leonardcohenforum.com

I asked ChatGPT what if I can't accept AI generated "stuff", writing, painting, therapy. It was very empathetic to me but essentially told me to fuck off if I can't adapt. Evolve or go extinct. And I do know the dice are loaded even though I still cross my fingers!

dar wrote: ↑Sun Feb 16, 2025 6:24 pm I asked ChatGPT what if I can't accept AI generated "stuff", writing, painting, therapy. It was very empathetic to me but essentially told me to fuck off if I can't adapt. Evolve or go extinct. And I do know the dice are loaded even though I still cross my fingers!

Oh, how I would love to open up an intelligent discussion/debate on the subject of AI generated "stuff"! Alas, I do not think that this is the place for it.

As for your post, I find the concept of asking an AI for its advice on AI generated "stuff" to be very funny! Yeah, no bias there!

LisaLCFan wrote:
>I like your pictures, and the book covers are cool! Please feel free to ignore my hangups -- my comments were more a reflection of me than you!
>
>The colourful Leonard portrait is very nice -- real paint, or AI paint, doesn't matter, it's nice!
- - - -
thank you for the compliments, lisa. any 'hangups' have not been registered. i see you as an interesting person, and feel privileged whenever you respond.

the portrait is AI, of course. i wrote a series of 'prompts' describing exactly what i was looking for, until arriving at an image that had potential. after that the WEBP file was converted into JPG, then polished up in photoshop elements, before finally being dropped into paint.NET to make any last minute alterations. to be accpted by phpBB (this forum) all images need to be reduced to less than 256 KB, and that is done in microsoft paint - as we discussed a while ago.

i can understand why some people dislike AI. like almost anything else, it can be misused. the problem is that it cannot now be uninvented, so perhaps more restrictions are necessary.
-----------------------
dar wrote:
>I asked ChatGPT what if I can't accept AI generated "stuff", writing, painting, therapy. It was very empathetic to me but essentially told me to fuck off if I can't adapt. Evolve or go extinct.
- - - -
that sounds like a harsh response. it is true that modern technology is advancing at an incredible speed, and some people, especially the older generation, are getting left behind. this is why it's more important now than ever to be kind, tolerant and offer assistance - so that each and every one of us remain relevant members of society.
-----------------------
LisaLCFan wrote:
>Oh, how I would love to open up an intelligent discussion/debate on the subject of AI generated "stuff"! Alas, I do not think that this is the place for it.
- - - -
only speaking for myself, but i have no problem with that. this section is, after all, a 'writing, music and art' section. i am quite inept at intelligent discussions, but enjoy reading them

i remember you well in the chelsea hotel!

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 4:23 am LisaLCFan wrote:
>Oh, how I would love to open up an intelligent discussion/debate on the subject of AI generated "stuff"! Alas, I do not think that this is the place for it.
- - - -
only speaking for myself, but i have no problem with that. this section is, after all, a 'writing, music and art' section. i am quite inept at intelligent discussions, but enjoy reading them

Thanks! However, the mood to discuss the subject has passed, but should it return, I shall keep your supportive comments in mind! Cheers!

I'm over it now too Lisa. Although I could look at AI as just another advancement in technology this step feels very different. It's just it seems there is no longer a choice to interact with AI applications via customer service and other areas. I suppose it's a case of follow the money as far as business is concerned...just cheaper to use a bot than pay a human to handle it. I just don't like it but it is what it is. grrrrr But, you're right. This is probably not the place to discuss it. Back to enjoying G's creativity. Take care.

LisaLCFan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 7:20 pm

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Mon Feb 17, 2025 4:23 am LisaLCFan wrote:
>Oh, how I would love to open up an intelligent discussion/debate on the subject of AI generated "stuff"!.
- - - -
only speaking for myself, but i have no problem with that.

Thanks! However, the mood to discuss the subject has passed, but should it return, I shall keep your supportive comments in mind! Cheers!

