As an artist you draw with an understanding of the human body, though. An understanding current models don't have because they aren't actually intelligent.
Maybe when a human is an absolute beginner in drawing they will think about the different lines and replicate even how other people draw stuff that then looks like a hand.
But eventually they will realise (hopefully, otherwise they may get frustrated and stop drawing) that you need to understand the hand to draw one. It's mass, it's concept or the idea of what a hand is.
This may sound very abstract and strange but creative expression is more complex than replicating what we have seen a million times. It's a complex function unique to the human brain, an organ we don't even scientifically understand yet.
In general I agree with you, but AI doesn't learn the concept of what a circle is. AI reproduces the most fitting representation of what we call a circle. But there is no understanding of the concept of a circle. This may sound nit picking, but I think it's important to make the distinction.
That is why current models aren't regarded as actual intelligence, although people already call them that...
I think the difference in artistic expression between modern humans and humans in the past comes down to the material available (like the actual material to draw with).
Humans can draw without seeing any image ever. Blind people can create art and draw things because we have a different understanding of the world around us than AI has. No human artist needs to look at a thousand or even at 1 picture of a banana to draw one.
The way AI sees and "understands" the world and how it generates an image is fundamentally different from how the human brain conveys the object banana into an image of a banana.
$20/mo
good value for people without much money
The absolute majority of people can not afford that. This is especially true for huge part of the art that was used to train various models on.
AI currently is a tool for rich people by rich people which uses the work of poor people who themselves won't be able to benefit from it.
I think there is a much easier explanation. People keep rabbits and guinea pigs as pets. They are much more of a "prey animal" than a wild hog, for example.
Humans simply find rabbits, dogs and cats more aesthetically pleasing / cute. That's the whole secret to it. Some animals are liked by humans and get a bare minimum of compassion and some don't. And that's the biggest factor in our decision of which animals deserve to rot away in their own filth until slaughtered and which can enter our homes as "entertainers".
People pirate and then wonder why small developer studios for example go broke or software becomes more expensive or less plenty. It's so dumb it hurts.
We do not know if the person was bullied or just had an extreme sense of entitlement or some other type of personality disorder which made them believe everyone who didn't treat them a specific way was bullying them.
Well there is scientific reasons to set the age at 25 because apparently that's when our brains are actually fully grown. It's much more arbitrary to put it at a random number like 18 or 21 which has no basis in science or rationality whatsoever, it was just picked randomly.
I don't understand what you are arguing about it than. The post doesn't say we should vote for age gaps in relationships to be banned. Supposedly you think it's good to talk about the downsides of these relationships, but here you are, calling it a "conservative Trojan horse". It seems like you actually do not want people to criticise it.
Are you really trying to make "Death to Israel" sound like something good? People who say that quite literally mean Israel should not exist and that includes make it un-exist through violence. At that point people can't pretend to not be on Hamas side.
No, I mean that they should think of own measurements against illegal media and communication.