#Generative AI In Manufacturing

[johnsongray22]

Generative AI in Manufacturing: Reducing Defects and Improving Quality

Explore the blog to learn how generative AI enhances defect detection in the manufacturing sector. From image processing to quality control, explore its key benefits for improving product quality.

[public-cloud-computing]

Discover generative AI’s impact on manufacturing. Check out our FAQs and stay ahead with revolutionary insights!

[enterprise-cloud-services]

Discover generative AI’s impact on manufacturing. Check out our FAQs and stay ahead with revolutionary insights!

[rubylogan15]

Learn how generative AI addresses key manufacturing challenges with predictive maintenance, advanced design optimization, superior quality control, and seamless supply chains.

[techadvancements]

The future of generative AI in manufacturing appears bright. With ongoing technological advancements and the maturation of AI algorithms, the potential for innovation and efficiency gains is set to grow. Continued research and development in AI-driven design, production optimization, and quality control are expected to lead to more intelligent and responsive manufacturing processes.

Read More:

[tungledotedu]

i'll grant that the juxtaposition involved makes it a creative prompt, one that a human being would think of. we have a tendency to anthropomorphise animals and objects, and this is an example of that instinct.

i don't think the attack helicopter model (or even type of military vehicle) matters.

as for 'attitude', i suppose one possible interpretation is a mild woobification of the military-industrial complex.

but it takes more than creativity to make art. having a creative idea alone does not make you an artist, nor does it put you on the same level as someone who would actually draw a picture like the one above. that would involve steps beyond conceptualisation, such as composition, thumbnailing, sketching, line art, colouring, etc.

a 5-minute crappy doodle version of this would be art because a human being took the time to turn that idea into an artwork. telling someone or something to draw an idea you came up with does not make you the artist. you used generative ai to shitpost and act like it's some #deep statement. trying to be clever with the 'answer my questions' bit while ignoring the most fundamental one: did you draw this yourself?

6. does the fact that i have previously said i will make a bing ai image every time someone complains about AI art, sarcastically saying that by doing so i am stealing food out of artists' mouths, impact the perceived meaning and impact of the image? does it offer a new reading of the absurd nature of the prompt?

it does give the impression that this is not intended to encourage a good-faith discussion. you may not be personally 'stealing food out of artists' mouths,' but you are normalising the devaluation of our work and entitled attitude about the use of ai over human labour.

these aren't rhetorical or troll questions, to be clear -- they are merely being posed to illustrate that the idea that there is no artistic intent or human expression behind AI generated images falls apart under serious analysis.

again, it's not enough to have 'artistic intent or human expression'. anyone can come up with any idea. the difference is what you do to bring that idea to life.

and to be honest, it's hard not to interpret the underlying intention of intellectual exercises like this as:

'why should i pay you when i can tell a machine to make this for free?'

[gutsfics]

choices vip should not be worth more than a Dropout subscription

& this is me advocating for both choices to lower the vip prices and dropout to rase subscription prices

[johnsongray22]

How can the manufacturing sector leverage generative AI for informed decision-making, enhanced productivity, and improved product quality? Go through the blog to learn about the use cases and benefits of  generative AI in the manufacturing industry.

[spitblaze]

Tbf, the whole AI thing is horrible for the environment. This was already something people warned about before the whole "AI art" thing took off, and I doubt that has changed in any way

So like. You’re not wrong. The environmental impact here is not zero. From all sources I can find, training a 'regular' model uses the same amount of carbon as a cross-US flight, and training an 'advanced' model can generate factory levels of carbon. Not great.

Forgive me for saying this then, but...why don't I see this much fuss being made over any other computer-based sources of carbon (besides crypto mining)? Nothing you do with a computer is carbon-neutral. Twitch on its own generates TONS of carbon, so do game consoles. The environmental impact AI has can’t be ruled out, and I'm positive all of the chodes out there prompt jockeying for 'commissions' are driving up the amount it pumps out. But it does feel...a tad disingenuous to single out generative programs out when this is an issue across the board.

[public-cloud-computing]

Transform manufacturing with generative AI: streamline processes, enhance quality, predict maintenance, and accelerate innovation.

[enterprise-cloud-services]

Transform manufacturing with generative AI: streamline processes, enhance quality, predict maintenance, and accelerate innovation.

