Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

adventure-of-penelope.vercel.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 415 posts

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#391

Post by krapp »

the_af wrote: post #388
krapp wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>..what's left for us, then? Consuming the culture manufactured by the autonomous corporations that generate our reality so the capitalist class can afford their orbital pleasure domes and stem-cell purees.

I was thinking something like it, only a bit less scifi: we become consumers . Not like today, but worse: exclusively consumers of stuff automated processes produce. We won't create anymore; at best it'll be "computer, entertain me!". I really don't like that future.

The really scary part is, if the dopamine hit is good enough, we won't even care.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#392

Post by SamPatt »

the_af wrote: post #371
SamPatt wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's left for us is whatever we want to do. People still do all kinds of things which machines and computers can do better than we can. No reason to think that will change.

My question is precisely that, what will we want to do if computers do everything, including writing, reading, critiquing, buying, selling and stealing art? We will be left to ponder our existence and meaning in the vastness of the cosmos? Nope: in this hypothetical future, computers will also be better at that than us. I'm not threatened by computers if they can design a car, or write a better programs (though my li…

If computers are better at writing novels than humans then what you gain is access to better novels.

I enjoy reading novels, and I wouldn't refuse to read an excellent one because a computer wrote it.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#393

Post by the_af »

5040 wrote: post #262
Jataman606 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is wrong with gatekeeping? It's not like everyone needs to be able to make art. Also, i don't know much about Photoshop, but most digitatl filters usually act the same as analog mixers. They do not automate anything.

It's not like everyone needs to make photographic reproductions, why not delegate the task to photorealistic painters? Now that we've gotten used to the convenience of having a camera in our pocket, who would suggest banning photography?

Most people don't make good photographic reproductions. They have mobiles with cameras, sure, but they cannot take an interesting or even technically good photo.

Good human photographers are still a thing. They can even get a job out of it! There are books about photos by photographers of renown.

AI automation here would be more like AI deciding which photos to take, and taking them for you, with your interaction limited to "take some nice photos of my vacation". Then some other AI could give likes to the photo, closing the loop so that humans need not be involved at all in that silliness of photography!

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#394

Post by the_af »

robertlagrant wrote: post #146
makoto12 wrote: post #141

I hate this so very much. Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts.

If a person learns how to paint expertly by looking at (and even copying, stroke for stroke) paintings, would you consider that immoral, and those paintings having been stolen? If not, what would you say the difference is?

Have you read "Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote" by Borges?

Part of the conceit of the story is that even a mechanical copy of a known work can become something else because of the inner experience of the person reproducing it. Menard's Quixote, his fictional author thought, was different because Menard knew things and lived through things that Cervantes before him didn't, and so the exact same words are injected of different connotations because of this.

It's absurd, but it explores something about authorship.

ChatGPT and AI have no inner lives, no authorial perspective, and so they cannot use this defense. In their case, a copy is truly "stolen" with no additional value.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#395

Post by the_af »

adamsmith143 wrote: post #299
makoto12 wrote: post #141

I hate this so very much. Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts.

>Automating creativity is so gross. Never mind the fact that these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts. King of bad takes. Painters literally said the same thing about Photography. >these models are trained on stolen artwork and texts. And the neural networks in human artists' brains is exempt from this logic why? Because it's biological and not silicon?

> Painters literally said the same thing about Photography.

I think this is itself a bad take, for several reasons.

First, that something false was said in the past doesn't make it false today for a different thing.

Second, that wasn't the argument painters "literally" used. Did they claim that taking photos was "stealing" their paintings/reality?

What some may have claimed is that it took no skill or that it was cheating, or that it would put painters out of work. We now know all of these assumptions were wrong.

Photography doesn't "automate" creativity, as anyone struggling to take an interesting photo that tells a story can tell you.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#396

Post by dinkumthinkum »

shagie wrote: post #267
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is kind of a tired reasoning. I don’t know what the goal of this kind of reasoning is. The fact is that virtually no one learns or dies art this way. No one in any statistically meaningful amount has a photographic memory and uses such memory to create new art stroke by stroke.

There are many paintings that have been made following along to a Bob Ross video - using the same paints, the same brushes, and the same elements within the painting. Even after following along and gaining the confidence to paint on their own, they continue to use the same approach to painting. Are those paintings afterwards derivative works and to be treated the same way as an AI painting asked to create a scene wit…

That is largely hobby painting and learning to paint. You’re conflating human skill to learn and adapt and go through a relaxing exercise to AI generated. It’s not a serious argument.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#397

Post by reyqn »

debugnik wrote: post #358
reyqn wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so clear to me. AI is just a tool you use like any other.

In that case are publishers also authors when the artists and writers are (contracted) tools like any other? This is just as rehash of the debate around authorship for prompting a single image. If you had typed the same prompt on Google and picked a picture, or hired an artist with that prompt, you wouldn't claim to be the artist. Therefore you're having a different role than that in the process, ML model or not: pub…

What? People are not tools, machine are. Is this so hard?

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#398

Post by robertlagrant »

adamauckland wrote: post #161
robertlagrant wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a person learns how to paint expertly by looking at (and even copying, stroke for stroke) paintings, would you consider that immoral, and those paintings having been stolen? If not, what would you say the difference is?

Morality aside, an artist who entirely copies someone else's work would be looked down upon because they are not original or creating anything novel or new.

Morality is the only thing I'm querying here. No point changing the topic.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#399

Post by robertlagrant »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #232
wildrhythms wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that a human made the artistic stroke-for-stroke reproduction through human skill and expertise. Even a counterfeit painting is an exercise of perception and interpretation. The value is in the human's hand in the output.

That’s actually a good point. It is very much a non-trivial ability.

Making a lump of silicon generate a painting is far less trivial. That's not relevant. Being trained on paintings was described as stealing, and unless your argument is that stealing is easy so anything non-trivial can't be stealing, I don't see the relevance.

Re: Show HN: I “wrote” a kid's book with ChatGPT and Midjourney

#400

Post by robertlagrant »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #396
shagie wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many paintings that have been made following along to a Bob Ross video - using the same paints, the same brushes, and the same elements within the painting. Even after following along and gaining the confidence to paint on their own, they continue to use the same approach to painting. Are those paintings afterwards derivative works and to be treated the same way as an AI painting asked to create a scene wit…

That is largely hobby painting and learning to paint. You’re conflating human skill to learn and adapt and go through a relaxing exercise to AI generated. It’s not a serious argument.

> learn and adapt and go through a relaxing exercise

The AI is learning. Why is one of those things stealing and not the other?

Post reply on HN