Now just imagine how much more meaningful those moments would have been if it had been a story that you actually wrote rather than something cobbled together from the works of previous writers and artists by an algorithm.
Absolutely agree. This might be a fun personal project. But things like this only hasten the decline towards a dead internet where human-created things with heart and intent are impossible to locate among the dregs of paper-thin AI drivel which only approximates human invention.
This is a baseless argument. A human being and a machine are fundamentally different. A human being synthesizes things from the world and it becomes a part of them. The art they produce is filtered through their unique brain and life experience and natural talents. All a machine does is spit out recycled versions of things that actual human beings have done.
Nothing was stopping them from making music before other than laziness.
I’m so sick of hearing this excuse. “I can’t draw so I use AI,” as if the people who can draw were born that way.
No, they spent countless hours practicing and that’s what makes it art. Because it’s the product of hours of decision making and learning. You can not skip ahead in line. Full stop.
I think it's the opposite. They are not saying "those people shouldn't draw [using AI]", they are saying "those people should've been drawing all this time".
Describing music to an AI is not "making music" the same way that hiring a musician and asking them to write you a rock song about a breakup is not "making music"
This article is kind of hilariously like almost every conversation you have at the disc golf course, but it’s always something different. The reach back position, the power pocket, the elbow angle, the follow through, pouring the coffee, turning the key, etc etc etc.
If _only_ it were as simple as one thing. But the truth is that distance can be achieved through a multitude of athletic motions which vary drastically player to player.
Interestingly, when throwing objects (especially discs), the ideal angle to maximize distance might not be 45 degrees for two reasons: the object might fly better at specific angles and different human muscles come into play at different angles. The optimal angle might therefore vary by athlete.
For ballistic objects (so objects where air just acts as drag), the optimal launch angle is less than 45 degrees due to air resistance.
For aerodynamic objects like a disc, the optimal launch angle will be complicated because a disc's flight path is far more influenced by "secondary" (such as angle of attack and spin) compared to say a baseball, or even golf.
An "optimal" description of disc release angle that a player would likely be interested in (I say this as an ultimate player) would be given in terms of release angle, angle of attack (ie: how nose up), spin, and forward velocity.
And then once converted into human terms for all but the most elite athletes, release angle will probably instead be simplified down to windup position and release position/height.
Right. Even something that seems simple (such as a golf ball) is not trivial to model: the rough surface and spin end up creating lift -- the ball is essentially flying.
I've seen the olympic women disc throwing event and it was quite astonishing that they had so many different body types (tall athletic gym type, "fat" strong, rather gymnasty etc.). And of course their results were all within a range of each other. Although disc golf is not quite the same, I think it is similar in that there's probably not (yet) a solved technique that's better than every other :)
I really hope you’re wrong. I suspect that the future is technology which blends further into the background rather than being shoved closer to our faces.
I agree with your ideal goal, but there are hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on getting it in directly into our eyeballs.
Maybe we'll be lucky enough to die before it's normal for this stuff to be integrated into our brains (which again, billions of dollars being spent on figuring this out).
