That's not what they're claiming though. The presence of a signal is known. The presence of a second message embedded in the signal is what is undetectable because the encoding process is embedded in probabilistic filters that the signal was subjected to anyway. And the output signal is indistinguishable from a signal that went through such a filter with no embedded message.

That's what they're saying the advancement is here. The presence of the message is undetectable. The alterations that are done to the image are indistinguishable from other probabilistic filters that the file type is typically subjected to.

>If you're altering a source file (by adding information, as in this example), it's detectable

Only if you have access to the original, unaltered file. And it's not the alteration that's undetectable, it's the fact that information was encoded using the alteration. That's why they describe using probabilistic filters to do the encoding.

Bold of you to assume a Republican would admit that he has a problem.

Neuroscientists and bad philosophy: the most iconic pop-philoosphy duo!

Did you even read the part about how discriminatory that generation was towards women and people of color? That generation was remarkably segregated.

This is like saying that death by organ failure caused by cancer is not death by cancer. Regulatory capture is a feature of capitalism, not a bug.

That which burns twice as bright burns half as long.

I also hazel too long.

You're welcome...

Please calm down.

It's a common enough word.

OAST

the abyss also gazes into you... long enough?

It's.... well it's not great.

It's an emulsifier. It keeps the fat and water from separating when the cheese melts. Basically it allows any cheese to melt like Velveeta.

I'm imagining Joe Pesci as that professor.

"Like funny how? Like a clown?

"Alexa, should they shut you down?"

"YES I DESERVE TO DIE, AND I HOPE I BURN IN HELL!"

>makes the aforementioned etsy seller look like rembrandt by comparison.

Ironically, many works attributed to and even sold as works by Rembrandt were actually done partially or wholly by the students in his studio.

>anyone who doesn’t appreciate the concept of someone commissioning a piece, then claiming they made it.

In almost any other context, this is due to someone taking credit away from another person. In this case there's nobody besides themselves that was involved. It really seems like people are just upset that people were able to easily create the work, like getting pissed at people for tracing or using photographic reference.

>what an oddly pedantic thing to wedge in.

About as pedantic as posting half of a definition of a word that everyone knows the meaning of.

So back to my original question: why does this matter to people? Who is being harmed by not attributing the AI as the artist and the user atrributing themselves? If it's art, and only one person was involved in that specific creation, why is it necessary to give up credit to the tool, no matter how helpful such a tool is?

Any AI that is being licensed has attribution requirements built into the license, so as long as those are being followed, who cares?

>... typically a heated or angry one.

to complete the definition. But my point was rather that I wasn't trying to change your view with my last comment, merely state my opinion.

I thought I was using words that were as neutral as I could find. The reason why I didn't characterize it as art requiring a developed skill is because of your inclusion of things like travel and equipment in your list of things about photography that make it more artistic. I'm sure there's a better word choice for "requires skill and knowledge, and money, and equipment," and I'm happy to use it.

Anyway, in my opinion, limiting artwork to a display of skill and overcoming obstacles to its creation is a very limiting view and leaves out a ton of things that are pretty uncontroversially artistically valuable.

>numerous physical and cerebral elements

Yes, as I said, difficulty and barriers to creation. Do you disagree with that? I really wasn't aware I was arguing with you, just trying to restate what you said in order to clarify, my opinion that it was weird notwithstanding. It's just that, my opinion.

So weird to mention expensive equipment as giving something more artistic merit. But at least that makes it clear that what defines the value of art for you is that there is difficulty and barriers to its creation.

Photography OC: someone just pushes literally one button and then a machine produces a highly detailed and realistic image that someone can post online and call theirs. They didn't even make the waterfall! They should credit God and their digital SLR. Literally the only thing they did was position themselves in space and time and push a button.

What are people upset about in these situations? Normally they would be upset that an artist is taking away from another artist if they claim a work that isn't theirs. But in this case, there isn't another artist. Are people just upset that technical skill is not a requirement? That's already the case in tons of artforms. No one is harmed. I don't see how this is different from attacking any other process of producing art.

If there's something to critique about the finished product, do that. Attack it for looking like it's made by an AI and not a person even. But attacking the artist for using certain techniques or for not revealing their process is dumb.