Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
CMU School of Drama
Thursday, September 28, 2023
Microsoft is testing a DALL-E-powered text-to-image creator in Paint for Windows 11
The Verge: Microsoft is testing a DALL-E-powered text-to-image creator in Microsoft Paint for Windows 11, the company announced in a blog post. Called Paint Cocreator, the tool creates art based on a description the user types out.
3 comments:
Jojo G.
said...
The use of AI in features such as blurring the background is not a bad thing however the use of AI to create images has long been known to simply be an amalgamation of stolen art from uncredited, unpaid artists. Hopefully Microsoft sets a precedent and actually has the sample art consist of commissioned and paid for art from real artists. For a while now AI art generators have drawn from the wider internet including almost entirely not credited and certainly not paid for art. I say almost entirely not credited because occasionally the AI generator would actually accidentally include the watermark in the stolen art which just went to show how interpretive the AI is. If Microsoft actually went about this in an entirely ethical way then it may just convince the people who are still defending this AI that it really is possible to do it all in a way that doesn’t harm real artists.
I understand why people are excited by this, however it is a worrying trend to me. Generative algorithms are a helpful tool but I don’t think they should be used to supplant traditional artists and writers, you’ll never get something as compelling as human made art. I want to point out that I think AI can be a useful tool for certain people, however when people start claiming that it can supplant artist, or traditional entertainment writers, it’s kind of upsetting, because the reason we consume art and written media is to get meaning out of what someone did, that is diluted when a computer does it. Also, it’s kind of interesting how people call it AI (I only do to stick to convention), because it’s nowhere close to what one would call “artificial intelligence”, as all it does is take in training data and a prompt then spits out something similar to the training data that is matched to the prompt, it’s not actually thinking.
It is interesting to see how people are using AI to do so many different tasks. It is kind of funny to me that even the simplest of tasks to the most complicated things by a press of a button an AI operated thing can do it. AI doing art has always been a weird concept for me because I think it is such an emotional process for people to create art and it is not even close to what a machine can mimic since they do not have emotions like humans do. The process is completely different making the observation of the art not even comparable to anyone. Having AI do all of these tasks can help the world but is also making people not want to learn how to do it and rely on the machine to do everything for them.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/24957393/paintcocreator.jpg)
3 comments:
The use of AI in features such as blurring the background is not a bad thing however the use of AI to create images has long been known to simply be an amalgamation of stolen art from uncredited, unpaid artists. Hopefully Microsoft sets a precedent and actually has the sample art consist of commissioned and paid for art from real artists. For a while now AI art generators have drawn from the wider internet including almost entirely not credited and certainly not paid for art. I say almost entirely not credited because occasionally the AI generator would actually accidentally include the watermark in the stolen art which just went to show how interpretive the AI is. If Microsoft actually went about this in an entirely ethical way then it may just convince the people who are still defending this AI that it really is possible to do it all in a way that doesn’t harm real artists.
I understand why people are excited by this, however it is a worrying trend to me. Generative algorithms are a helpful tool but I don’t think they should be used to supplant traditional artists and writers, you’ll never get something as compelling as human made art. I want to point out that I think AI can be a useful tool for certain people, however when people start claiming that it can supplant artist, or traditional entertainment writers, it’s kind of upsetting, because the reason we consume art and written media is to get meaning out of what someone did, that is diluted when a computer does it. Also, it’s kind of interesting how people call it AI (I only do to stick to convention), because it’s nowhere close to what one would call “artificial intelligence”, as all it does is take in training data and a prompt then spits out something similar to the training data that is matched to the prompt, it’s not actually thinking.
It is interesting to see how people are using AI to do so many different tasks. It is kind of funny to me that even the simplest of tasks to the most complicated things by a press of a button an AI operated thing can do it. AI doing art has always been a weird concept for me because I think it is such an emotional process for people to create art and it is not even close to what a machine can mimic since they do not have emotions like humans do. The process is completely different making the observation of the art not even comparable to anyone. Having AI do all of these tasks can help the world but is also making people not want to learn how to do it and rely on the machine to do everything for them.
Post a Comment