141–150 of 173 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you seen Stable Diffusion, the AI in question in the tweet? The images are astoundingly good, much better than DALL-E 2 even. https://twitter.com/StableDiffusion/
Seems the account got suspended.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering the staggering speed that image generation is improving, that 10% gap will only continue to close. Starting e.g. an art education right now seems likely to be extremely nerve-wracking as your talents may very well be woefully obsolete by the time you graduate; the exception perhaps being those top-0.1% talents that will feed the models of the future with new material.
So an art training will become more like pro sports training where “success” means to be top 100 or so in the world. Note it does not prevent one to do arts (or sports) as a hobby. People didn’t stop playing chess after Kasparov lost to Deep Blue.
If that happens, I agree that the top 100 human artists in the world will likely have jobs, but they won't be successful in the sense that their work is uniquely valued by society. We pay to see the very most talented humans perform tasks that have been successfully automated, such as chess and lifting heavy objects, not because we need the service they provide but because we get an emotional kick out of seeing other humans perform way outside the normal range of human abilities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is frankly what humans have always done, learning and taking inspiration from other artists. Now we have made a machine that can do the same thing. In the case of exact reproductions, we have copyright and IP laws.
No. This argument comes up over and over and over again and it is wrong. These models are not learning or being inspired in the same sense humans are. The laws tgat apply to humans should not be applied to them.
I am a working digital artist, my personal feed is filled with takes like this. I understand the crisis that artists go through currently and I understand their emotions. I've personally made peace with it already, but it will take time for everyone and there will be a lot of concern, rage and bargaining in the process. All of us artists woke up in the world where the thing we were learning to produce all of our live…
Do you think the AI will become better than the best human artist? In the foreseeable future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is frankly what humans have always done, learning and taking inspiration from other artists. Now we have made a machine that can do the same thing. In the case of exact reproductions, we have copyright and IP laws.
It feels like a big stretch to consider an algorithm to be 'inspired'. Where are the bits that correspond to 'inspiration'? Seems like that would answer a lot of big questions in philosophy.
I am a working digital artist, my personal feed is filled with takes like this. I understand the crisis that artists go through currently and I understand their emotions. I've personally made peace with it already, but it will take time for everyone and there will be a lot of concern, rage and bargaining in the process. All of us artists woke up in the world where the thing we were learning to produce all of our live…
Do you think the AI will become better than the best human artist? In the foreseeable future?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think the AI will become better than the best human artist? In the foreseeable future?
I believe that it already did, honestly. The output and range of Dalle-2 and Stable Diffusion is unmatched by any human artist. I am not only talking about quantity and range - the best illustrations generated by Stable Diffusion are honestly unbelievable and could totally get on the front pages on artstation on their own. The digital paintings, the 3d renders, landscapes, portraits, concept arts, character designs -…
Union boss: "I don't know Mr Ford, but how will you get those robots to buy your cars?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're wrong. Pretty much all human creations can be encoded digitally to a high enough fidelity that the discretization process no longer is distinguishable. And 3D printers for paintings exist, that can replicate brush strokes and other techniques, and they will only get better over time. So there's very little left in the human arsenal as the AI generation and AI painting techniques both improve. https://y…
Your link shows you can 3D print a "Rembrandt" if you hire a team of people to spend 18 months working on custom algorithms for it, and I doubt any art experts were as likely to actually be fooled by it as they were by a van Meergeren forgery. Not sure the people selling paintings knocked out in an afternoon to tourists who visited their studio and chose to buy an original instead of the visually indistinguishable pr…
Like others have said, the first ones have issues, but late stage is when things get problematic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So an art training will become more like pro sports training where “success” means to be top 100 or so in the world. Note it does not prevent one to do arts (or sports) as a hobby. People didn’t stop playing chess after Kasparov lost to Deep Blue.
Given how quickly AI image generation, and creativity generally, has progressed, I think it's perfectly plausible that within ten years we will be able to tell an AI "create a work of art that is unique, highly meaningful and that would be very difficult or impossible for most humans to create with their hands," and will get a work of art that is, in blinded assessments, competitive with the work of any master. If th…
What you describe can only happen with general intelligence, not these fancy neural nets. If anything, they will become powerful tools to help artists augment their creativity.