[rubylogan15]

Transform manufacturing with generative AI: streamline processes, enhance quality, predict maintenance, and accelerate innovation.

[talisidekick]

The issue with AI "art" generation isn't rooted in the fact the creators of the AI "shamelessly" build it using other artists work to form it's understanding of art and it's basis of image generation. It's no different than what a human would do; referencing artwork, and extrapolating across multiple pieces to create something new. After all, you can't copyright an art form.

And as far as I've looked into these systems, the AI doesn't store the artists images but rather a textual breakdown to later generate images in a similar style. Arguably, and from a legal standpoint, the human brain does more raw image storing than the AI does. The AI simply isn't "stealing" art. It's generating a text reference. A non-visual description it can understand.

The issue is mass production and the devaluation of artwork.

These AI can functionally create images on the same level of artists who take years to perfect their craft, some their entire lifetimes, and perform it en mass in a matter of minutes or moments. Art that would take weeks or months to complete, can be initiated in moments with a prompt, and tweaked to the requestors satisfaction where otherwise the commissioner of the work is left with the artists vision of the prompt given. Art has always been a reflection of the artist, and it is being cheapened by mass production.

Quality can now be achieved at the speed of quantity, at the low cost of humanity.

There are art AI's you can pay for instead of an artist that depends on their work to make ends meet. The AI analyzes someones hard made, soul poured work, deconstructs it to a description, and pumps out facsimile's for cheap. This is the problem.

AI's are cheapening art.

Mass manufacturing has it's place in making the harder aspects of survival more convenient. Making raw materials, foods, and "to be assembled" general components for construction and creation easier to obtain and less of a struggle. It does this at the cost of employing less people, but the general consensus is the easier the harder aspects of labour are made, the better off people are. However, art isn't one of those "necessary labours" that could be benefitted from by complete automation. It's not a need we need filled en-masse, not in a society that holds homelessness and starvation over the heads of everyone should they not "benefit" society in what the richer elite deem "enough". All AI does in this case, is attack the livelyhoods of people on the bottom end of society. Big name artists won't feel the pressure, but smaller artists doing profile picture and OC commissions to pay bills will suffer.

This "advancement" is harmful.

To get plain: The issue of AI art and AI story generation is the devaluating nature of mass manufacturing and the impact it will have on artists who already struggle to get by. AI generation harms people. And if you build an AI that does any of this intentionally, you are deliberately harming artists, writers, and creators to the point of pushing them into a worse financially precarious state. You are intentionally harming human beings. And if you use these AI, or pay for them, you are supporting harming hardworking people who's lives depend on their work.

Stop. It's not a fun project. It's an attack.

Think: How would it feel, programmers of AI, to have an AI that could write code equal to or greater than you with the typed prompt of a corporate executive? If 5.99 a month could replace you, how would you live, how would you make ends meet?

[opha]

the fact that i use the term "AI" at all for generative tech is thanks to those who refuse to understand it and instead rely on a game of telephone passed off as fact to tell them that it's ontologically evil and will destroy the very soul of art and literature. they legit act like the real obfuscation is calling generative tech what it is because they are so insistent on calling it "AI art".

what is being described here is a result of reactionary anti-AI folks' failure to understand what they are against, so they jump at anything that even sounds similar. the call is coming from inside the house, but it's good to recognize it as a problem! i would recommend to everyone who agrees with the above tweets to read cory doctorow's "ai "art" and uncanniness". he is against generative tech in the arts, but unlike most people, he took the time to learn how it works and analyze it from both a legal and technical perspective. he describes how legal efforts to stymie the use of generative tech would also affect several of those other kinds of "AI" described, like those used in scientific models.

if you don't know cory, he is an author and staunch advocate for copyright abolition. he's intimately familiar with copyright law and how instead of protecting artists as individuals, it mostly serves the interests of corporate IP holders. he's as pro-artist as it gets. here's how that article opens:

"When it comes to AI art (or "art"), it's hard to find a nuanced position that respects creative workers' labor rights, free expression, copyright law's vital exceptions and limitations, and aesthetics. I am, on balance, opposed to AI art, but there are some important caveats to that position. For starters, I think it's unequivocally wrong – as a matter of law – to say that scraping works and training a model with them infringes copyright. This isn't a moral position (I'll get to that in a second), but rather a technical one."