Content

Post new topic Reply to topic
<<  1, 2, 3  >>

Fist Of Ki

Author Message
TRL View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Sunday, February 15, 2015

Zeth wrote : You are correct, he's not the only one who crosses certain lines, but he IS someone I've known and worked with for a long period of time. I'm often far more critical (objectively) of my friends/colleagues than I am of complete strangers.



True that.
It's all about the love Ramunas. Heartwarming how a thread can turn all mushy and romantic like that. Razz

aipash View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Monday, February 16, 2015

If there is really a software called "make-human" someone tell me why I just spent the last 8 hours zbrush sculpting cell Shocked ?? Why do we artists even exist? Seems fishy to me! Wink

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Monday, February 16, 2015

Why do we artists even exist? Seems fishy to me! Wink


Artists, and really any line of work, exists only until engineers can make their job efficiently replicable by procedures.

It's simply a matter of history and pattern recognition.

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Tuesday, February 17, 2015

>aipash

I don't think you would get the result you searched with this "make human" thing. Depends on what you aim for.

And... It doesn't replace the satisfaction of seeing your art after hours, days, weeks or even more of hard work. >: 3

DBZkrisfhugz View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Tuesday, February 17, 2015

http://www.makehuman.org/

well, artists and coders made this makeHuman program



Example.



you can make any characters.. well.. not many, but most of them

aipash View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Tuesday, February 17, 2015

So this is like a base mesh library of sorts? Pshhhh I AM a base mesh library! Haha! I can see the appeal of efficiency in this, but at the end of the day if a Character Artist can't make characters from scratch they aren't really a Character Artist.

I can see why Ram was offended after putting time into his models for someone to assume he essentially took a short cut.
This would be useful for generic crowds though.

DBZkrisfhugz View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Tuesday, February 17, 2015

aipash wrote : So this is like a base mesh library of sorts? Pshhhh I AM a base mesh library! Haha! I can see the appeal of efficiency in this, but at the end of the day if a Character Artist can't make characters from scratch they aren't really a Character Artist.

I can see why Ram was offended after putting time into his models for someone to assume he essentially took a short cut.
This would be useful for generic crowds though.



you are right.. well.. this should be useful if you make an Open World Game.. like Grand Theft Auto, you need more people

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Good point. But it would mostly serves for mmorpgs than sandbox games, because in these lasts, there is like 5 to 10 models that are used in the whole game instead of... A LOT! for mmos (just on pnjs already)

But it's like using the unity store assets that most unity games use now to be 3/4 complete. Not something to be proud of.

When you make a video game, you like what you do (except if it's for MONEEEEEEEY!), so why taking these kinds of shortcuts ?

Nothing is better than making things ourselves. 'v'

qwerty In Advance View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Wednesday, March 25, 2015

New HUD

DBZkrisfhugz View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Wednesday, March 25, 2015

sigh.. shooting game? looks like it.

najeeb My Sir View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Wednesday, March 25, 2015

there is only so much you could do in the make human program , nothing beats creative freedom that an artist has , over a generic software

Buksna Blaizing View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Don't overestimate creativity. It CAN be reproduced and with time generated into its own.

People tend to raise themselfs too much and brag that certain parts/ aspects will never be possible to copy/learn/reproduce

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Any task/role that a human can perform can be replaced by a procedure. If you can describe it or teach it to someone, it can be machined.

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

>Zeth

Only for a mass production. Example, you can make 100 models for pnjs, but for some characters, let's say Dragon Ball characters, it needs human precision and thinking.

Depends just on what is needed. For games like left 4 dead, it would be great for zombies models diversity. Smile

najeeb My Sir View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Buksna wrote : Don't overestimate creativity. It CAN be reproduced and with time generated into its own.

People tend to raise themselfs too much and brag that certain parts/ aspects will never be possible to copy/learn/reproduce



It may work in projects needing generic models , won't work in projects needing a unique character for each purpose . other wise makehuman would have been used instead of zbrush or maya or 3D studio max

Buksna Blaizing View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Najeeb - that's the thinking because you live in present day. In 80's people found unbelivable to have a device with you at all times on which you can answer if someone is calling you (mobile)

If you asked anyone in 80's about that idea it would be straight improbable as jumping from plane without anything and survive it.

Times change, technology improves. We improved a lot in only 100+ years of technology in our lives. Imagine now what would be possible in another 100 years or maybe 500 years.

You still think creativity won't be possible to produce by a machine?

najeeb My Sir View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

tell me when it matches an artists impressions or the sheer diversity only a human can achieve . for now it's not so impressive

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

At the moment, machines only execute what we tell them to do. The day machines will think by themselves...

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Only for a mass production. Example, you can make 100 models for pnjs, but for some characters, let's say Dragon Ball characters, it needs human precision and thinking.


