#Generative content

[prokopetz]

Producing generative content the way God intended: rolling on big stupid dice tables and deliberately misinterpreting the Rider-Waite tarot.

[adastra-sf]

As generative AI spreads throughout publishing like a virus, Amazon is modifying how authors and other creators can use its Kindle self-publishing platform.

Amazon announced that it is "lowering the volume limits we have in place on new title creations" that users can add to the Kindle Direct Publishing platform daily to three, "in order to help protect against abuse," and it's possible that the number might be lowered again.

So now you can only write and publish three (3) Kindle books per day, folks.

When mega-corporations that otherwise exhibit no ethics begin to act against AI-generated content, you know things are getting bad.

Publisher's Weekly story: X

[leam1983]

Evolution

Remember how in 2005, people used to fuck around with a little chatbot called Cleverbot? Her responses were wooden, her tonal awareness was all over the map; she was easy to turn into an abusive shithead or to coax into agreeing with points of view that you couldn't realistically defend; and she notably couldn't handle a convo with another robot.

Now, we've got AI renditions of Werner Herzog and Slavoj Zizek going on endless tirades about the meaning of aesthetics and the underpinnings of their work in the empty void of a permanent exhibition space online, called The Infinite Conversation. While the semantics always break down if you really pay attention; things make sense on a sentence-per-sentence basis, and you see both AIs politely arguing and defending opposing viewpoints.

It used to be the best text-to-speech generator was what you heard on Emergency Alert System drills, and now we've got games like The Finals, that outsource the vocal underpinnings of their rapidly-changing game structure to AI, to avoid having to constantly re-hire the same voice actors to provide color commentary for game modes that might not exist six months down the line.

The kicker is their responses are eerily lifelike, with pauses, chuckles, scoffs, changes in emphasis that fit with events in a given match - and there's none of the choppiness you'd associate to text-to-speech à la Microsoft Sam.

I'm not condoning the practice, mind you; I'm just amazed that we've reached a point where, if you want, you can have a pair of RTX 4090 cards momentarily think like they're a peppy British-Korean lady and a snarky American man plastering fake cheer over live fire-enabled spectator sports set in the Distant Spacefuture.

[iapislazuli]

idk what traumatized or mentally ill person needs to hear this but dreams (especially the really disturbing ones you dont want to talk about to anybody) arent some deep peek into your psyche or a sign of your True Desires or whatever theyre quite literally your brain making fruit salad with whatever it can find on the shelf. just putting all that shit in a blender and hitting obliterate. its fine, youre fine, youre not a weirdo for it

[razehider]

this doesn't seem to be widespread knowledge around here yet but there's a big trend among dogshit content scraper accounts to grab a real photo (usually of ✨Aesthetic Nature™✨ or something similar, which is why it's relevant to me) somewhere, and recreate it using AI to avoid crediting the photographer. this can even trick people who are somewhat familiar with the subject matter if they're not paying attention but looks incredibly wrong upon closer inspection

here is some complete garbage as an example. because these "photos" are not completely made up by AI, people into spiders know the species and will recognize their features without looking closely, getting tricked in the process. if you know spider anatomy and look closely though, both of those look like utter abominations. the original photos these two were based on are here and here, by the way

these just so happen to be things i'm familiar with and i would probably get easily fooled by AI recreations of plants or fish or whatever. my point is that if you're not an expert on everything that exists you're not immune to these, so i would probably recommend caring about photo sources unless you actively want to look at this repulsive trash

[toonmania]

[mckitterick]

fantastic assignment

but I'm concerned about how, even after this experiment, they're saying things like "revert to where AI is." this suggests they're still thinking of a statistics-and-database-driven algorithm as akin to the human mind

if we ever see true, Strong Artificial Intelligence - and I'm of the opinion we will in the next decade or two, once corporations stop wasting resources pretending the current nonsense they're producing is AI - its "thinking" will have little relationship to ours

[ai-super-babe]

Sexy AI-Generated Babe

[neuraldamsels]

Jess on fire

Source: deviantart.com

[rca-ryzies-ralley]

I think everyone should take note of the storytelling in the Ithaca premiere during luck runs out

[adastra-sf]

"The Wizard of AI"

We're just concluding our fall "Writing in (& about) the Age of Artificial Intelligence" workshop at Ad Astra headquarters (critique weekend is coming up!), and one of the participants shared this in our Discord. So naturally we have to share it with you, too, because relevant.

Artist and media critic Alan Warburton has released a brilliant new documentary about the evolution and state of artificial intelligence and its impact on creators, The Wizard of AI.

"I would say 99% of it was made using generative artificial intelligence tools," the 43-year-old filmmaker told The Guardian. Could his 20-minute film be the world’s first AI-generated documentary?

"I’m taking a leaf out of the AI hype playbook there," he admits with a laugh. "In truth, there is never going to be a first truly AI-generated documentary, because it always will involve labor of some kind. Labor is what makes it watchable."

The film does a fantastic job of sharing what he calls "wonder-panic" through its very existence.

One take-away after watching:

If AI has already "created" more images than humans have, shouldn't there be less to fear about their stealing human art? Surely they've polluted their own fishing waters, so to speak, so will AI "art" become increasingly inbred and thus (hopefully) irrelevant to the creative world?

We'll have to wait to see, because surely AI trainers at working hard at this problem, and big IP owners like Disney are, too. So perhaps it'll only be small artists who remain at risk of their work being stolen to train AI generators.

Warburton wrote the script, and says AI text generation lags far behind imagery. So at least there's that. For now.

Perhaps the most powerful part of the film is the closing "In Memoriam" section, listing all the creatives who didn't contribute to making it because AI took their jobs:

We strongly recommend everyone check this out, especially creatives, to get a glimpse at the state of AI in our daily lives:

"The Wizard of AI" on Vimeo

[cozylittleartblog]

"content creator" is a corporate word.

we are artists.

[hollis-art]

sparkle sounds

[goldensunset]

people who go through the main tags of big and tumultuous fandoms looking for new fresh good posts to reblog are essential to any circle. they’re like true hunter gatherers leaving the safety of settlement and braving the unknown wilderness to find food for the flock. they risk their lives every day and will come back with a few scratches at best and severe psychological damage at worst

[toonmania]

Wanna join?