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

AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

julienposture.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 137 posts

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#71

Post by astrange »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #29
croniev wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human creativity turns into a point on that curve. One mission of art is to find a different dimension, out of the curves reach, until eventually it becomes more common and the curve can be fitted to it again. AI cannot think outside of the box because it cannot think at all, there is no meaning behind what it does.

>Human creativity turns into a point on that curve. All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve. It doesn't matter what turns what into what into some point on the curve or finding a different "dimension" If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that curve you've found the algorithm for human creativity. We are close, deadly close, to the end. Especially given the fact that these AI algorithms literal…

> All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve.

That's what they said about mathematical proofs.

> If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that curve you've found the algorithm for human creativity.

And that's what they said about programs that take finite time to prove whether or not other programs halt.

Neither of those turned out to be true though. (In particular, because the curve you're talking about is infinitely large and so you cannot compute on it in finite time.)

Also, real world things cannot be reduced to their bit descriptions because they have metadata even if their descriptions are identical: https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#72

Post by astrange »

saintfire wrote: post #22
ninetyninenine wrote: post #17

AI is to the point where it can create it's own style. We talk about these styles as if it's some kind of sacred thing. What you don't realize is that we're past this point. There's a latent space of different art within a certain style category, but there's the latent space of different categories itself. AI can already traverse the space between art in a single style category AND it can traverse the gradient space…

Wish we could apply that logic to software. AI is in a magical universe where we all pretend copyright isn't a thing just because we don't like it.

Whether or not there are copyright issues depends on the laws of specific countries. In general though it's a lot more legal than currently legal things like Google Image Search, because it's much more transformative than making thumbnails of other people's images is.

But if you don't want it to be legal then just pass a law saying it's not.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#73

Post by astrange »

monadINtop wrote: post #20
ninetyninenine wrote: post #17

AI is to the point where it can create it's own style. We talk about these styles as if it's some kind of sacred thing. What you don't realize is that we're past this point. There's a latent space of different art within a certain style category, but there's the latent space of different categories itself. AI can already traverse the space between art in a single style category AND it can traverse the gradient space…

lol sometimes I wonder if the reason so many tech bros make so many grandiose statements about how AI has already trancended the bounds of human creativity is because they've never really had actual experience with art and literature and music growing up. They say things like this and then you go and look for an example of these incredible works of artificial art and it is the biggest pile of shit you have ever seen.…

If you need intelligent things to act exactly like a human being I think you're going to look bad in the future where we have aliens or uplifted ravens and this looks racist/speciesist.

Being trapped in a computer with no environmental interaction is obviously a big difference though.

> but maybe the people with decades of research in linguistics and neuroscience are right to be skeptical.

Like other kinds of academics, many of those people are cranks so they're not necessarily right. For instance, some of them are Chomsky.

(But it's their job to be wrong most of the time so of course this is expected.)

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#74

Post by GaggiX »

astrange wrote: post #68
GaggiX wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that your model wasn't great, for my experience, in the past I uploaded an AI image in the same style of a certain artist to a website that organizes anime images, someone tagged it with the artist's tag because they thought it was made by him, also the image I uploaded got much more "likes" than anything made by the artist in months, and it's not like I'm spamming images, that was the only upload. (I l…

Part of the reason for that is those artists are doing commercial art, which means the "style" is imposed on them by the customer/series character designs/etc, and they're not putting their whole ability into it. It's like how it was easier to automate office workers because they just followed steps in a process and didn't use creativity.

I mean, the artists you see on Twitter or other platforms usually have a dominant art style, their own, but even without changing the art style, you can still be really creative with the composition, actions, and so on.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#75

Post by mattkevan »

GaggiX wrote: post #53
mattkevan wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a follow on: One of my friends is a professional illustrator and was concerned about the impact of AI on their work. As a demonstration I trained some models on their styles. They were worried right up until they saw the output. Yes, it looked superficially like their work, but the slightest glance showed it to be absolute crap. Anyone who would consider using the AI version of their work over commissioning the ac…

It's possible that your model wasn't great, for my experience, in the past I uploaded an AI image in the same style of a certain artist to a website that organizes anime images, someone tagged it with the artist's tag because they thought it was made by him, also the image I uploaded got much more "likes" than anything made by the artist in months, and it's not like I'm spamming images, that was the only upload. (I l…

The model was good, it’s just that the illustrations needed to convey specific concepts and were created for particular purposes, something gen AI is not good at without significant guidance.

Superficial style is easy to replicate, the underlying meaning and thought process is not.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#76

Post by astrange »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #26
monadINtop wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol sometimes I wonder if the reason so many tech bros make so many grandiose statements about how AI has already trancended the bounds of human creativity is because they've never really had actual experience with art and literature and music growing up. They say things like this and then you go and look for an example of these incredible works of artificial art and it is the biggest pile of shit you have ever seen.…

Not yet but this is not too far off: One day you're going to encounter something that really moves you. And then you'll realize it was procedurally generated, by an AI. We're only about 1 - 2 years into AI. Think about the pace of progress.

There's a long tradition of random art and if you like that, there's dril GPT and Magic card GPT that produced lots of good absurdity. Of course, there's a human curation pass after it to let it be called art.

https://x.com/drilbot_aww/status/1792077476338057292

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#77

Post by ninetyninenine »

astrange wrote: post #76
ninetyninenine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not yet but this is not too far off: One day you're going to encounter something that really moves you. And then you'll realize it was procedurally generated, by an AI. We're only about 1 - 2 years into AI. Think about the pace of progress.

There's a long tradition of random art and if you like that, there's dril GPT and Magic card GPT that produced lots of good absurdity. Of course, there's a human curation pass after it to let it be called art. https://x.com/drilbot_aww/status/1792077476338057292

We just started on this. Imagine what the next two decades will bring.

This long tradition of stuff you speak of has only been a couple years at most. Draw the trend line. Extrapolate the inevitable consequence.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#79

Post by ninetyninenine »

astrange wrote: post #71
ninetyninenine wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Human creativity turns into a point on that curve. All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve. It doesn't matter what turns what into what into some point on the curve or finding a different "dimension" If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that curve you've found the algorithm for human creativity. We are close, deadly close, to the end. Especially given the fact that these AI algorithms literal…

> All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve. That's what they said about mathematical proofs. > If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that curve you've found the algorithm for human creativity. And that's what they said about programs that take finite time to prove whether or not other programs halt. Neither of those turned out to be true though. (In particular, because the curve you're talking a…

>And that's what they said about programs that take finite time to prove whether or not other programs halt.

An actualization of human creativity exists. Your brain.

The existence of your brain as a physical thing indicates that human creativity can be actualized. It’s literal proof via existence.

It’s the complete opposite of what you describe. We have proof that it is 100 percent possible.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#80

Post by ninetyninenine »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50
spywaregorilla wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want a world where google can sue your open source project because it utilizes it's style of coding?

Maybe? If they show you started with their code and abstracted your code from their's mechanistically, then it seems reasonable to say that you copied from their code. If you, a person, read their code and imitated the style - assuming it to be definable as Google's style and not easily confused with the style of others (which would suggest it was not distinctive) - then yes, why not? You would have directly abstract…

I’ll have ai randomly generate unique styles of code and start copywriting it all.
Post reply on HN