Hobthrob

It is very interesting to read about everyone's experience with ADHD, and how different it really expresses itself.

Thank you for the rundown and links. It's news to me but that does indeed sound like there's a connection there.

I'll have to look into that more at some point. I appreciate your effort to help educate a lot.

That doesn't really sound like ADHD to me, but rather low self-esteem. I am sure the ADHD could be contributing to the low self-esteem but it doesn't sound like the same thing.

I think the "11 year old killed" part is the one that should make you feel bad.

The influencer part is pretty irrelevant to the overall issue here, even if it might be relevant to other aspects of the story.

Reading the article I don't see any support for your argument. It just seems like a arsenal strawman.

The article talks about getting more young people into political positions, and about having politicians generally stay in office until they die of old age is causing political stagnation.

It's not like it argues you can't serve past a certain age, just that it shouldn't be an exclusive old-people's club.

We have a Kinetic scale at home. Have had it for a few years now. It's my favourite one we've had so far.

On a full wind-up it lasts a couple of minutes, and it tells us before it runs out so you can wind it up again if you need.

We've had zero issues with it turning off mid-weighing past the first couple of times it happened, after which we got used to it.

For us, they've been the superior option.

Man, the disrespect. His wife is right next to him, and even picked her sexy Halloween outfit just for him.

It's a good comic, but the 2nd and 3rd frame should have been switched for better effect.

I think the lack of distinctive features is inherent to how AI training works. From my knowledge you feed them data and it looks for the averages across those data. So if you feed it 100 images of people it will take note of the features that are shared. For example let's say 60% of the images you feed it for reference happen to feature a beauty mark by the mouth. The algorithm makes notes of that and when it produces an image of it's own it will likely feature a beauty mark by the mouth. Now apply the same logic to all other visual features and you might start to see why AI produces very samey-visuals: it's presenting the averages of the inputs it is fed. Better training materials will probably help, and I'm sure it can be tweaked, but "bland" really seems to be baked in to the formula.

Presumably because mania is a key part of the cult, and many portrayals in media use the behavioural signs of mania to convey evil.

Although I'm sure plenty of people might look a little manic if they were pictured while handed a lot of money with a big debacle made out of it.

I mean, the hostility is entirely understandable. The current form of generative art is meant to replace artists. It is part of what is currently devastating peoples livelihoods, although I think some companies and clients are already learning that it currently leads to lower overall quality, due to how much harder it is to implement changes based on feedback. It lowers the overall quality bar, although it does have the potential to raise the floor a little. The larger models that are causing this hype are quite literally trained on the work of unwilling artists.

It is the most disrespectful and clearly ethically wrong basis to build it on, and it really begs the question of whether the ends justify the means. Beyond that, art is just not an area where we need AI. It largely hurts artists, is super energy demanding so it actively hurts the environment for no real benefit.

The energy would be so much better used solving actual problems, so more people could spend time doing things they enjoy. If some people enjoy AI generation, then that's fine but I think it shouldn't replace a passionate, skill-based workforce.

That's a cool visualisation of what kind of visual input you can feed into the process with ControlNet.

And it really makes it clear that what AI images is good for if communicating a general idea. I think comparing AI generated or Assisted images or videos to photography is probably the closest analogous medium we have, but I think AI images are stort if in-between that and more classical art. You have more control over the more technical aspects of the image, as you can alter those things with big strokes, but you've given up too much control to really infused it with artistic intent. Even when photography, where you are generally limited by reality, you can better infused artistic intent into the picture, because you carefully examine what makes that object of the picture unique. Even if you try to direct AI models, it limit their scope they will always add whether the most average expression of what they're adding, because that what it looks for in the training; the commonalities/averages of whatever it was trained on.

Even ControlNet is just a way to claw back a little more control over the process. I wouldn't actually call the examples I've seen of ControlNet to be examples of fine control. I'm struggling to find a way to clearly communicate it, but it's like the difference between 3D art that is trying to look like 2D, and actual 2D. There's always something lost in the translation.

Most artistic disciplines are their own language, and I just don't think we have a way to communicate that language without actually doing the art, and art requires artistic intent, which I don't think is possible with the current AI tools. Maybe it will be at some point, but artistic intent and control over the process are so interconnected that the balance becomes very difficult.