The person using an AI generator still has to write out a detailed description of what sort of image is wanted. The AI can't just cook stuff up on its own, and in my limited experience playing with Bing, nine times out of ten it's way off the mark. I mean, a quick way to check to see if it's AI "art" is to look at the hands, because they're usually wonky, with too many or too few fingers, extra claws on a finger, or otherwise bizarre-looking (Maybe that's why humans shake hands? To check to see if the person they're greeting is a real human or an AI simulation?)
Even detailed descriptions often don't get the desired result, if the request is weird enough (you do NOT want to see what it returned to the prompt "amusement park midway at night with a crowd of anthropomorphic spotted hyenas:--!)
To be honest, I got bored playing with it, and Bing seems to be the best one at generating appealing-looking characters. A friend of mine tried two others, and the prompt of "a white unicorn lady in medieval armor" got back images of women with horse butts, horses with six nostrils and four eyes, and an array of twisted and warped hands. All PHOTOREALISTIC. Talk about nightmare fuel!
Whoever named it "artificial intelligence" really over-sold it. It's a cleverly-designed computer program, that's all. It can be a tool, or it can be a toy.
What worries me are the scientists who are using "artificial intelligence" to come up with medicines and genetic models and stuff. I mean, who can prove that the results are accurate?
The person using an AI generator still has to write out a detailed description of what sort of image is wanted. The AI can't just cook stuff up on its own, and in my limited experience playing with Bing, nine times out of ten it's way off the mark. I mean, a quick way to check to see if it's AI "art" is to look at the hands, because they're usually wonky, with too many or too few fingers, extra claws on a finger, or otherwise bizarre-looking (Maybe that's why humans shake hands? To check to see if the person they're greeting is a real human or an AI simulation?)
Even detailed descriptions often don't get the desired result, if the request is weird enough (you do NOT want to see what it returned to the prompt "amusement park midway at night with a crowd of anthropomorphic spotted hyenas:--!)
To be honest, I got bored playing with it, and Bing seems to be the best one at generating appealing-looking characters. A friend of mine tried two others, and the prompt of "a white unicorn lady in medieval armor" got back images of women with horse butts, horses with six nostrils and four eyes, and an array of twisted and warped hands. All PHOTOREALISTIC. Talk about nightmare fuel!
Whoever named it "artificial intelligence" really over-sold it. It's a cleverly-designed computer program, that's all. It can be a tool, or it can be a toy.
What worries me are the scientists who are using "artificial intelligence" to come up with medicines and genetic models and stuff. I mean, who can prove that the results are accurate?