Readit NewsIf I see a painting, I see an interpretation that makes me think through someone else's interpretation.
If I see a photograph, I don't analyze as much, but I see a time and place. What is the photographer trying to get me to see?
If I see AI, I see a machine dithered averaging that is/means/represents/construes nothing but a computer predicted average. I might as well generate a UUID, I would get more novelty. No backstory, because items in the scene just happened to be averaged in. No style, just a machine dithered blend. It represents nothing no matter the prompt you use because the majority is still just machine averaged/dithered non-meaning. Not placed with intention, focused with real vision, no obvious exclusions with intention. Just exactly what software thinks is the most average for the scene it had described to it. The better AI gets, the more average it becomes, and the less people will care about 'perfectly average' images.
It won't even work for ads for long. Ads will become wild/novel/distinct/wacky/violations of AI rules/processes/techniques to escape and belittle AI. To mock AI. Technically perfect images will soon be considered worthless AI trash. If for no other reason than artists will only be rewarded for moving in directions AI can't going forward. The second Google/OpenAI reach their goal, the goal posts will move because no one wants procedural/perfectly average slop.
The gates are wide open for those that want to put in effort to learn. What AI is doing to creative professionals is putting them out of a job by people who are cheap and lazy.
Art is not inaccessible. It's never been cheaper and easier to make art than today even without AI.
> Personally I can't wait to see the new creative doors ai will open for us!
It's opening zero doors but closing many
---
What really irks me about this is that I have _seen_ AI used to take away work from people. Last weekend I saw a show where the promotional material was AI generated. It's not like tickets were cheaper or the performers were paid more or anything was improved. The producers pocketed a couple hundred bucks by using AI instead of paying a graphic designer. Extrapolate that across the market for arts and wonder what it's going to do to creativity.
It's honestly disgusting to me that engineers who don't understand art are building tools at the whims of the financiers behind art who just want to make a bit more money. This is not a rising tide that lifts all ships.
Because many other kinds of art require thousands of hours to learn before getting to the level of current AI
The real gate keeper to art isn't the cost of a pencil, it's the opportunity cost of learning how to use it
Some people have creative ideas they cannot realise and tools like AI help them do it. The more people that can realise their creative ideas the better it is for everyone.
On top of that x86 seems to be pushed out more and more by ARM hardware and now increasingly RISC-V from China. But of course there's the US chip angle - will the US, especially after the problems during Covid, let a key manufacturer like Intel bite the dust?
That’s not why we use RAW. It’s partly because (1) if you used Adobe RGB or Rec. 709 on a JPEG, a lot of people would screw it up, (2) you get a little extra raw data from the pre-filtering of Bayer, X-Trans, etc. data, (3) it’s less development work for camera manufacturers, and (4) partly historical.
Second, the native raw images do include a ton of adjustments in brightness, contrast and color correction. All of which gets lost when you open the image file with apps provided from other companies than the camera vendor. Eg. open a Nikon-raw in NC Software and then in Lightroom. Big difference. Adobe has some profiles that get near the original result, but the Nikon raw standards often are better.
So DNG would absolutely be an advantage because then at least these color corrections could natively be implemented and not get lost in the process.