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

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#81

Post by monadINtop »

astrange wrote: post #73
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.…

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 academi…

No, you need intelligent things to be intelligent.

And it would probably be good to distinguish between "things that appear superficially intelligent" and "things that have genuine capacity for internal experience" while you're at it, since the popular perception on this forum seems to be to just declare that physicalism/materialism is obviously correct and explanatory and we can just brush the hard problem of conciousness under the rug. People are so eager to endow the statistical model that has been designed to produce responses that are statistically feasable in a given context (a very impressive feat of technology to be clear) as having internal experience.

Chomsky happens to be more right about LLMs than 90% of the popular discourse will ever be able to understand, which isn't that suprising considering the impact if this "crank's" earlier work.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#82

Post by spywaregorilla »

voiceblue wrote: post #36
spywaregorilla wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, I do think there needs to be some kind of protection from having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using unauthorized images of your own art. 1) Hire artist to copy the style for 10 images 2) Train model on those problem solved. If you choose "using your images specifically" to steal your style as the hill you want to die on, then you're going to find it's a very useless line of defense.

That's common enough that there's a name for it [0]. "Stealing the style" is not so much a problem as commoditization, which may find some measure of defense in terms of trademark ( not copyright). In this case, for example, the model is named hollieMengert_v1 , and we are referring to the style as "Hollie Mengert's art style". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

There is absolutely not defense unless "hollie mengert's style" is trademarked; and even then the protection extends only to that name, not the artistic style itself.

Clean room design has nothing to do with this. It is perfectly acceptable to overtly copy a style.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#83

Post by spywaregorilla »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #46
spywaregorilla wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, I do think there needs to be some kind of protection from having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using unauthorized images of your own art. 1) Hire artist to copy the style for 10 images 2) Train model on those problem solved. If you choose "using your images specifically" to steal your style as the hill you want to die on, then you're going to find it's a very useless line of defense.

Just because you hired artists to copy someone else's work doesn't mean your model isn't the result of copyright infringement, indeed it makes it somewhat more obvious imo. Maybe that would be Fair Use, but things like purpose, weak transformation (in the hired artists copies), competition against the original, and business motive would all suggest it relies on non-Fair Use copying. I don't know why you think somethi…

Not copy the work. Copy the style. Because style is not copyrightable.

What I'm saying is that if you believe that your personal style is your valuable asset and choose to protect it by saying people can't train on your images; you ought to be aware that it's trivially easy to build a model that replicates your style and does not require your images.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#84

Post by spywaregorilla »

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…

Ok let's try a different argument.

You think the world would be a better place if Monet was able to sue Renoir out of the impressionist movement?

Or if Spielberg was able to sue director's trying to emulate the Spielberg oner?

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#85

Post by spywaregorilla »

monadINtop wrote: post #63
spywaregorilla wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well your argument is admonishing tech bros as if they don't get it, but generally they do get it completely in this context. The goal here is not replacing great art. It's replacing art assets. Comes off as naive and distracting to me.

The distinction is philosophical. Tech bros consider "art assests" or consumer oriented products as art. In their eyes its capibility as a tool for profit is a downstream effect. My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profi…

> My point was that since their entire purpose in life revolves around developing and refining technology for the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can be sold for a profit

And I think that's grossly missing the point. The vast majority of people making art are just trying to make something look aesthetically nice within some sort of provided communication framework. And that's perfectly fine.

Frankly I think elevating artists to the pedestal of the illuminating the human condition is very damaging to their actual interests

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#86

Post by grugagag »

jsheard wrote: post #38
vunderba wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporate Memphis seems to have that very "flat almost clip-art" style to it. Generative art is ideal for this type of stock art use case where 90% is simply good enough for the vast majority of situations. I feel like the gig economy (things like Fiverr) are unfortunately going to get absolutely crushed by generative art systems since most of their customers aren't that particular and are likely fine with anything t…

> I feel like the gig economy (things like Fiverr) Predictably this is already happening, it doesn't take much browsing in categories such as tattoo design to spot the hallmarks of AI generated artwork. To add insult to injury they often pretend they aren't using AI, so they can up-charge for more intricate artwork that would take more effort if they weren't really just adding more synonyms for "detailed" to their Mi…

Soon enough generative art will be everywhere and the style uniformized so when some brands will want to differentiate themselves they will hire people again. They could charge more for the service, whoever survives the generative AI squeeze…

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#87

Post by krisoft »

grugagag wrote: post #86
jsheard wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like the gig economy (things like Fiverr) Predictably this is already happening, it doesn't take much browsing in categories such as tattoo design to spot the hallmarks of AI generated artwork. To add insult to injury they often pretend they aren't using AI, so they can up-charge for more intricate artwork that would take more effort if they weren't really just adding more synonyms for "detailed" to their Mi…

Soon enough generative art will be everywhere and the style uniformized so when some brands will want to differentiate themselves they will hire people again. They could charge more for the service, whoever survives the generative AI squeeze…

> and the style uniformized

Why would the style be uniformized? It is neither observed to be happening with generative art, nor is it desired.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#88

Post by micromacrofoot »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #3

No, two artists are the same. As an artist, if I’m not constantly pushing the boundaries of how I’m expressing myself via media then I’m just telling the audience the same thing over and over. Im not actually changing as an artist, I’m simply producing the thing regularly that is expected of me. This is 99% of professional art you find your style and then you do that over and over for money so that you can survive in…

what if ai is the next great master

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#89

Post by astrange »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #77
astrange wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A lot longer than that!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art

Could also count elephant paintings and such.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#90

Post by astrange »

monadINtop wrote: post #81
astrange wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 academi…

No, you need intelligent things to be intelligent. And it would probably be good to distinguish between "things that appear superficially intelligent" and "things that have genuine capacity for internal experience" while you're at it, since the popular perception on this forum seems to be to just declare that physicalism/materialism is obviously correct and explanatory and we can just brush the hard problem of concio…

Chomsky's critique of LLMs was somehow not even correct about his own theories (https://x.com/profraha/status/1634311282135318529). And of course has the usual problem of 1. claiming LLMs are random statistical models (they aren't, the sampler is) 2. claiming instead of generating correct text they only "seemingly" generate correct text and not explaining why this is any less impossible.

But people have built explicit grammar knowledge into LLMs (it's in llama.cpp) and nobody seems to need it to make English text.

Of course the main reason Chomsky is a crank is that he's completely convinced he's right about politics despite his unbroken record of endorsing every mass murderer in the world as long as they're anti-American.

Post reply on HN