Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective • Hacker News Board

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#191

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:17 AM UTC

GaggiX wrote: post #79

wilimitis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pointing out that your "AI Effect" is one-sided in the wrong direction. Surely you agree that we care more to prove the affirmative of whether a machine is conscious rather than prove that it isn't . If not, I don't think we can proceed. The issue is that the AI Effect you linked is often actually used in the reverse, including by yourself, where the burden of proof should be to prove a machine is NOT conscious.…

I don't know where the concept of "consciousness" came from in the discussion but as I said in the first comment these models already empirically show intelligence and creativity, proving otherwise would be much more meaningful than aligning with the evidence.

Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine.

And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are interested in is not just "permutation", there is clearly a human component.

I'm trying to show you that you are falling into the reverse of the AI effect by assuming that permutation is creativity.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#192

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:18 AM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #87

wilimitis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the brain is a physical object that computes, and we have creativity, it stands to reason that creativity is computable. Why would you assume that creativity is not systematizable when we already have evidence on the physicality of the brain influencing behavior (ie cut out one part, personality changes, take drugs like LSD that change the chemical components of the brain, notice that creativity improves)? Your as…

Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually initially shared this with me.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#193

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:21 AM UTC

Kuinox wrote: post #72

wilimitis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new. And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc). Nice tr…

Are saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?

If notion of "trained eyes" were to ever have meaning, this would be it.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#194

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:22 AM UTC

snapcaster wrote: post #120

wilimitis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new. And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc). Nice tr…

AI art has won multiple competitions for photography and art. Is your claim that all the judges of these competitions were "untrained eyes"?

If they couldn't tell it was AI, yes. Winning an art competition is by itself paradoxical in undermining the point of art, so I don't know how that's relevant, but it is certainly an impressively weak point.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#195

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:24 AM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #81

wilimitis wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No - we're discussing whether someone producing stock photography can be trained in the same sense as a.i. However, I will give you that I'm potentially falsely assuming creativity is required to a comparable degree to art. Also, gun-to-my-head I would not bet on creativity being systemetizable, so I completely disagree.

You know, I actually think you're right about the process, but totally wrong about the results. Yes, AI art is different in terms of creativity. It is only grounded in reality to a lesser extent than human creativity. Where you're going wrong is what society will go for. Given the choice between reality and fantasy ... society will choose fantasy. AI will "win" fantasy, hands down.

AI will always lose because the result can only be a permutation of what already exists and the next artist will grow up and push the boundary - hence, AI will always lag behind the tip of the spear which is human creativity.

Not to mention, you are already wrong because art communities around human art are thriving now more than ever for the simple fact that the result of AI itself is non-communal (does not produce thriving community) and cannot compete at the bleeding edge of style.

Again, this is already happening regardless of your armchair hypothesis.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#196

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:28 AM UTC

candiodari wrote: post #80

wilimitis wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of the training set and thus will always lag behind the next artistic stylistic advancements.

Then how come everybody thinks AI has a more or less distinct style? Incredible amounts of detail everywhere, whereas human artists tend to focus details in service of the "object" or purpose of the artwork. AI art is more like what would happen if you took Baroque art and applied it to modern styles. For a human artist the effort is not worth it.

Most artists actually can tell which style each AI piece is stealing from. If you want the perfect example google "Beksinski". The overall goopy feeling of AI art is actually a turn off for most people, btw.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#197

Post by satvikpendem » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:30 AM UTC

wilimitis wrote: post #192

satvikpendem wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the brain is a physical object that computes, and we have creativity, it stands to reason that creativity is computable. Why would you assume that creativity is not systematizable when we already have evidence on the physicality of the brain influencing behavior (ie cut out one part, personality changes, take drugs like LSD that change the chemical components of the brain, notice that creativity improves)? Your as…

Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually initially shared this with me.

How are you defining systematizable? As in, creativity can be made via a systematic process? How do you think a brain works, physically speaking, otherwise? As others have mentioned, it is you who holds the burden of proof, not everyone else who already knows that the brain produces creativity.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#198

Post by satvikpendem » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:31 AM UTC

wilimitis wrote: post #191

GaggiX wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where the concept of "consciousness" came from in the discussion but as I said in the first comment these models already empirically show intelligence and creativity, proving otherwise would be much more meaningful than aligning with the evidence.

Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine. And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are interested in is not just "permutation", there is clearly a human component. I'm trying to show you that you are falling into the reverse of the AI effect by assuming that permutation is creativity.

It doesn't seem like you can even define creativity in the first place for any of us to even attempt to answer your supposed point that flew over everyone's heads.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#199

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:35 AM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #90

wilimitis wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd argue that the presence of anything in the brain which violates the laws of physics (necessary for the above claim to be false) is equivalent to Russells teapot, and absent extraordinary evidence it's a reasonable assumption to make that the brain adheres to known physics.

Adhering to physics does not necessarily imply that creativity is systematizable.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#200

Post by wilimitis » Thu, Jun 08, 2023, 4:46 AM UTC

satvikpendem wrote: post #197

wilimitis wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once again since you missed the entire point: I don't believe creativity is non-physical, I believe it is non-systematizable, and my brother achieving a PhD in computational neuroscience from a top university actually initially shared this with me.

How are you defining systematizable? As in, creativity can be made via a systematic process? How do you think a brain works, physically speaking, otherwise? As others have mentioned, it is you who holds the burden of proof, not everyone else who already knows that the brain produces creativity.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt and re-read the thread.

Creativity: producing what is novel + valuable

Systematizable: can be enumerated via algorithmic operations

"As others have mentioned": that is not an argument

"not everyone else who already knows": also not an argument

Now, my point is that creativity as defined above requires a burden of proof to be defined as systemetizable. For instance, mathematical leaps are often achieved by a spark of "creativity" which breaks existing structures in a way which is difficult to grasp, and to call this systemetizable is a leap that requires a complex argument calling upon deep notions of computational theory and computational neuroscience (like producing a topological map of the creative structure of the brain and proving that it can be mimicked by a listable process).

Now, to apply this to art in a convincing way would surely be even harder. Do you at least understand my point? Or is "brain = physics = creative" satisfactory enough for you still? Thanks for reading in good faith this time. :)