My new Mini-Documentary Series Video is Up - Enigma Jesus

[Philo Sofee]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm738Y1j1cE&t=606s

I am making a series of what I call "Mini-Documentaries" and this first series is on Jesus. There are so many fascinating interpretations and ideas that I just can't help myself, I just gotta wade in here.... Enjoy.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Philo, great job! Is that art A.I. generated? It looks amazing.

[Philo Sofee]

Philo, great job! Is that art A.I. generated? It looks amazing.

Thanks man. That was a LOT of work for a mere 12 minutes, and a LOT of fun for a mere 12 minutes for me personally. I had to start somewhere, and now I can get the ball rolling as it were. Yes A.I. is incredible these days! Art with A.I. is the only way to go. I'm lovin' it! Much more to come forth...

[huckelberry]

Philo, great job! Is that art A.I. generated? It looks amazing.

Thanks man. That was a LOT of work for a mere 12 minutes, and a LOT of fun for a mere 12 minutes for me personally. I had to start somewhere, and now I can get the ball rolling as it were. Yes A.I. is incredible these days! Art with A.I. is the only way to go. I'm lovin' it! Much more to come forth...

Philo, I was puzzled why you started focusing upon the virgin birth story. I have no reason to deny it but it really is a minor point. So minor that most of the New Testament ignores the idea. It is not in Paul nor the earliest gospel or the last gospel. But perhaps you want to notice that sometimes people think of minor religious images like virgin birth and ignore what Jesus was actually like, cared about, and was doing.

I think historical studies are interesting, but they focus on different images which perhaps have things in common but are different images of Jesus. I am no expert but have read a few books on the subject. There is an extent to which images of Jesus are shaped by how normal Jewish expectations of the time are seen. He is an apocalyptic prophet, so what is that? The general Jewish expectations shape that image. But what if Jesus is a bit different than the usual expectation. If that is the case, the guide is wobbly. I have been influenced by Tom Wright though I have read other views. He sees Jesus as using messianic ideas and reinterpreting them. Influenced by that, I think it likely that Jesus's understanding of his mission went through some development and clarification as he went along. Instead of Jesus thought this or that, Jesus became something more specific as his mission went along.

I hold the traditional view that Jesus was true human as well as divine. As true human he had to struggle with the limitations of human knowledge and understanding. In that human condition his understanding of his mission would grow and clarify.

He wished to undercut the basic foundation of Roman values. To defeat their army and leave their value system in place would go nowhere except perhaps another version of Herod.

[Dr. Shades]

Philo, great job! Is that art A.I. generated? It looks amazing.

I wholeheartedly disagree. A.I.-generated art is the modern scourge of the Internet. I don't think anyone should use it until it's advanced at least another five years, minimum.

Take the picture you're referring to as a prime example: The two thieves are being crucified in the wrong direction, the audience features a grinning chimpanzee and another guy wearing a fedora, one of the three people at the base of Jesus's cross has a foot for a hand and a lobster claw for another hand, and four people in the foreground are also wearing crowns of thorns. To make matters worse, toward the middle of the crowd is a guy with black leprous tumors all over his face, and in the back of the crowd we can see Charlie Brown in his ghost costume. There's also half a spear hovering in midair. To the far left is a cyclops with three noses wearing a domino mask, and two rows in front of him are five bearded hobbits.

So, yeah, A.I.-generated images suck ass.

[Philo Sofee]

Philo, great job! Is that art A.I. generated? It looks amazing.

I wholeheartedly disagree. A.I.-generated art is the modern scourge of the Internet. I don't think anyone should use it until it's advanced at least another five years, minimum.

Take the picture you're referring to as a prime example: The two thieves are being crucified in the wrong direction, the audience features a grinning chimpanzee and another guy wearing a fedora, one of the three people at the base of Jesus's cross has a foot for a hand and a lobster claw for another hand, and four people in the foreground are also wearing crowns of thorns. To make matters worse, toward the middle of the crowd is a guy with black leprous tumors all over his face, and in the back of the crowd we can see Charlie Brown in his ghost costume. There's also half a spear hovering in midair. To the far left is a cyclops with three noses wearing a domino mask, and two rows in front of him are five bearded hobbits.

So, yeah, A.I.-generated images suck ass.

I agree, that is a frustrating part of using A.I. art when dealing with people. It is not up to snuff yet. It's a learning curve for all of us. I had to laugh when I saw the two thieves crucified facing backwards though. It's far better to use it than not, even with some of the sill errors. I should have discriminated more on that picture, without question. But the majority of A.I. art was sensational and much easier to use. It would have taken many months to get all that done, which is part of the attraction. It's actually improved and without using it it won't improve because the makers of the algorithm in A.I. art are working on the suggestions to improve it. A.I. also doesn't do lettering well at all. But not using it for 5 years would be like not using the first automobiles when they first came out, or not using computers when they first came out. They would have never improved. So I disagree with you on that one Shades. I had a couple of bad pictures out of over 50 and A.I. sucks ass? That's far too pessimistic in my view. If you get a 95% on a test, you are not flunking in any university you are attending.

[Dr. Shades]

I had a couple of bad pictures out of over 50 and A.I. sucks ass? That's far too pessimistic in my view.

Let me guess: The 48 good pictures didn’t feature any humans, right?

[Imwashingmypirate]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm738Y1j1cE&t=606s

I am making a series of what I call "Mini-Documentaries" and this first series is on Jesus. There are so many fascinating interpretations and ideas that I just can't help myself, I just gotta wade in here.... Enjoy.

Looks nice but I was too busy watching the images that I didn't process what you were saying and the image resolution of the books pasted over the top is far less than the A.I. images which is distracting. But I'll endeavour to listen without looking at the images. I'm a visual person so my brain prioritises image over sound everytime.

[huckelberry]

I am wondering a bit how A.I. worked with these images. They look like a bit of average or compilation of many standard images. The crucifixion image was a bit of an exception, too dark for me to see the many oddities Shades saw but the backward thieves is odd. What would have generated that I wonder.

Is it easier to find images with A.I.?

[Philo Sofee]

You actually make A.I. images using a descriptive prompt. There are many ways in which you have no control over what it produces. Sometimes you can get it to give you something similar to what you imagine. I personally find it fascinating at what it comes up with a lot of the time, something I had no idea in my own mind, yet was far more appealing to me than what I was thinking. It is improving all the time, and will be fun to see how it continues generating art.