41–50 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the sad thing is that these models are most likely trained upon most of these stock photos to begin with. I can understand the frustration of the industry.
OpenAI partnered with Shutterstock. So it's not most likely, it has been publicly announced that a part of DallE training dataset was Shutterstock. https://www.shutterstock.com/press/20435
Like it or not, it's here like CGI in movies bestsellers. I don't envy artists, most of them will have to rethink their plans and switch to graphics or web designers, or something similar. Not sure who will be next. Probably GPT will take over virtual bookshelves on Amazon. Mandatory "AI generated" mark may help a bit. I will not waste my time reading it. I think we should expect a flood of "masterpieces" in differen…
Dunno, 'brand name' writers of airport novels have been forever accused of having ghost-written their novels, I think AI will allow writers of lesser budgets to also get help in writing their novels. Or who knows, even the 'King'-s of the world will use AI to fill out their chapters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the sad thing is that these models are most likely trained upon most of these stock photos to begin with. I can understand the frustration of the industry.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
Painters are trained by copying the Masters. Shredding guitar players are trained on violin caprices. Martha Stewart was trained by watching Julia Child.
There is a lot of potential for aspiring photographers in creating (and licensing) photo libraries for the specific purpose of AI training. Where previously you'd take 100 photos to choose the perfect one, now you'd include all of them, with labels that describe their quality or deficiences (which you do anyway as you curate the photos you took). This makes almost every shot the money shot. Less glamorous for sure, a…
Where is the photographer's skill necessary in the process? Eventually, all the "photographer" will need to do is to take a 8K video recording of the subject and AI will generate a set of great looking pictures (it already knows what people like).
Another issue with using videos is overfitting, because video frames look too similar to each other. So you can get an inflexible model that always generates a similar background as that in the video.
Good AI training dataset is the opposite of that. It needs to contain different backgrounds and different lighting conditions. And as many different angles and poses as possible. Can't really get that from a single video.
Isn't it too early to evaluate that? AI image generation is seeing improvements on a monthly basis; whatever trend we observe today will likely be out of date later this year.
There is a certain class of images that will be largely unaffected - anything where authenticity matters. Such as a space walk photo from the ISS, a celebration moment in the Olympics, presidential speech, met gala fashion shots etc. and the authentic non generative photos could go up in value as photographers who do not have access to those moments either start to resort to AI or to fall out of the competition.
Propaganda and need to sell things are powerful motives. And AI generation and modification are great tools for that. Authenticity sell to very few.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any output from a brain can also be represented mathematically-- it's a physical object, after all. Coming up with the parameters for those expressions is the much harder part, for both brain and AI.
Once again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math). The notion that creativity lies beyond what is systemetizable (or otoh, the value in creativity is to defy that which can be computed), seems more in line with my sense of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
The difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.
We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.