In 5 years: Computer, make a WWDITS Disney-Pixar style cartoon series with full-length episodes!
In 15 years: it'll actually be funny
*Looks at state of LLMs 5-15 years ago….
I think it’s gonna be a lot sooner than that.
I dunno. Expecting a computer to understand current comedy enough to make genuinely funny jokes, let alone entire episodes, is a huge ask. I don’t think that’ll happen in 15 years.
I think it could happen in 15 years, but it'll be a regurgitation/reworking of jokes/setups from other shows it has processed and 17 years from now we'll start to realize that.
Three hundred years from now AI will be superior and give us amazing content to watch while we're plugged into the Matrix.
Jabrils got pretty close with his AI Shark Tank episodes.
The ideas may be crowdsourced, but the jokes in between were pretty good.
A computer doesn't need to understand humor, it just need to know how it works.
So I see it taking a lot less than 15 years.
I need to see the whole cast now
And that sexy bartender Jackie Daytona, don't forget him.
Adorbs!!
Needs more songs about the prostitute with a short leg.
Way less creepy than the doll. Lol!
What movie is this on?nevermind saw the description
The "bonus one" didn't show up for me in Sync so I had to open it in a browser. (@ljdawson@lemmy.world ...not sure if that's a known bug of some sort)
Very cool though!
Works for me
Yes.
It's been established that it must be something to do with the settings I use.
I don't understand why anybody would need an AI for something like that when artists literally do the same thing on Deviantart for kicks.
And people pay money to use those AIs. Like tons of money. Hiring some asshole to draw it out would literally be cheaper than the big AI platforms.
Why? Because my drawing skills suck. My computer skills, on the other hand, are excellent. And generating it is "free" (not counting stuff like 10 minutes of electricity supply). I'm not gonna pay someone to vaguely understand what I mean, waiting for who-knows-how-long until they finish it and then reiterating for who-knows-how-long again. Here I generated like 40 pictures until I was satisfied with how they looked. I spent like 10 minutes on it and am happy with the result. At the same time, a Disney-looking Nadja is not so important to me that I would actually pay someone to paint it. I literally did it only for this picture.
So no, this is an entirely different thing.
-
Typing a sentence into a search bar is not a computer skill.
-
No, AI is not free. They charge minimum $10 for a few credits to run an algorithm you have to run multiple times, burning through all of your credits, for a final result that looks shitty and can't be customizable.
-
Human artists actually are cheaper. You're wasting more money on the AI that you could have saved just having a human paint it for you.
-
Your actual motivation for using AI is to avoid other human beings. For all of your misanthropy, you certainly have no problem letting the most evil humans of all, people who run tech companies, exploit your dislike of others for their benefit, feeding the very beast you hate.
weLL I cAn'T mAkE iT mYSeLF isn't an excuse for you to support a clearly exploitative and abusive industry, especially one that is harmful to yourself. Touch. Grass.
-
It would take about 20 minutes to produce this with zero skill for free with AI.
And hundreds of dollars in equipment. And likely another 50 bucks on credits to be able to access the corporate proprietary software no one else can successfully emulate, making you completely dependent upon them for the mere illusion of artistic expression.
Nah. I'd rather just pay $20 to an actual human artist, or, better yet, more efficiently and meaningfully do it myself. Without some shitty AI that doesn't even know what the hell it's doing most of the time.
tons of money to use those AIs
While some expensive options exist, things like AUTOMATIC1111 w/ stable diffusion are entirely free and produce results just like this, and better.
A1111 is exactly what was used here.
As in bland, lacking in distinctiveness, drained of personality, with bizarrely unrealistic physical proportions designed by horny lonely men, and made to look unnecessarily young regardless of her age?
No thanks.
designed by horny lonely men
I see nothing sexualized about this at all. You may be experiencing some local interference.
It's pretty common to go for exaggerated or idealistic proportions, especially with this art style. And a lot of stylised characters end up looking young. The whole rounded Disney style does lack distinctiveness and personality now though, it's been overused.
