one of the example prompts is literally: Prompt: in the style of a studio ghibli anime, a boy and his dog run up a grassy scenic mountain with gorgeous clouds, overlooking a village in the distant background
one of the example prompts is literally: Prompt: in the style of a studio ghibli anime, a boy and his dog run up a grassy scenic mountain with gorgeous clouds, overlooking a village in the distant background
This is interesting because every recent model demos conspiciously avoids using IP in their demo examples for obvious reasons.
Wow that is dark, after Ghiblis staunch stance on AI.
These companies and their shareholders really are complete scum in my eyes, just like AI in miltech.
Not because the tech isn't super interesting but because they steal years of hard work and pain from actual artists with zero compensation - and then they brag about it in the most horrible way possible, with zero empathy.
Then comes losing the little humanity left the mainstream culture, exactly as Miyzaki said, leading to a dead cold and even more unjust society.
The Miyzaki quote is out of context, he isn't talking about generative AI but rather a 2016 animation of a creepy zombie whose limbs are controlled by AI.
While this is true, it's hard to imagine people spending years perfecting the style would be happy to see it copied effortlessly without any compensation while people who made the copying possible are rolling in cash.
This is not just about copyright infringement or plagiarism.
Automatically generating text, images and videos based on training data and a tiny prompt is fundamentally about taking someone's work and making money off of it without giving anything in return.
Don’t worry, I’m sure someone will roll up and claim that it’s just “democratization” of that style and the prompt authors exhibit as much creativity as the artists themselves.
Or they’ll claim it’s no different from a person looking at something and learning from it, implying that a multi-billion dollar company collating and labelling petabytes of data without permission to be used as the raw material to create their slop machine is no different from a human being being inspired by someone else’s art.
Luckily it doesn't actually copy the style at all.
No matter what text you put in the prompt you'll get /something/. Just because you put "studio ghibli anime" in the prompt doesn't mean you're going to actually get that out of it. It'll just be kind of yellow and blobby.
(Also, the style isn't from "people" but a specific guy named Yoshifumi Kondo who isn't around anymore.)
No, the zombie context is actually not that relevant, given he says "We as humans are losing faith in themselves" in response to the AI animation. He's clearly disgusted by the entire concept of machine generated art.
Being an animator I’d say that is not very surprising. But I don’t think the disgusting zombie thing is very indicative of it.
Also, he was calling them ableist because they said crawling was creepy but it reminded him of a disabled man he knew.
Though… I'm always surprised how respectful Westerners are about Miyazaki. Meanwhile you read other Japanese directors and they're saying all kinds of things about him.
In the full context, he is literally admonishing young developers who created ai and animation automation software as a possible alternative to handmade animation. He rips into them not only for their technical failure but for missing the point of what he does, which is human expression.
Indeed is difficult to NOT share this resentment, should anyone understand what actually happens.
People are willingly blind.
Kids are happy that homework takes less time. Teachers are happy that grading the generated homework takes less time. Programmers are happy they can write the same amount of code in less time. Graphic designers are happy they can get an SVG from a vague description immediately. Writers are happy they can generate filler from a few bullet points quickly.
But then someone comes along, notices people are not working most of the time, fires three quarters of them and demands 4x increased output from the rest. And they can do it because the "AI" is helping them.
Except they don't get paid any more. The company makes the same amount of money for less cost.
So where does the difference go? To the already rich who own the company and the product.
In a competitive marketplace the difference actually tends to become consumer surplus, in the form of reduced prices.
...the whole innovation enabling IT is based on a massive fraud or gaslight if you want - first having everyone to let go of their content (and un-own it blindly), then using it alongside everyone else's knowledge without consent to create a compressed blob of things which are then resold again.
Power creates more power, money creates more money.
Communism is tossing the frog into boiling water (tens millions of dead), capitalism is boiling it slowly (poor people in first world countries might not afford a dentist but they're not starving yet).
We need a system that rewards work - human time and competence.
There are really only 2 resources in the world - natural resources and human time. Everything else is built on top of those. And the people providing their time should be rewarded, not those who are in positions of power which allow them to extract value while not providing anything in return.
56 minutes, 4 downvotes, HN is truly full of temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Does anybody here really think rich people deserve to just get richer faster than any working person can? Does anybody really believe that buying up homes and companies and raking in money for doing absolutely nothing is what we should be rewarding?
Then put your name behind it.
Homes are depreciating assets. You can't get rich by "buying up homes and doing nothing" because you'd lose money. Nobody is doing this, although a bunch of confused people on social media believe BlackRock is doing it for some reason.
> Homes are depreciating assets.
Where do you live? Their value has been steadily appreciating in a lot of places in the west due to high demand.
I live in the most expensive housing market in the world.
That's because the value of the land under the houses is so high; the house itself is nothing special. But even then, it's mostly because of Prop 13, and it only works out if you live in the house yourself. There's still noone cornering the market in California houses. Almost all landlords only own 1-2 properties.
I live in Perth, Western Australia, and here 5-year price growth has topped 100% in some suburbs. Landlordism is an enormous money-spinner.
Until you have to replace a roof, or a tenant destroys the house, or it just doesn't rent for a while and nobody notices a water pipe breaking.
It's risky to own a lot of buildings, and worse the risks are correlated if they're all in the same place (there could be a flood or wildfire etc.)
Commercial real estate is different because your tenants are (more) professional.
You get insurance to manage risk. You factor in roof repairs, vacancy rates when determining rent meanwhile your property value over the last 10 years in most places around the world have at least doubled and more.
Doesn't mean the next 10 years will see that growth but if you believe your country/area's population will grow it is probably a good investment for now in the western world.
Insurance is not free money and you can't simply distribute risks among your tenants because the risks are correlated.
Like I said, you can tell it doesn't work because these businesses don't exist. There are essentially no landlords who own multiple single family homes. They do exist for multifamily and commercial.
I know plenty of people who own multiple houses. And plenty of houses that get rented and paid to the owner/landlord.
Insurance is not free money its a pool of money gathered from monthly payments together to offset risk. You don't need to distribute the risk over all of your homes you buy a policy for each home.
This stuff is 101. And works all around the world. There is even an app called airbnb that will find short term rentals for your house.
As the other poster said, these risks can be mitigated in various ways. If the property appreciates 100% over five years, your costs associated with those risks are comparatively minimal.
They certainly don't constitute a depreciating asset!
I assume OP meant doing nothing except just rent out the property.