Are you a muppet?

[wateroftyne]

I welcome any AI that can crunch millions of numbers and free up time for more important stuff, or advance healthcare.

 

However, when it comes to the arts & creative, be under no illusion - AI isn’t being pushed for the good of humanity. it’s being pushed because it’ll make rich people richer.

 

It can’t create anything new, and all it’s doing is diluting the gene pool with sludge.

Edited 13 hours ago by wateroftyne

[wateroftyne]

8 hours ago, PainInTheBass said:

Edit: on second thoughts, I'm not getting drawn any further into this. But just to say, I love all the Muppet style pictures so far. Very entertaining!

It’s fair to say you’re easily entertained 😀

[Beedster]

49 minutes ago, Beedster said:

 

In my field it's the subtle errors AI makes that are concerning, because some of them are hard to spot for anyone but an expert. And those subtle errors will of course be amplified the more the machine uses the information in question. 

 

Businesses think they can do things cheaper by using AI, which they can, but in doing so they risk doing things less well. This might not matter in for example advertising or similar text/image generation, but can be critical in law, engineering, medicine and science, where it's increasingly being used. 

 

And if I am to believe the sources, the errors that have already been made using AI in military applications are pretty horrific.....

[Beedster]

9 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

It’s fair to say you’re easily entertained 😀

 

Thanks for saying what I held back from saying earlier  

[Beedster]

11 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

I welcome any AI that can crunch millions of numbers and free up time for more important stuff, or advance healthcare is welcome.

 

However, when it comes to the arts & creative, be under no illusion - AI isn’t being pushed for the good of humanity. it’s being pushed because it’ll make rich people richer.

 

It can’t create anything new, and all it’s doing is diluting the gene pool with sludge.

 

Agreed, but while it's easy to see the problem with generative processes, predictive AI still has huge limitations, many of which are being overlooked 

[prowla]

It's up to the trademark/copyright owner to instigate any legal proceedings.

As for the Muppet owner, the term has become common usage and the image style is pervasive.

From an alternative perspective it might be the case that these images actually generate interest in The Muppets.

I remember one of my most active musical times was when I used to download from Pirate Bay - I'd try stuff and buy albums or go to gigs.

Technically it was verbotten, but factually it generated income for the industry.

[PainInTheBass]

22 minutes ago, wateroftyne said:

It’s fair to say you’re easily entertained 😀

Yes. Yes I am.

 

15 minutes ago, Beedster said:

 

Thanks for saying what I held back from saying earlier  

Please don't hold back. I'm not a snowflake.

[PainInTheBass]

2 hours ago, binky_bass said:

using an AI engine to justify the use of AI infringing on IP is, to say the least, ironic

It was intentional. Congrats on spotting the irony.

[binky_bass]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

 

I remember one of my most active musical times was when I used to download from Pirate Bay - I'd try stuff and buy albums or go to gigs.

Technically it was verbotten, but factually it generated income for the industry.

I suspect you're probably the only person to 'download to try' then go and spend money on the same thing you've already downloaded. 

 

If you could provide the evidence for stating that illegally downloading music etc. factually provided income for the industry, I'd love to see it! 

Edited 11 hours ago by binky_bass

[Woodinblack]

1 hour ago, prowla said:

Technically it was verbotten, but factually it generated income for the industry.

 

It did, and by listening to an album from limewire or wherever you were probably more likely to buy the real thing from those artists so it made more money for the artists, not just the industry. Generative AI has the opposite effect, if it is generating the music itself, it will still make money for the industry, but less oportunity for artists.

[Kev]

35 minutes ago, binky_bass said:

I suspect you're probably the only person to 'download to try' then go and spend money on the same thing you've already downloaded. 

 

If you could provide the evidence for stating that illegally downloading music etc. factually provided income for the industry, I'd love to see it! 

It likely did, in the same way Spotify does now, given that we're reminded continuously that they pay naff all. 

 

People more switched on realise streaming services aren't about making money, they're an EXCELLENT free marketing tool, and invaluable for grass roots music.  But, like AI, that's another subject people get upset about.

[MacDaddy]

Interesting how "AI" is being blamed, rather than computers.

Those of a certain age may remember when computers became a thing in the workplace and the jobs that were lost, and disappeared, as a result.

 

And 2 things that should always be remembered in an discussion about AI:

 

AI is a misnomer, there is no 'intelligence', and it is definitely not sentient.

 

There is not one AI, it's an umbrella term for lots of different computer applications that do different things in different ways.

[Beedster]

7 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

AI is a misnomer, there is no 'intelligence', and it is definitely not sentient.

 

It is intelligent in the same way humans are intelligent, that is it has the means ('senses') to interact with information and the inherent capacity to restructure what it has sensed ('learn') on the basis of new information.

 

Re sentient, see above, it's probably going to become a semantic as opposed to technical debate as time goes on

[Kev]

11 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

Interesting how "AI" is being blamed, rather than computers.

Those of a certain age may remember when computers became a thing in the workplace and the jobs that were lost, and disappeared, as a result.

 

And 2 things that should always be remembered in an discussion about AI:

 

AI is a misnomer, there is no 'intelligence', and it is definitely not sentient.

 

There is not one AI, it's an umbrella term for lots of different computer applications that do different things in different ways.

Indeed.  I can't remember anyone complaining in this vein about Neural Amp Models, or Quad Cortex Captures, amp plugins etc, yet all AI based.

 

I don't even know where the line is these days, in what is truly defined as AI.

[Dad3353]

I've never been a believer in this 'intellectual property' and 'royalties' thing. When someone makes a chair, no monies are due from anyone sitting on it once it's been sold. A musician writes a song, gets paid for recording it and the disk gets sold. He/she gets paid; end of. Those growing tomatoes sell tomatoes; those selling music sell their music. I don't hold with sitting by the pool with a long drink whilst the millions roll in from sales, often decades since the original 'creation'. It's virtual, and makes very little sense, except to specialised lawyers. Time to end it all and get back to getting paid for one's honest work, based on actually doing that work, not on having, once upon a time, having done it. Just my tuppence-worth; I know it's unpopular here, but... 

[Buddster]

24 minutes ago, MacDaddy said:

Those of a certain age may remember when computers became a thing in the workplace and the jobs that were lost, and disappeared, as a result.

Yes, i remember when midi and sequencers came in and it was the 'death of real music'. 

 

Although they do have a lot to answer for! 

[knirirr]

On 26/04/2025 at 23:22, Bolo said:

Besides the IP theft each query takes a tonne of energy to process. Like a Cummins diesel rolling coal compared to a lean euro6 for a regular search engine query.

 

On the topic of energy I came across this article recently: https://andymasley.substack.com/p/a-cheat-sheet-for-conversations-about

I'm not sure how true it is, but it's an interesting perspective.

[prowla]

2 hours ago, binky_bass said:

I suspect you're probably the only person to 'download to try' then go and spend money on the same thing you've already downloaded. 

 

If you could provide the evidence for stating that illegally downloading music etc. factually provided income for the industry, I'd love to see it! 

Well, you've just said that people have downloaded and then bought.

Also, I've been to see bands based on having listened.

I'm not inclined to share receipts, but you can take my word for it as evidence (or not, as you choose).

[Baloney Balderdash]

Here you go:

 

Based on an old concert photo :

 

Based on a more recent selfie :

 

I can't say any of them are particular accurate to my actual looks.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by Baloney Balderdash