Generative AI ,an Inflection Point for Human Creativity | Mike Dougherty | TEDxPaloAlto 

If a teacher tells a student to draw an apple, the picture created belongs to the student's imagination from which it came. When we instruct AI to create something, we cannot claim that we created it because (like the teacher) , we have merely given a prompt/instruction. The AI is the actual creator. (Interesting talk though. No disrespect intended towards Mr. Dougherty observations.)

So to be clear- these machines allow their operator to transmit their ideas into reality but each time you use the same prompt a different image is created? So- which of these practically infinite number of possible iterations accurately represents the users creative vision- is it the first? or is it the one the machine generates ten thousand times later? Or a million times later? You can see the problem here- if the exact same prompt will generate a different image each time it's used there can be no real corellation betweent the users intent and the final image that is generated because THERE IS NO FINAL IMAGE, just a practially infinite number of iterations. In place of artisitc intent we have fatigue- when the point is reached that the user is unwilling to continue the game they will stop- and whatever iteration they have reached at this point is their 'vision'- or so they will insist. But can we really take this claim seriously? Look at the odds here- they begin a process of iteration that could in theory last the rest of their lives as they continue to generate more and more images based on their original prompt- potentially millions if not billions of possible iterations might be made. And yet they claim, after generating a mere dozen or so iterations that their creative vision has been achived? That iteration number 13 of a possible billion iterations is exactly the image they were trying to create- really? If that is true these people are wasting their time making AI Art- they should be playing the lottery! Seriously guys- can we stop this nonsense that these image generators are serious tools of artistic creation or that they 'democratise' art, (whatever that means). We are making fools of ourselves here with this kind of talk, deluding ourselves that the quasi random outputs of machines are somehow worthy of serious consideration as artefacts of human creativity.

Great presentation Mike, listening for the 3rd time

Interesting presentation, ask people who have trained and worked their entire lives to earn a living as writers, artists, photographers, models, cinematographers etc how they feel about it. The end result is “this is really cool, it will make millions of creatives redundant but they can work in Amazon warehouses … at least until they’re fully robotic … but look I can make a robot dance video in 3 seconds.”

Fantastic and inspiring talk, Mike. Love how forward thinking you are.

Very cool. However, the AI usually spits out banal, basic, and literal interpretations of the text. Its still amazing, and i cant wait to see its potential.

Amazing! I was an AI skeptic for a long time, but finally started 'playing' with it last fall and now I have this RU-vid channel where I can communicate my passion for mindfulness to the world using AI-generated video. It's just a start, but I'm excited about where we are going.

This is terrible. The examples are terrible.