I was trying not to think about AI and art, but once an idea gets into my mind, it can take root, and so, here are some musings:

When it comes to AI art (visual art, music, writing, etc.), one of the the things that I wonder about is plagiarism. Where does the AI get its ideas from? If you prompt the AI to create a certain image, or to write a certain essay, does it simply mine the internet for sources, and then take the ideas from there, basically cutting and pasting whatever it finds? From the AI generated "books" I've seen, that does seem to be the case -- either direct and obvious cutting and pasting, or with slight paraphrasing/changing of a word or two. Does the AI first get permission to borrow/use from others, or are things like copyright and intellectual property not something with which it bothers? I suppose that an AI programme could be written with ethical guidelines in place, and instructed only to take from works in the public domain, but whether that is the case, or if such guidelines would even be effective, I do not know.

Of course, I know that humans get ideas and inspiration from the works of others, often borrowing elements from another's work, and sometimes even outright stealing them, but a human generally knows what they are doing, and where they are getting their material from (barring instances of unconscious borrowing, when one bases their own work on a forgotten experience of something else), and so there is some accountability, and references can be provided, if the human wishes to acknowledge their sources.

But, when a human gets an AI to help create an image, where do those images come from? Does the AI simply take somebody else's pictures, perhaps sometimes with minor adjustments so that they are not identical (similar to changing a few words in a passage of text)? For instance, Geoffrey (I am talking directly to you, now), regarding those groovy cubist/art deco book covers you made, where did the initial AI generated images come from -- was it somebody else's artwork that the AI used, and/or parts of different artworks, do you know? Of course, I do not know how much you change the images that the AI provides -- it sounds like you tweak the images to some extent, both prompting the AI to change them, or changing them yourself afterwards, but the AI gets them from somewhere, and from what I understand of AI programmes, they simply compile information/images from other sources and then reuse them.

To be clear, I am not accusing you, Geoffrey, of plagiarism, but I am accusing your AI programme of it, or at least questioning where it gets its ideas from, and wondering about the ethics of it.

Regarding something that I alluded to a few days ago, I do know that many people in various artistic communities are asking for transparency when it come to AI generated works, even those that are partially AI generated, so that it is clear to everyone who may be looking at such works that they were, at least in part, created by an AI, and not solely by a human without AI support.

There are also those who flatly refuse to accept AI generated works as "art" at all -- certainly 100% AI generated works -- and at this point in time, I am somewhat inclined to agree, for I have to admit that my first reaction to AI art is that it is not "real", but fake, although the level of realness or fakeness can vary depending on how much input a human may have had in its creation. AI pictures can certainly be interesting, and even nice, but can they be called art, without changing the definition/conception of art (assuming, for now, that art is usually defined as "works produced by human creative skill and imagination")? The following article is actually quite a good summary of some of the potential problems with AI generated art:

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2022/09 ... er-ai-art/

Of course, I am aware that definitions can change over time, and that there can be paradigm changes that create an entirely new way of thinking about and understanding something, and I am certain that AI is going to end up changing quite a few definitions and conceptions and understandings of things in our world (and not just in the realm of art). But as with all rapidly advancing technology, there is always the question of whether human beings are ready and equipped to deal with the implications and the changes being brought about by the new technology. AI is particularly troublesome in this respect, dut to its ubiquity and the fact that it is incredibly powerful -- it is so much faster and can be far more efficient than human beings, perhaps in ways that nobody has yet conceived. As a tool, AI can be a remarkably helpful thing, and even a fun thing, but it seems to have the capacity to be far more than just a tool, at least, compared to most of the tools that have been created by humans in the past. AI isn't just a fancy hammer -- it brings with it a completely new kind of existence in so many areas of life, which is both exciting and a bit worrisome, and again, fraught with a variety of potential problems, concerns, and issues.

Those are my thoughts for the day! If anyone else would like to take the floor, it's all yours! Cheers!

LisaLCFan wrote:
>Those are my thoughts for the day! If anyone else would like to take the floor, it's all yours!
-----------------------------------------
that was a superb critical analysis of AI, including the link to the plagiarism article. quite excellent. thank you!

There are convincing claims that the makers of Deepseek and Fooocus simply asked Dall-E how it created its software, subsequently making new (clone) programmes available at a fraction of the cost by avoiding all of the expensive research. Dall-E is currently accusing its rivals of stealing and plagiarism, so we'll have to see what happens.

a valid question concerning AI replacing human creativity might be: if AI is a tool created by humans, would it not be fair to say that humans are the source of whatever AI produces?

in bygone days, it is commonly believed that the quality of pictures made by artists suddenly became much improved due to the invention and use of a so-called 'camera obscura'. they didn't shout about it at the time because it was considered cheating. perhaps today's image generators can be seen as a parallel to that primitive device, only on a much grander and advanced scale.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0ZvWedVp20

i cannot see the point of exactly reproducing an AI generated image; there would be virtually no work involved at all. perhaps advertisers would be tempted to do so, because time is money - but the pleasure an artist feels from creating a picture would be zero. there would be as much satisfaction as printing a lithograph.

