that said, "we're doing XYZ to increase the likelihood you give us more money from impulse purchases that probably increases your debt, reduce your likelihood of owning a home, and raises your blood pressure through buyer's remorse."

Though I'd love to see someone with the gutsy to try it

You've accurately described whose group the target demographic of Levi's marketing campaign is, aka 'Diversity'.

[avasopht]

You've accurately described whose group the target demographic of Levi's marketing campaign is, aka 'Diversity'.

What accurately describes the "diverse" demographic?

Do you mean when I said, "impulse purchases that probably increases your debt, reduce your likelihood of owning a home, and raises your blood pressure through buyer's remorse"? Because that applies to every demographic below the 75th percentile of income.

[bxbrkrz]

You've accurately described whose group the target demographic of Levi's marketing campaign is, aka 'Diversity'.

What accurately describes the "diverse" demographic?

Do you mean when I said, "impulse purchases that probably increases your debt, reduce your likelihood of owning a home, and raises your blood pressure through buyer's remorse"? Because that applies to every demographic below the 75th percentile of income.

'Diversity' would represent the majority, according to Levi's targeting campaign.

[avasopht]

'Diversity' would represent the majority, according to Levi's targeting campaign.

Pretty much. But with the added caveat that it also can appeal more to people with divergent body types.

The diversity aspect is just likely just a side effect of using AI for what would have just been an ordinary tool to see how the clothes would look on you.

It's like when a supermarket sells gluten free tomato ketchup for $2 more than the regular tomato ketchup (which is also gluten free)

[bxbrkrz]

'Diversity' would represent the majority, according to Levi's targeting campaign.

Pretty much. But with the added caveat that it also can appeal more to people with divergent body types.

The diversity aspect is just likely just a side effect of using AI for what would have just been an ordinary tool to see how the clothes would look on you.

It's like when a supermarket sells gluten free tomato ketchup for $2 more than the regular tomato ketchup (which is also gluten free)

The diversity of pixels is not the same as the diversity of humans. It is the end of the real human based modeling industry.
[off topic: I wonder if people used to be allergic to gluten 100 years ago]


Not even using a USB-C port.

[avasopht]

The diversity of pixels is not the same as the diversity of humans. It is the end of the real human based modeling industry.
[off topic: I wonder if people used to be allergic to gluten 100 years ago]


Not even using a USB-C port.

It's not about replacing models.

Basically if your body shape is very different, you can't judge an item of clothing based on how it looks on other models.

For some reason, people hear "diversity" and get the wrong idea. It's not all politics, the word had a much larger scope than *******/************/********** points of view.

And you can't get every conceivable body type to model every single item or clothing.

This offers a way for people whose body types deviate too much from the norm to see how an item of clothing will most likely fit them.

It's not about replacing models.

As for gluten allergies and intolerances (which can be caused by an autoimmune disease in the most severe cases). Yes. Peanut allergies too.

https://www.imaware.health/blog/quick-h ... ac-disease

Lactose intolerance is very common in Africa because there was no pressure on the genome to develop the ability to metabolize cows milk into adulthood.

[bxbrkrz]

The diversity of pixels is not the same as the diversity of humans. It is the end of the real human based modeling industry.
[off topic: I wonder if people used to be allergic to gluten 100 years ago]


Not even using a USB-C port.

It's not about replacing models.

Basically if your body shape is very different, you can't judge an item of clothing based on how it looks on models.

And you can't get every conceivable body type to model every single item or clothing.

This offers a way for people whose body types deviate too much from the norm to see how an item of clothing will most likely fit them.

It's not about replacing models.

As for gluten allergies and intolerances (which can be caused by an autoimmune disease in the most severe cases). Yes. Peanut allergies too.

https://www.imaware.health/blog/quick-h ... ac-disease

Lactose intolerance is very common in Africa because there was no pressure on the genome to develop the ability to metabolize cows milk into adulthood.

