Generative ai and machine learning are pretty broadly considered different if adjacent technologies if I’m not mistaken
forbes.com/…/the-vital-difference-between-machine… probably not the best source, I just grabbed what came up
They don’t really do the same thing, and have different types of outputs compared to one another, even if both use a neural network of weights or whatever
As a person who has spent a huge amount of my life making art I think the idea that it will get more people into art is naive, and I think being devoid of understanding artistic principles it makes poor reference compared to anything else, which is part of why artists communities loathe generative AI. I follow tons of artists online and they all periodically have to stop and vent their frustration.
A youtuber artist did a whole video explaining how finding reference on the internet is now borderline impossible due to ai content, and after problem solving explained you can avoid that problem by only looking at images older than when gen ai became widespread. It reached a pretty big audience and was extremely well recieved by artists, broadly, hate gen ai and want nothing to do with it 😅
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
I work in Game Making.
There’s a ton of stuff in it which has been called “AI” for literally decades and almost none of it is Machine Learnrning: for example the A* pathing algorithm for characters in a game is called “AI”, as are Steering Behaviours that can be used in things like simulating bird flocks, and both are entirelly algorithmic, not ML.
In fact ML is seldom useful in games.
You’re confusing use of “AI” in the Marketing of the present day tech bros trying to make money pumping up a Tech Bubble on top of certain very specific forms of Machine Learning, with the actual general meaning of the acronym.
Valmond@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I have 10 years of game dev under my belt, and I wonder where your idea that I think A* is AI come from.
Do you know how machine learning works? Please tell me about this new AI that isn’t based on it!
Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re not wrong, Dijkstra isn’t AI, techbros are trying to shovel “AI” into everything for the buzz, but you’re explaining yourself a bit haphasardly IMO.
Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 weeks ago
Because shit like that has been called “Pathing AI” for ages.
Also I’m very familiar with Machine Learning having actually learned it 3 decades ago when it was mainly just Neural Networks (there were other techniques but ultimately NNs became dominant and is most of what we today call Machine Learning) and its most advanced commercial use was to read postal codes in mail envelopes for automated mail sorting.
The acronym AI has been thrown around for decades, even before Neurap Networks were invented and well before Machine Learning was even called “Machine Learning”.
Valmond@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Yeah the MNIST dataset, fun times.
I don’t even know if we’re on the same page or if there is something we dabate, everything you say is totally valid IMO.