Thanks for your thoughts and the link Lisa and to G for following up. There is so much to "think" about these days that's it's hard for me to even prioritize the issues to think about. I no longer protest or rage against the machine and AI is essentially a machine...so far. And what is happening here in the US...my head will explode if I go there. So, I get on with my day as an aged single low-income female who fancied herself a counter-culture free spirit follower of all things hip and revolutionary. I suppose, for me, I try to express the best of my human nature whenever the opportunity arises. The way AI adds into that mix is if I find a way to put it in it's place by getting the better of it, tricking some algorithm into showing it's mistakes, getting some robo responder thing to get me to a human who realizes the bot didn't do it's job, learning how to spot fakes and not falling for the "how can I help you" bullshit AI customer service bots, things like that. It's getting harder and harder to avoid all of it but I try. Mainly I'm just trying to get by.

dar wrote:
>Mainly I'm just trying to get by.
- - - -
that's about all we can do, dar - stay optimistic and survive.
we are that elvis song 'though I smile, the tears inside they are burning!'
-----------------------------------------------
"people say a pessimist expects rain, but i already feel soaking wet!" -cohen

Good one G. But something tells me Leonard would have no problem with all the AI in his old age. He'd probably find all the fuss fundamentally funny.

dar wrote:
. . . But something tells me Leonard would have no problem with all the AI in his old age. He'd probably find all the fuss fundamentally funny.

-------
well, maybe we can ask him. all we need do is find an accomplished occult practitioner willing to locate leonard's spirit using an ouija board, and then let the two of them begin a dialogue. either that or we go search for him ourselves if and when we eventually get inside those pearly gates

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:24 am ...a valid question concerning AI replacing human creativity might be: if AI is a tool created by humans, would it not be fair to say that humans are the source of whatever AI produces?...

Yes, at this point (assuming that AIs are not yet autonomous beings), I think that it is fair to say that humans are the source of the products produced by AI. That's all the more reason for humans to take responsibility for and be accountable to the products that are made by their AI programmes, including being aware of things like laws and rights and ethics, and trying not to violate them through the use of their AI programmes.

Based on that assessment, I would like to amend my previous comments, when I said, "To be clear, I am not accusing you, Geoffrey, of plagiarism, but I am accusing your AI programme of it, or at least questioning where it gets its ideas from, and wondering about the ethics of it."

Upon further reflection, maybe there is an element of plagiarism on your part in your AI-assisted pictures (even if it is unintentional). If your AI programme is plagiarising artwork made by others (which, I believe, is how AI art programmes work), and you are using the plagiarised images provided by your AI programme in your pictures, and then claiming that the pictures are your own works (because, you do sign them, which implies that they are your own creations, and not made by others), then perhaps you are, technically, committing plagiarism when you sign and post a picture that contains elements of artwork(s) made by somebody else (even if you do add your own touches to it), and without making it clear how the picture was created (i.e., not being upfront about the fact that you used an AI programme that uses other people's artwork). Of course, plagiarism can easily be avoided by simply being transparent about one's sources and methods, and giving full credit to the originators of any elements of one's work that are not purely one's own.

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 12:24 am ...in bygone days, it is commonly believed that the quality of pictures made by artists suddenly became much improved due to the invention and use of a so-called 'camera obscura'. they didn't shout about it at the time because it was considered cheating. perhaps today's image generators can be seen as a parallel to that primitive device, only on a much grander and advanced scale...