As I said before, ANYTHING can be proceduralized. If this MakeHuman software took into account non-realistic facial angulation, eye size/shape, and other ABSTRACT features specific to animes, then yes, it could generate even a Dragon Ball Z character flawlessly.

If you can define the variable qualities of something, you can build software to do the same.

It may work in projects needing generic models , won't work in projects needing a unique character for each purpose . other wise makehuman would have been used instead of zbrush or maya or 3D studio max


Just because the software isn't there yet does not mean it cannot be. I could create software to generate any protagonist/antagonist from any AAA game -- realistic or otherwise. And I'm not just talking about visual features either. I could generate the entire character lore, the entire story flow/game premise, and beyond.

Compose the soundtracks? Sure. Keep your key signature relative to tonality, limit the instrument samples to your genre, understand the premise of tempo/key shifts/solos and other common musical events, follow the basic structure of tracking, and keep instruments properly aligned to their roles. These are things you'd teach someone about music theory when you are attempting to train them to create music. The same qualities and definitions can easily be coded.

Just because we're not yet at the point where things are proceduralized hardly means it's improbable.

tell me when it matches an artists impressions or the sheer diversity only a human can achieve . for now it's not so impressive


Buksna is right here. You two are are arguing traditionalism versus technology. Everything changes. Everything improves. There is no limit. There is no ceiling. If it can be theorized into a cohesive, replicable design pattern (as I did above), it can be created.

At the moment, machines only execute what we tell them to do. The day machines will think by themselves...


AI proceduralization follows the same principles as I outlined. If you can abstract the thought process into definitive qualities and base those branches on similar feedback that human's do, it wouldn't be far-fetched to replicate results that mimic our own.

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

>Zeth

Do you even realise what you are saying ? -_-

Why not let machines make new medicines, managing political things, even make future technologies at our place ?!

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Why not let machines make new medicines, managing political things, even make future technologies at our place ?!


My descriptions relate to creative sciences/arts only. Besides that, I'm talking about procedures and software designed to do a singular, abstracted purpose -- not necessarily physical machines with a body, free will, and a desire to enslave humanity.

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Thinking machines are not obliged to be in a humanoid form, the terminator example was for the joke. (everything is so serious here..)

Then medicines are science. I don't see machines thinking better than what we programmed them to do. It's far from being possible actually.

And arts are a way to express feelings, making an IA create these things is a total nonsense. Shame on peoples with these thoughts. Technology is awesome on a lot of points, but there's limits to not cross..

Postscript: Why did you delete the pictures ? If jokes aren't allowed anymore, we are ourselves starting to act like "machines". (ha ha, got it ? ha ha.. Hum...)

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Thinking machines are not obliged to be in a humanoid form, the terminator example was for the joke. (everything is so serious here..)


This isn't the Free forum. This is an intelligent discussion amongst intellectual adults.

Then medicines are science. I don't see machines thinking better than what we programmed them to do. It's far from being possible actually.


Define "better". Better is a rather subjective measurement. Nothing is far from possible.

And arts are a way to express feelings, making an IA create these things is a total nonsense. Shame on peoples with these thoughts. Technology is awesome on a lot of points, but there's limits to not cross..


You aren't even paying attention at all. That's what the entire discussion Buksna (and myself) are talking about. It's not nonsense whatsoever, has been done FOR YEARS, and will continue to improve. "Feelings" may give you a direction on what to do, but they don't define the process of you doing it. That's all a matter of procedures and skills -- both of which are VERY easily replicated. If you have a series of instructions/steps (even in your head) to do something (example : paint a picture of a night landscape), that's almost DIRECTLY transferable to a code process.

Postscript: Why did you delete the pictures ? If jokes aren't allowed anymore, we are ourselves starting to act like "machines". (ha ha, got it ? ha ha.. Hum...)


[A] You already posted the same image twice. [B] would be the forum guideline that's existed for quite some time.

[*] Posts containing captioned or animated images that bare no topical relation will be removed



Generally speaking, you shouldn't be posting captioned (or otherwise) images at all unless it's to demonstrate a point or illustrate data. Beyond online rhetoric, you'll often lose credibility in a discussion when you resort to pop cultural or meme-esque references.

Eagle The Purpose View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

This is an intelligent discussion amongst intellectual adults.



I'm actually not one yet. And every adults are able to make jokes. (you seem to be a rare exception.. Apparently..)

Nothing is far from possible.



You sure ? okay.

Imagine you are holding an object weighting 1 kg in your hand. Easy to raise it in the air in less than a second.

Now try with a 1000kg object.

Can you still raise it in the air with your arm that fast ?

Of course not, it can't even be pushed upward by any human being (even schwarzy couldn't do that when he was mr.universe).

