D&D 5E Replacement art is up for Bigby's AI art on D&D Beyond!

[Clint_L]

Digital painting ≠ "CGI" or "AI"

Digital painting is a kind of CGI (e.g. you use a stylus with Adobe, the program interpreting your input and rendering it as pixels), and the degree to which it uses AI sort of depends on what kind of AI you are talking about, and which program you are discussing. None of these are hard and fast categories. Elements of AI have been used in digital art since at least the 1970s.

 

[Marandahir]

Digital painting is a kind of CGI (e.g. you use a stylus with Adobe, the program interpreting your input and rendering it as pixels), and the degree to which it uses AI sort of depends on what kind of AI you are talking about, and which program you are discussing. None of these are hard and fast categories. Elements of AI have been used in digital art since at least the 1970s.

No, technologies developed from the field of research that includes artificial intelligence have been used in digital art since at least the 1970s.
There is no extant technology that is actually AI.

Large language models are NOT intelligent; they are a particular type of database that averages and guesses based on likelihoods of one word coming after another (or rather finding the median between sets of modes requested by the language model input user). There is nothing intelligent about them, they do not understand what they are saying or drawing or doing.

They are a tool generated from the field of AI research, but are not AI in and of itself.

This is all explained quite thoroughly by theoretical physicist Dr. Angela Collier in the below video:

 

[Parmandur]

No, technologies developed from the field of research that includes artificial intelligence have been used in digital art since at least the 1970s.
There is no extant technology that is actually AI.

Large language models are NOT intelligent; they are a particular type of database that averages and guesses based on likelihoods of one word coming after another (or rather finding the median between sets of modes requested by the language model input user). There is nothing intelligent about them, they do not understand what they are saying or drawing or doing.

They are a tool generated from the field of AI research, but are not AI in and of itself.

This is all explained quite thoroughly by theoretical physicist Dr. Angela Collier in the below video:

It just high definition Mad Libs.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

The new art looks a fair bit more detailed than the originals. I bet WotC has paid substantially more for these than they paid for the original art, to make sure the human-drawn art is clearly better than the AI art.

 

[Clint_L]

No, technologies developed from the field of research that includes artificial intelligence have been used in digital art since at least the 1970s.
There is no extant technology that is actually AI.

Large language models are NOT intelligent; they are a particular type of database that averages and guesses based on likelihoods of one word coming after another (or rather finding the median between sets of modes requested by the language model input user). There is nothing intelligent about them, they do not understand what they are saying or drawing or doing.

They are a tool generated from the field of AI research, but are not AI in and of itself.

This is all explained quite thoroughly by theoretical physicist Dr. Angela Collier in the below video:

I’m using the term AI as it is commonly used in computer sciences; you will find that it is regular usage. That might not fit your personal definition of intelligence; you may be interested to know that there is no universally agreed upon definition, regardless of what your video tells you. If you are referring to generative AI, then be aware that not even their designers understand exactly how they work; it is currently the subject of much research. And some of the results are very surprising.

The madlibs comparison is so utterly inconsequential as a hypothesis that it’s not even wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

I’m using the term AI as it is commonly used in computer sciences; you will find that it is regular usage. That might not fit your personal definition of intelligence; you may be interested to know that there is no universally agreed upon definition, regardless of what your video tells you. If you are referring to generative AI, then be aware that not even their designers understand exactly how they work; it is currently the subject of much research. And some of the results are very surprising.

The madlibs comparison is so utterly inconsequential as a hypothesis that it’s not even wrong.

The difference between Mad Libs and Chat GPT us simply processing power. Same parlor trick. See also, Chinese Room.