What would be the ultimate use of real human models if all you need to do is upload your face, body shape and its details? Ask GPT-4 if you have an account.

Anyway... So the thread doesn't become boring.

[avasopht]

What would be the ultimate use of real human models if all you need to do is upload your face, body shape and its details? Ask GPT-4 if you have an account.

Anyway... So the thread doesn't become boring.

There's no other way to fulfill this particular need.

Basically, you either go in store and try things out in a changing room, or if you're online you use the best tool available.

Changing rooms didn't get rid of models.

This is just a digital equivalent of a changing room, not a digital replacement for modelling.

That's not too say some modelling roles aren't up for grabs, but this particular feature is just about changing rooms.

It's not that serious.

[bxbrkrz]

What would be the ultimate use of real human models if all you need to do is upload your face, body shape and its details? Ask GPT-4 if you have an account.

Anyway... So the thread doesn't become boring.

There's no other way to fulfill this particular need.

Basically, you either go in store and try things out in a changing room, or if you're online you use the best tool available.

Changing rooms didn't get rid of models.

This is just a digital equivalent of a changing room, not a digital replacement for modelling.

That's not too say some modelling roles aren't up for grabs, but this particular feature is just about changing rooms.

It's not that serious.

I have no doubt this was the perfect cost saving move from Levi's. The same way photographers
and photo labs became [AI_synonym] oldfangled, quaint, antediluvian, dowdy, traditional, demoded archaic primitive dated and obsolescent [AI_synonym] for Ikea and their massive paper catalogs, models will be a thing of the past, replaced by pixels.
So I buy something on Amazon. It does not fit. I have to send it back. How much $ is Amazon wasting.
Analog Rooms will be phased out with the annihilation of physical stores. All replaced with Home Smart Fitting Rooms. Logical Evolution of the new gamification of Life with pixels.
Call it 'Diversity' and people will love it as if it was hara-kiri candies.

[avasopht]

I have no doubt this was the perfect cost saving move from Levi's. The same way photographers ...

They were never modelling every body shape and skin tone, so I'm not following your line of reasoning.

It's impossible to model every type of body shape, size and skin tone.

This is not "cost-saving". They never had 1,000 models for every item of clothing.

models will be a thing of the past, replaced by pixels.

This is just a replacement for changing rooms.

So I buy something on Amazon. It does not fit. I have to send it back. How much $ is Amazon wasting.

None. The seller has to pay. I'm sure you can see how this could be a problem for sellers.

Analog Rooms will be phased out with the annihilation of physical stores. All replaced with Home Smart Fitting Rooms. Logical Evolution of the new gamification of Life with pixels.

If you find it difficult to make online purchases then you can still buy things at stores. If there's a need for it, there will be an outlet for it.

Call it 'Diversity' and people will love it as if it was hara-kiri candies.

That's silly.

Right now, it's just not an option to buy for some people.

They don't "love it" because it's 'diversity'. It's just that this is the first time they'll have a reasonable indication of how something will look on them before buying, which had always been an issue for them.

Black people couldn't get makeup designed for their skin tones. When Rihanna offered makeup that was designed to suit their skin tones, it wasn't because it was "called 'Diversity'", it was because this was the first time they were able to get something that wasn't a bad fit. That company is worth over a billion dollars. Not because of "diversity", but because "other" people could finally buy something that works well for them.

Just like really tall people. They can't wear normal-sized shoes.

Are you saying it's "just diversity" if someone caters for tall or short people?

It's not "just diversity" to realize that tall people need to buy shoes any more than it's "just diversity" to realize that people of different body types and skin tones need to buy clothes that suit them.

Are you saying people with different skin tones should not be served by the market?

I don't get what's so difficult to understand about some people having needs you don't?

I have to wonder if you're trying to not understand on purpose. My writing was very clear And I've noticed this very often from you, so it could just be a language barrier.

