Improved AI generations of Gaga

[Mother of Puppies 36,434]

9 hours ago, MessyTop said:

 

As funny and fascinating as I find this, it’s also creepy because those pictures get better and better. They look so real that we can’t say what’s fake or real anymore - just like with those deepfake videos. So this technology (as of now) doesn’t just steal data, it could also be used to spread false news and harm people.
 

 

[Schwerk 7,245]

They all look so tacky to me. There's no Gaga edge. Not a fan.

[Melodean 8,328]

1 hour ago, Hold My Ham said:

https://twitter.com/LisaGoldlake09/status/1603380705459081217?t=I2RbbHv04AH_yfKD6xYW2g&s=19

sorta? it combined them and it's so cursed.

OMG 

why is it giving me gwen stefani, patricia reggiani and the c*ck destroyers in one person? 

[Guest]

um... 

[Future Lovers 6,904]

The simple matter of the debate is that in the end, the AI art fascination is going to hit and wall and people will turn toward art made by hand with reverence once more. This has happened in other art mediums before. Not with AI specifically, but with the "next best thing" that runs like a trend until attention shifts back to the original incarnation. 

I agree fully that these AI companies need to start either striking deals with artists to use their work or use only art that is in the public domain. But I do not believe that this is really going to kill off the need or want for traditional artists. It's the fad of the moment and the interest in it will eventually trickle off. 

It is a toy, and the vast majority of people who're using it are treating it as such. The people who're using it to create pieces that they sell as their art is a small slice of the user base of these AI generators. 

[Lemonky 668]

Oh no, average Karen will now be able to get painting of their pet for free instead of paying $500 an artist to do it  forbid AI art, art is only for rich and skilled ones!!111!1!1

[Enigma 7,182]

On 12/14/2022 at 4:00 PM, moonsago said:

There is no real creativity in this new form of ‘art’, the human is not involved in creating these, there is no REAL interpretation through the human experience/lense, it’s just associations of images blended together through an algoritm. It’s math, not art. And the major concern isn’t even with that, it’s the fact that artists will not have work comissioned anymore when you can have a computer generate your editorials in magazines, as one example. Why pay 10 people for a photoshoot when you can have an 8 dollar a month subscription plan to one of these programs. People will lose their livelyhoods. And this won’t stop here, I literally watched a video of one of these engineers say how in the future they plan to make AI robots for cheap and literally said something along the lines of ‘why would an employer pay you 100.000$ a year when he can buy hundreds of 10$ AI robots to do your job’. People don’t realize the future implications of unethical AI development. Make no mistake, this is for the rich. 

This is why everyone should be a socialist 

The robot/AI revolution is coming whether you like it or not and corporations don't care about your job. People WILL be replaced if they can be. 

But don't you find it weird how in the past people saw robots as a wonderful thing? They thought they'd take care of the ugly work and we could have more free time.

Well, that could happen... if it wasn't for capitalism. If we didn't rely on a job to survive, losing jobs wouldn't be so tragic. People are freaking out about losing HOURS which is wild. We should be happy that as society progresses we have to work less and less. The 5 days a week 9 to 5 is outdated. But sadly we're coerced into needing to work full time.

I sadly can't find the source but I remember reading that if the workload was evenly split between every able US resident, the work week would be something like 13 hours. 

We already could live lives with lots of free time without impacting the economy much, if it wasn't for rich leeches. Robots would help with that. But that is under the condition that they are used to actually fulfill needs, and not create profit for some individual. And under the condition that we break the "I need to work X hours to afford to eat" system.

[monstrosity 3,943]

On 12/15/2022 at 11:50 PM, PartySick said:

To be a devil's advocate here, one could say the human observing the ai products is the human needed for art to be considered "art".

Art is generally defined as expressing creativity through a medium like music, dance, paint, digital works, etc.

And though the expression in this case isn't from the creator of the art, it could be from the person that draws meaning from the art. 'Cause then, it's expressing something.

That said, I find this all very creepy

So nature can be art, as it’s human-watched and not human-made. This is interesting, even though I disagree 

[monstrosity 3,943]

If I was Gaga or another celeb being the object of these AI, I would feel so so weird and bad like… 

anyway a good thing is, some monsters that hate everything gags does can create their own version of her (which is terrifying)

[AURAOFSHEISSE 6,516]

@RitaOralwhat AI program do you use?

[PartySick 160,021]

15 hours ago, Monstruous said:

So nature can be art, as it’s human-watched and not human-made. This is interesting, even though I disagree 

I would say so, yeah.

One definition of art, imo, is something through which meaning can be derived.

It's a pretty open concept tbh

[Meta Mart 352]

I see legs. Where is the Lady?

[Coldish 2,398]

To everyone asking, the app is called Lexica!

https://lexica.art/aperture

[BELLYACHE 1,255]

The serve.

ughhhh this one 😩😩^^^
 

[freebit 6,240]

I'm very opposed to AI art...however, I used it out of curiousity and had so much fun putting LG into different film eras,  like, so much fun that I used up all my allotted generations - which is such a dystopian sounding sentence I'd never thought I'd type, wtf  

Anyway...

1960s French New Wave muse to Jacques Demy and Godard (Criterion Collection edition):

Visconti period piece Gaga:

1970s Giallo film/Argento muse:

1970s Gaga in New Hollywood:

Honestly, this reminds me of the glee of playing with Barbie. While I think this insidious as far as art goes, I really think it's best for seeing situations that never were (historical & fashion situations etc, not pervy ones).