Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

(Aftershow) The AI Art Video (Patreon)

Published:
2025-07-18 12:00:12
Edited:
2025-07-22 19:35:06
Imported:
2026-09
Tags:

Downloads

Content

In this aftershow, the gang unpacks the chaos of making the AI art video and their nuanced feelings about creativity, ethics, and the future of art

Comments

Lyndsey L. Werner

Ha ha! I forgot I brought up copyright! And I listened to that Let’s Learn Everything between then and now! Hilariously in that answer you still answered other things I mentioned. Real quick! Even though the idea that Disney would use AI on their own material is a real one (and something they would DEF try to get away with), the decision on the copyright was actually because a human is required to create something for it to be copyrighted! It’s based on that photo a monkey took that they decided couldn’t be copyrighted because it was taken by a monkey! So my point was actually that whatever they tried to CREATE with AI would then basically be in the public domain because AI generated work cannot currently be copyrighted. They would be generating public domain works. 😂 That said, having the context of copyright from that ep was very helpful and I totally see what you mean about it being twisted.

Ephemeral Existence

Taha, have you tried SciHub or Anna’s Archive for scientific papers? I think that they are basically what you were hoping for.

Some Ed

The danger of AI as we know it is not that it can replace people. It can't. In many of the cases I've heard of, people using AI to do technical things are frequently *less* effective than people who just do those things with the expertise they've gained from their pre-AI education. None of the other cases even assessed that. With art, there isn't a hard technical requirement, so it doesn't have to truly understand what it's doing. But I feel the danger is stil there. The real danger is many of the people who make the decisions on what people to hire to do specific things frequently don't have a sufficiently technical understanding of what they're actually employing someone or something to do will at some point choose to just use AI rather than people and it will fail spectacularly. And, um, this is already occasionally happening. The really big issue is the people who make the decisions for the important things aren't seeing all the people failing because of choosing to just use AI instead of people. To the extent they are seeing them, they think, "Ok, it's not ready *yet*." But it's not really a yet issue. What the AI software we have can't get to the point where it can safely replace people. And we probably won't ever have an AI that can, because as time goes on, more and more people realize that this stuff is after their own job. It's not that AI is really wanting their job, but the people in power want to replace everybody with a tool that doesn't tell them why what they want to do is stupid.

Some Ed

Sabrina, what you're asking for in minute 49 is fundamentally not something you can trust generative AI to do. The issue is the "generative" bit will happily kick in if it can't find what you're asking for. Except, that's not the right way to look at it. Because the generative bit always kicks in. It's just that it happens to work well as a search engine because it doesn't understand how to avoid doing a copyright infringement. To be clear, a lot of the stuff it finds in its search engine capacity isn't protected by copyright. But the AI has no idea what copyright is and can't respect it whether it's applicable or not. The only thing that people have managed to get it to not reproduce some specific works has been to put in exclusions to make sure it doesn't produce certain specific copyrighted things.

William Power

I always enjoy these podcasts but the last 10 minutes were absolutely 👌 verbalising a lot of things I've been scatterbrain thinking

Winslow

I think Taha covering AI is perfect as it's closer to those of us who are similarly less technically savvy. Looking forward to that view too.

Lee las instrucciones y hazlo igual bro

I mostly disagree with your phrasing if I'm honest. I'd say "AI is a tool. Asking, is AI art? is like asking, is a pencil and a sketchbook art? You can use AI to make art, sure, but if you feed a photo of your girlfriend to ChatGPT and tell it to make it look like a Ghibli you're not making art." I think a lot of people have no understanding what art is. That may sound elitist but I don't think it is. It's about the desire to think about what you're looking at or hearing beyond the absolute surface level. It's like the people who say Fenyx Rising looked better than Breath of the Wild. I don't just disagree with that, I think if you say that you just don't understand what beauty is.