[bxbrkrz]

I have no doubt this was the perfect cost saving move from Levi's. The same way photographers ...

They were never modelling every body shape and skin tone, so I'm not following your line of reasoning.

It's impossible to model every type of body shape, size and skin tone.

This is not "cost-saving". They never had 1,000 models for every item of clothing.

models will be a thing of the past, replaced by pixels.

This is just a replacement for changing rooms.

So I buy something on Amazon. It does not fit. I have to send it back. How much $ is Amazon wasting.

None. The seller has to pay. I'm sure you can see how this could be a problem for sellers.

Analog Rooms will be phased out with the annihilation of physical stores. All replaced with Home Smart Fitting Rooms. Logical Evolution of the new gamification of Life with pixels.

If you find it difficult to make online purchases then you can still buy things at stores. If there's a need for it, there will be an outlet for it.

Call it 'Diversity' and people will love it as if it was hara-kiri candies.

That's silly.

Right now, it's just not an option to buy for some people.

They don't "love it" because it's 'diversity'. It's just that this is the first time they'll have a reasonable indication of how something will look on them before buying, which had always been an issue for them.

Black people couldn't get makeup designed for their skin tones. When Rihanna offered makeup that was designed to suit their skin tones, it wasn't because it was "called 'Diversity'", it was because this was the first time they were able to get something that wasn't a bad fit. That company is worth over a billion dollars. Not because of "diversity", but because "other" people could finally buy something that works well for them.

Just like really tall people. They can't wear normal-sized shoes.

Are you saying it's "just diversity" if someone caters for tall or short people?

It's not "just diversity" to realize that tall people need to buy shoes any more than it's "just diversity" to realize that people of different body types and skin tones need to buy clothes that suit them.

Are you saying people with different skin tones should not be served by the market?

I don't get what's so difficult to understand about some people having needs you don't?

I have to wonder if you're trying to not understand on purpose. My writing was very clear And I've noticed this very often from you, so it could just be a language barrier.

From what Consciousness is, to why it is logical for a corporation like Levi's to call their cost effective move "Diversity". It is always fun when you want to argue with me. It is never personal, as I share my thoughts about ideas, so are you, like anyone else on the internet. It would be a waste of my energy to dismiss ideas. I understand your position perfectly, and I fully respect it. To me it is not about winning a position moving pixels on my screen. Also, not understanding English would be a good sign of diversity, don't you think?

Replacing real models with pixels is the ultimate goal. Fitting rooms will be seen as useful as phone booths.

[avasopht]

Replacing real models with pixels is the ultimate goal. Fitting rooms will be seen as useful as phone booths.

It's been possible to replace models for a long time; with or without AI ... for free on consumer hardware.

You've got NVidia's AI face generation, you've got Epic's Metahuman face and body generation with support for animation, etc.

They can completely replace actors already as well. This has been true for quite some time.

You say you're not just trying to win an argument, but your responses are remarkably odd.

If you can understand what I'm saying, it's odd that your responses suggest it's not true that other people have genuine needs to see how things would look on them when their appearance differs.

Or when you claim the only reason people like it is because of "diversity" rather than the fact that it's the first and only thing that bothered to meet their needs.

To deny that is odd, and suggests you don't understand it based on what you're saying.



If it's just about replacing models, they're doing a terrible job of using what already exists to do just that while not terminating their contracts with models.



That being said, the technology is out there, and could potentially threaten the jobs of models. But manikins do the same thing.

We'll see.

The technology has existed a long time, so if you're right, there should be no models next year



... but I feel like someone's missing a trick here

[bxbrkrz]

Replacing real models with pixels is the ultimate goal. Fitting rooms will be seen as useful as phone booths.

It's been possible to replace models for a long time; with or without AI ... for free on consumer hardware.

You've got NVidia's AI face generation, you've got Epic's Metahuman face and body generation with support for animation, etc.

They can completely replace actors already as well. This has been true for quite some time.

