121–130 of 137 posts
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/crosswords/wordle-review....
https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-96...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and the style uniformized Why would the style be uniformized? It is neither observed to be happening with generative art, nor is it desired.
Can you tell when art is AI generated? I already can and that is what I am talking about. In time this will become more and more clear to the the market and in cases where it matters they will hire a human.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It won’t kill creativity, it’s just another creative tool. I've been banging on this drum since AI's inception, and will continue do so. Even if machines were capable of directly reading our mind and outputting a perfect representation of exactly what we wanted at the mere thought of it, it's still a mere tool bound by the creativity of its artist, even if the artist were the AI itself. Art is dead. Art is always de…
> Did people complain when digital paintings became a thing? Yes. A lot. All the same complaints. "It's low-effort cheating. The machine does all the work. It's soulless. Art requires a physical process. It looks like crap. It will put 'real' artists out of business." But then, they also complained loudly when Impressionism became a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentle_Art_of_Making_Enemi... So, it's good…
As a recent example, Tron was disqualified for a visual effects Oscar because it was all done on computer and therefore seen as cheating, instead of being recognised aa both an incredible achievement and a precursor for the next 40 years of filmmaking. [1]
Imagine the howls when the first film with significant amounts of AI effects is released.
[1]https://www.slashfilm.com/1177735/why-tron-was-disqualified-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Human art and appreciation thereof is already by and large an exercise in irrationality, so I don't see why this is necessarily a qualitative change. If people want to imbue "human made" with a special meaning, that's really no different than thousands of other ways we pretend things into being every day.
Indeed. It's entirely arbitrary. I think, in using terms like "rational" the grandparent is confusing AI with science and presuming some kind of objectivity. One cannot make any sensible claim about what is "more superior" (the "more" is redundant by the way) since quality of art and meaning is not arranged on any cardinal scale. Humans get to define what is better, and that's the final judgement. And should they cho…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I’ve been using generative AI in my art for a good few years now and have a few thoughts on this. Yes it’s trivial to train a model on a particular style, I’ve done it many times, including on my own art. It can make things that look pretty good! But it can’t make anything great, not without a lot of luck or creative input from the user. It can make something that looks similar to a style, but it can’t explain what m…
> But it can’t make anything great, not without a lot of luck or creative input from the user. That seems true of "non-generative" art too, no?
Still needs an artist to guide it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Materialism is rather obviously correct when it comes to consciousness just based on what we know brain damage does to humans. But what does this have to do with problem of consciousness or internal experiences? There's no reason why the latter cannot be a material process. As for the linguists... people forget these days, but before the AI winter, there were many experiments trying to build an AI by modeling the lan…
People who claim that it is obvious that neural networks and LLMs replicate the functioning of a brain, any brain - let alone human, are just wrong. They are wrong to assume that it is obvious that just making bigger LLMs will somehow generate a being with the capacity of internal experience, whatever that may mean. They are wrong when they act like they have solved the problem of understanding cognition by just forgetting to mention the hard problem of conciousness. They are even wrong to simply assert that neurons and neural networks are "to do" with cognition. Hallucinogens and brain damage affect subjective experience, and both of those things are involved with the vascular system of the brain. Would I be right to say the vascular system produce cognition? Why doesn't anyone argue in favor of that view since it is not too far off from the same reasoning?
Obviously, it's reasonable to assume that neurons are somehow involved with subjective experience, most serious neuroscientists and other researchers would hold that same assumption. But you need to EXPLAIN how, preferably with evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming they have finally figured it all out to present a convincing theory, or at least conjecture the path to get there. Loudly and smugly asserting that your assumption is correcter than the other people who have spent decades working on the problem doesn't make the problem dissolve, but it is especially irritating when the incentive of the loudest people doing so is in the pockets of the shareholders they are indebted to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 expli…
I swear there's a personality type that simply can't resist injecting their politics into unrelated conversations. It's truly fascinating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
(it's in the environment around us and other people's brains.)
Obviously you can construct something with human level creativity, it just takes two people and nine months.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As I understand it, generative AI is a sort of average machine, in that if you ask it for a picture of a dog, it’ll give you the most average result for the prompt, model and whatever randomness there is in the system. "Generative AI" isn't a single technology. Text and image generation don't actually work the same way (have the same model architecture), which frankly makes it absurd we invented them both at the sa…
AIUI diffusion models of images are trained to make a noisy image into an image without noise (reverse diffusion). Then when an image is required, the system starts with white noise, and maybe a prompt, and then iteratively performs reverse diffusion - guided by the prompt - to produce a final image. You can enhance an image by [forward] diffusing it, then feeding it to the NN created to perform the reverse diffusion…