Not quite parallel: the camera obscura used natural images -- actual landscapes and real objects and real people, etc. -- and then the artists copied/traced the images of those real things that were projected by the camera (some people still make artworks using similar methods). An AI image generator, on the other hand, compiles a bunch of pictures -- including people's artworks, stuff actually created by a human -- and then uses those preexisting artworks (and/or elements of them) when it generates "new" images. The camera obscura did not plagiarise (when used with natural objects), whereas an AI programme does.

dar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:25 am Thanks for your thoughts and the link Lisa and to G for following up. There is so much to "think" about these days that's it's hard for me to even prioritize the issues to think about....It's getting harder and harder to avoid all of it but I try. Mainly I'm just trying to get by.

I find that not watching the news is a great way to avoid many unpleasantries (as well as avoiding people who talk about stuff in the news), but of course, unpleaseantries do tend to crop up all over the place, despite one's best efforts. I am, actually, a positive optimist by nature -- and a staunch Humanist! -- and I like to wear rose-coloured glasses, because focussing on all the crap in the world is completely self-destructive, and I simply can't take it. I try to remain fairly objective when discussing things like AI (or anything else in the world), just looking at the facts, and assessing the philosophical/ethical implications. I have long since learned that I can't change or control much of anything about the world, but I can change and control (to some extent) how I live and and how I react to things beyond my control. As you alluded to, one chooses one's priorities.

dar wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 1:25 am ...I suppose, for me, I try to express the best of my human nature whenever the opportunity arises...

Always a good plan! Cheers!

thank you, lisa, for your respectful response.

the reason my name appears in a picture is not to claim ownership, but to indicate the source. none of my pictures have been copyrighted, and i am not interested in making money from them. the matter of plagiarism is a challenging and evolving issue, including the 'fair use' question - so we'll have to wait and see what decisions are eventually made.

as you point out, AI does not make direct copies of existing artworks, but creates unique images based upon those already in the public domain. as far as i can ascertain, no exact elements are reproduced. to me an image generator is a tool, just like a camera obscura was a tool, even though the two might not be 'parallel'.

to me AI is a fascinating learning tool that teaches how to make visual transformations, and invaluable to anyone who enjoys both art and data. making sketches of local citizens, or my own versions of celebrities, is fine, but discovering AI and the potential inspiration it offers can encourage one's creativity and enhance one's pleasure. however, i do not wish to be thought of as a fraud, or involved in any fakery, so am now wondering where i went wrong.

i admit there is no editorial attached to my pictures explaining how they were produced, as that would be impractical, but agree that transparency is important. i have always answered any questions as honestly as possible - including enquiries concerning the book covers. my 'work' (even though i do not think of it as such) is a nonprofit exercise, and i believe no one is being substantially harmed by it.

as i have said, i am no good at intelligent discussions, partly because of my limited english. however, this is an interesting subject, and i appreciate the education it affords. if anyone else wishes to contribute, please jump in

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:13 am ...am now wondering where i went wrong.
...my 'work' (even though i do not think of it as such) is a nonprofit exercise, and i believe no one is being substantially harmed by it...

Oh, I know that for you, making pictures is just an enjoyable endeavour for your own personal enrichment, as well as for the benefit of others who may derive some pleasure from looking at your pictures, and that you are not seeking nor expecting any sort of personal/monetary gain. I also agree that, most likely, no one is being substantially (or even mildly) harmed by your pictures.

I am not suggesting that you have necessarily done anything wrong, nor that you had any intention to do so. Rather, I was merely pointing out and discussing some of the perceptions and issues that arise from the use of AI image generators, which are not only my personal thoughts on the matter, but which many other people are also (justifiably) talking about, and which reflect genuine concerns and controversies regarding the use of AI generators as a tool in one's creative activities.

Of course, what one does with the things that they create with AI tools is very relevant, and it is obviously considerably more problematic for those who seek to gain something from their works (money, awards, fame, etc., particularly if their gain may be at the expense of someone else), compared to those who just do it for personal enjoyment, such as yourself -- that is an important distinction.

I do hope that my comments on the matter do not dissuade you in any way from exploring and enjoying the possibilities of using AI in your picture-making, and from posting those pictures here for our enjoyment (that is the main reason why I was hesitant to express my thoughts on the subject -- I did not want my remarks to be construed as a personal attack). However, as always, I also hope that what I wrote may provide some food for thought, and a greater awareness of the implications of what one does and how one does it.

Geoffrey wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2025 6:13 am ...i am no good at intelligent discussions, partly because of my limited english...

I am not convinced, after reading your lengthy and articulate post written in perfect English.