You say you're not just trying to win an argument, but your responses are remarkably odd.

If you can understand what I'm saying, it's odd that your responses suggest it's not true that other people have genuine needs to see how things would look on them when their appearance differs.

Or when you claim the only reason people like it is because of "diversity" rather than the fact that it's the first and only thing that bothered to meet their needs.

To deny that is odd, and suggests you don't understand it based on what you're saying.



If it's just about replacing models, they're doing a terrible job of using what already exists to do just that while not terminating their contracts with models.



That being said, the technology is out there, and could potentially threaten the jobs of models. But manikins do the same thing.

We'll see.

The technology has existed a long time, so if you're right, there should be no models next year



... but I feel like someone's missing a trick here

It's is very simple. I describe what the corporation is selling, as an entertained observer.

Concepts like "odd" or "not understanding" or "trick" are based on personal feelings. There is no way for me to know how you feel, while it is perfectly fine if you believe you know how I feel. We both know we will be reacting to something else a few days from now.
When I close my tab this forum ceases to exist in my reality. But just for a few hours

The cost of AI is going down. No one will need to own an expensive NVIDIA card just to buy clothing online, made cheap by people from places we pretend do not exist.

The subject of the thread is AI and machines. If I make you 'feel' something, then be glad to be part of this beautiful miracle, this experience we can still call humanity. For now

What was the main focus of this thread again? Ah yes.

[avasopht]

Another odd response.

He's now claiming that any logical or rational observation is derived from feelings.

The last response seem a little incoherent and full of non sequiturs (as if the words were constructed by gpt-2), though I better understand the differences in thinking I get where you're coming from now ...



There's good reason to have concerns about ai, which I'm guessing is what's behind this thread??

[bxbrkrz]

Moving forward. The thread thanks you.

[avasopht]

Moving forward. The thread thanks you.

Do you think it's going too far?

Just hype?

Or inevitable?

[bxbrkrz]

Moving forward. The thread thanks you.

Do you think it's going too far?

Just hype?

Or inevitable?

Beep! I am sorry but I can't answer your question Dave. My programming only goes up to the year 1999, but I will try. Beep!

It is not going far enough.

Remember CRISPR-Cas9? I am still waiting to design and buy my very own chimera pet from the Bronx Zoo app. Was it Hype? Is this tech inevitable too? To me that was for sure THE Pandora box. No flying dragons yet. They are working on it, they need more $$$

Remember Quantum computers? How it was supposed to be THE Pandora box? They are working on it, they need more $$$

Remember breaking appart the universe into its smaller pixel of reality? That big machine that took 20 years to build in Europe was the definite answer. They are working on it, they need more $$$

Selling hope and happiness is not a money making machine success. FUD is. People love hype. They want to believe. They want to be scared to death. Happy people always end up being killed by sad people, culturally speaking too.

I don't see how AI can take over the world without the hand of a human up its butt like a puppet all the time. Because it is an illusion AI needs to be sanitized all the time. People project their own desire, their own movie. Their own 'truth' in the code. Multiple AI, infinite truths.

In the end it is humans, not AI, who will decide to be hopeful, or not. That's the real inevitability. Beep!

[avasopht]

So you believe it's all just hype?

Fair enough

[Higor]

We have entered the prompt age. Be careful what you wish. The only limit will be your mind. Make a request and it will be granted.

[Floyd42]

We have entered the prompt age. Be careful what you wish. The only limit will be your mind. Make a request and it will be granted.

[bxbrkrz]

So you believe it's all just hype?

Fair enough

Money grab, experience grab, idea grab, culture grab. Everything you type is logged and will be exploited by the corporations owning the AI. They are creating and updating and saving us too. Clicking on an ad is fine
(old tech), but sharing your thoughts is what is needed for them to create a very precise interactive mind map, predicting what you'll do, or like, eventually. Today's mind map is obsolete. It's hype (the intelligence part), but with a twist.