151–160 of 187 posts
Getting closer every day. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76900-1
>Our findings suggest that participants employed shared yet flawed heuristics to differentiate AI from human poetry: the simplicity of AI-generated poems may be easier for non-experts to understand, leading them to prefer AI-generated poetry and misinterpret the complexity of human poems as incoherence generated by AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk. LLMs may effectively emulate human creativity up to a point, but in the end they are writing literally the most predictable response. They don’t start with an emotion, a vision, and then devise creative ways to bring the viewer into that world. They don’t emotion-test hundreds of ideas to find the most effective way to give the viewer/reader a visceral sense of living that moment. While they can read sentiment,…
>There is a reason why AI output is abrasive to read. It is literally written with no consideration given to the reader. >No model of mind of the effect that it will have on the receiver, no interesting and unusual prosaic twists to capture your attention or spur your imagination…. Just a soulless, predictable stream of simulated thoughts that remarkably often turns out to be useful, if uninspiring. An LLM can produc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd bet that in two years you could do something equivalent to that "make me a new episode" use case. I already see really convincing deep fakes on Facebook, etc., it's not an impossible problem anymore, it's just a matter of increasing their quality.
Convincing deepfakes is a strong word. There are also people out there who think modern CG looks good, too. There will always be people who are ultra-sensitive to things like this. So convincing might take 2x as long for some vs others.
The corridor crew noticed something about AI generated pictures. They all seem to have similar lighting and chroma. So they have this 'look' to them (once you see it). That is because the pictures start off as a random noise picture and coalesce into a picture. So the lighting stays the same on just about every pixel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, art is a product, particularly in the context of this conversation about AI. Very little is the unique expression of a singular consciousness. Art being "good" is subjective and the audience is the source of that valuation.
Art is only a product if you have a repugnantly rapacious worldview.
The view of art as not intentionally for others, and with concern for their appreciation, might actually be more off-putting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong claims. Have we seen any other form of communication and/or artistic expression become totally automated? Even 2d art hasn’t been automated by image generation models. It’s just another tool in the bag.
We haven't even automated live music performances, which are actually bigger business than they were before the existence of recorded music
I can’t imagine going to a “live” concert to watch a machine generate music, unless significant work went in to the light show. Defeats the purpose
At that point I’m there for the lights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
art is essentially human, warts n all, how can something non-human make human art.
A brush makes human art
an autonomic system making inferences based on a dataset isn't capturing a feeling, it's just regurgitating a statistical average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A brush makes human art
because its held by a human. an autonomic system making inferences based on a dataset isn't capturing a feeling, it's just regurgitating a statistical average.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why should I bother to read something you didn't bother to write? The answer seems obvious: because it's better. Obviously it isn't better now . But it's easy to imagine a day in the not-too-distant future where AI can shit out 1000 hours of content that is better in every way than what humans create. And it will even feel more human than the human made stuff because the AI will have learned that we like that. What…
it's impossible to answer to this line of reasoning without wasting time so I'll just start right away with the ad hominem. you just don't like art, you don't understand it and you want slop, admit it and don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset
Except Bob. Bob looks at the imagery and, thanks to his up to date technical knowledge, recognizes that the work may be generated. So Bob rejects the imagery, he refuses to allow it to affect him at all. He insults it, calls it slop, insists it cannot be art, insults Alice, and insults the people who were moved by Alice's work.
If one of these two people "doesn't like art" and "doesn't understand it," which one is it more likely to be: the one who is creating, or the one who is criticizing the creation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would if that changes for more personal communication? If someone didn’t write something, I’m not sure I have much interest in talking to them about it.
Do you value that they wrote it, or that it's their opinion? Hypothetically, if there was a system to take one's thoughts on a topic and generate text that accurately represents them, would you be interested in reading it if someone sent you their thoughts?
This isn't just limited to AI though. As an example, I hate email generally, it feels like the land where people dump out words without trying to carefully say anything. It almost always requires lots of clarification later on. It's the land of careless communication.
I often wish there was an honest flag on emails that indicated "effort put into this email" so I could put the requisite effort into reading it ;). I don't want to spend a lot of time on something of the person creating it didn't spend much time on. On the other hand if someone did put a lot of effort into the content, I want to give them an appropriate amount of attention.
With AI it seems like the sheer volume of content could be even larger because of how little time it costs the sender. Thus eating up even more of the receiver's time.