41–50 of 55 posts
Any field that requires intelligence is safe, as intelligence requires self awareness
Garry Kasparov said he was the first knowledge worker who lost his job to AI. At the time, we defined chess as a sign of intelligence, practically an IQ test. But now, it's seen more as a series of patterns. I think we'll keep redefining intelligence to something that makes us feel special.
Any field that requires intelligence is safe, as intelligence requires self awareness
Garry Kasparov said he was the first knowledge worker who lost his job to AI. At the time, we defined chess as a sign of intelligence, practically an IQ test. But now, it's seen more as a series of patterns. I think we'll keep redefining intelligence to something that makes us feel special.
Any field that requires intelligence is safe, as intelligence requires self awareness
Garry Kasparov said he was the first knowledge worker who lost his job to AI. At the time, we defined chess as a sign of intelligence, practically an IQ test. But now, it's seen more as a series of patterns. I think we'll keep redefining intelligence to something that makes us feel special.
This is pretty much exactly what I see here. The human must still come up with the idea that an astronaut riding a horse is a good idea, and must selectively adjust the output until his/her vision is realized, the AI takes care of the majority of the individual brushstrokes/digital operations, and there's still likely some significant human-level work at the end. But yes, artists with skills but little vision, or stuck in jobs where the vision is not theirs, such as making advertisement illustrations, will likely be largely replaced.
I thought the same thing after seeing the Dall-E productions. As others have noted, they look good enough for a lot of commercial purposes—book and album covers, magazine and website illustrations, advertisements. My daughter is a professional illustrator, and I wondered how safe her career will be in the years ahead. My tentative guess is that creators whose individual personality and identity are an important part…
This really isn't going to change much. DALLE-2 has and will likely for a long time have a lot of imperfections that will never be fixed. Due to the inherit way that these GANs work it's not going to force anyone really out of business. At most it could help artists with their day to day tasks but not really much more. You in effect have to create the proper datasets to even generate proper images itself. Even if the…
Sure.
> that will never be fixed.
Less sure.
> Due to the inherit way that these GANs
Not a GAN. DALLE-2 uses a diffusion model for generation and a transformer/diffusion to convert CLIP text embeds to CLIP image embeds. DALLE-1 used a variational autoencoder, not a GAN. I mention this simply because both diffusion and VAE's seem to be more robust than GAN's (at the cost of slower inference times).
> It will probably take hundred of thousands of images at the least to create a decent looking image.
A little confused about this. DALLE-2 took hundreds of _millions_ of images to train, but it doesn't need even one to generate an image now. Having said that, finetuning requires small datasets like this and is perhaps what you meant?
> Each of which mind you is copyrighted.
I hear you on this - as it's a little devastating not to be even attributed for your work if you're a hard-working artist. However, training on datasets that aren't explicitly public domain or an open license is not a violation of copyright. Nor, at least presently, is releasing the weights of that model to the public. It would only be a violation to distribute the media itself - a problem which has been trivially circumvented by just releasing the URL's of the dataset for other researchers to download. In the case of smaller datasets, releases come with disclaimers that the data is not to be used for anything other than research. OpenAI of course has not even released the URL's for their web datasets.
> As Machine Learning Models are intellectual property
Hm, I think I agree that this could become an issue. You can see this in the licensing terms in StyleGAN2/3 already, for instance (typical nvidia, they basically own your outputs last time I read the thing).
At least in terms of what I've been seeing lately however, this won't be a very effective regulatory moat for AI companies. Research tends to be replicated rapidly by lots of brilliant open source developers. Sometimes, the paper even comes out long before the model is released giving plenty of time for a clean-room implementation. There are also of course great institutions like in Heidelberg doing bleeding edge, state of the art work and releasing _everything_. See e.g. latent-diffusion.
Machine learning requires lots of hardware - that's the best moat these companies can have. NVIDIA GPU's and Google TPU's are what's to be concerned about here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All of 'em. All of them will be safe. AI generated content is devoid of meaning… None of ‘em. None of them will be safe. Humans ascribe meaning to works where there is none, and intent by the artist or an AI can be wholly immaterial to what people appreciate about it. Great works may come from AI but the greatness of a work is virtue of the work itself. That said, just because a computer can do it doesn’t mean that…
No piece of art exists without context. With AI there is no context, no meaning, no relevance. A pretty image by itself is just that - a bunch of bytes displayed on device of your choice.
Isn't this the majority of the industry? Sure, maybe there are a few artists that can do profound work with context, meaning, etc. But when you're doing book covers for airport novels, you don't need any of that. Or when doing a website with a few images? You need a result that's good enough at the cheapest price. AI generated content is great for that.
I personally wouldn't worry about it. Yes, as the saying goes in investing, "people can remain irrational longer than you can be solvent", but if it happens that "AI" starts to replace entire professions wholesale, then we'll have bigger problems. Do you really want to spend your life running from niche statistical machinations?
> Our hope is that DALL·E 2 will empower people to express themselves creatively. DALL·E 2 also helps us understand how advanced AI systems see and understand our world, which is critical to our mission of creating AI that benefits humanity.
This stuff is so far up its own ass, it's comical to me. I get the feeling that OpenAI has a similar problem to the critiques of the MIT Media Lab, in that they're both demo factories in order to generate more funding.
On the other hand, we still don't know how to teach AI to distinguish between good and bad art. So perhaps a lot more humans will become professional art critics.
They will no more replace artists than photoshop or illustrator did.