Try with a machine of the same size as your arm and it'll give the same result.

No maths can resolve this, since physics have their own limits.

Another example ?

No matters can travel the speed of light.

It's far from being possible. I would even say, improbable. So, not a right statement. Wink

You aren't even paying attention at all. That's what the entire discussion Buksna (and myself) are talking about. It's not nonsense whatsoever, has been done FOR YEARS, and will continue to improve. "Feelings" may give you a direction on what to do, but they don't define the process of you doing it. That's all a matter of procedures and skills -- both of which are VERY easily replicated. If you have a series of instructions/steps (even in your head) to do something (example : paint a picture of a night landscape), that's almost DIRECTLY transferable to a code process.



And all of that needs an human behind to "code" everything. It cannot be thought by a machine alone. Machines cannot think on their own!

Arts aren't repetitive things only (except today's musics..). Different styles exist, there is innovations. So, every time there is a change, these "thinking machines" will need updates. So, everything that is coded into these things are lacking in identifiable function because we can do that by ourselves already, which is clearly better. And again, arts are feelings. A non-alive machine producing this kind of things is not morally correct.

It's like throwing the last parts of humanity we have to void.

Again, programs like makehuman are quite useful, without going too far.

[A] You already posted the same image twice. [B] would be the forum guideline that's existed for quite some time.



Wasn't the same, and if I haven't posted it, the gag wouldn't be completed..



[*] Posts containing captioned or animated images that bare no topical relation will be removed



Well, this discussion wasn't really on topic though. So don't reject the fault on me, I'm just following the thing.

Zeth The Admin View user's profile Send private message

Reply with quote Thursday, March 26, 2015

Imagine you are holding an object weighting 1 kg in your hand. Easy to raise it in the air in less than a second. Now try with a 1000kg object. Can you still raise it in the air with your arm that fast ?


So the goal is to get an object from point a to point b in a specific amount of time? Are we allowed to modify the mass of the object? What about density? Can we utilize chemical reactions? Can propulsion systems be used? What about fundamental mechanics (I.e : pulleys)? Do we have to be constrained to Earth's standard gravity or can we augment that too? Do we have to assume the pedantic laws of physics in this universe or can applicable string theory variants apply?

You limit yourself and overall viability because you are constraining the data/scenario.
Be divergent.

Try with a machine of the same size as your arm and it'll give the same result.


There already are machines that are roughly the size of a human arm that can already do this. Completely ignoring all the modern exoskeleton tech out there, a relatively sized forklift can do the same.

No matters can travel the speed of light. It's far from being possible. I would even say, improbable. So, not a right statement.


Please. Elaborate. Why don't you explain why the speed of light is the upper bounds of velocity? Why don't you explain how spatial displacement has no relationship on distance equations? When you confine your scenario enough, you can make it fit any answer. That's a far cry from simply defining a abstracted problem and then coming to terms with a hundred equally viable solutions.

And all of that needs an human behind to "code" everything. It cannot be thought by a machine alone. Machines cannot think on their own!


Define "thinking". Can a program be designed to simulate choices and make decisions to simulate human behaviour? Absolutely. Can it be designed to even simulate brain synapses naturally? Sure. What exactly are you applying a limitation to?

Arts aren't repetitive things only (except today's musics..). Different styles exist, there is innovations. So, every time there is a change, these "thinking machines" will need updates. So, everything that is coded into these things are lacking in identifiable function because we can do that by ourselves already, which is clearly better. And again, arts are feelings. A non-alive machine producing this kind of things is not morally correct.


Oh. I didn't realize you were such a talented computer programmer and systems designer. Please, why don't you tell me specifically, in technical terms, why this isn't possible -- despite that I, as an actual coder, have told you that it is.

If you have an opinion and want it to be weighted in a discussion, it needs to be substantiated by facts, skillsets, and a general experience. If you have zero knowledge about a subject, you probably shouldn't try to engage in a discussion at all.

It's like throwing the last parts of humanity we have to void.


Popular culture and media have propagated the idea that humans are these aggrandized beings that are so unique that CLEARLY some aspects of their existence must pertain solely to them. The concepts of a soul, emotion beyond explanation/recognition, and other mannerisms are simply forms of romanticized (and oft archaic) traditionalisms. Embellishments to establish elitism. Removing the concepts of those aspects doesn't make you robotic or inhuman. You can still feel love, hope, joy, rage, and so forth without treating them like some kind of inexplicable, mystical force.

This is history echoed again and again. It's the understanding and spreading of knowledge within a culture within an era. It's more than just science and technology. It's about philosophy, interpretation, and coming to terms with the design of life and existence as a whole.

<<  1, 2, 3  >>
Post new topic Reply to topic

Actions

Online [ 0 / 6125]