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

111–120 of 137 posts

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#111

Post by AndrewKemendo »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #88
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

Then I believe that’s quite the feat of engineering and we should all rejoice in the birth of AGI

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#112

Post by grugagag »

krisoft wrote: post #87
grugagag wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#113

Post by iamacyborg »

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…

> categories such as tattoo design

It's wild that this is a thing when the tattoo artists job is literally to create the artwork for you

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#114

Post by MOARDONGZPLZ »

iamacyborg wrote: post #113
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…

> categories such as tattoo design It's wild that this is a thing when the tattoo artists job is literally to create the artwork for you

Isn’t it their job to put it on you? My understanding is many people bring in designs. That’s the easy part that is so replaceable, whereas needling someone’s skin is not strictly ai replaceable quite yet.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#115

Post by aenvoker »

birracerveza wrote: post #107
mattkevan wrote: post #41

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…

>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 to keep an historic perspective.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#116

Post by AndrewKemendo »

Eisenstein wrote: post #104
ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree wholeheartedly. As a photographer I am shocked to see other photographers who are AI proponents making the comparison to the beginning of the photography era. (Though it's usually the very bad photographers or those who haven't actually done any reading about the impact of photography on art who make this point) Art's one hope to avoid this parasitism is to move back into the realms of the purely physical, I…

The fact is that it is much like that, because no one then knew what was going to happen and it seemed to them like an existential threat. The mechanism of how it works or its relationship with our previous technology is irrelevant. The comparison is about everyone freaking out because no one knows how this is going to play out . But history has shown time and again that carving out a niche in art by using technology…

Which is precisely the point

The majority of people complaining are complaining that their “specialness” is being commodified

What actually happened was they commodified themselves and their work, in order to gat paid and maintain their position in the world as an “artist”

They are now pretending that that what they were doing had more value than it actually does simply because it takes skill and craft and they define themselves by it

Guess what, making metal fenders by hand takes a shit load of skill and craft, same with exterior plaster artists same with molding and crowning artistry - 100% of those kinds of workers were replaced perfectly by Machines.

You cannot replace demand for art qua art - because you are selling a moment in time of an artist expressing a fully felt emotional release. You can’t buy that because it cannot be created via money. It is a unique and temporal experience that can only be done by one person at one time in the world.

you can however, replace demand for art in service to commerce and it is a function of capitalism that that will be replaced because by function, it is in service of promoting a commercial behavior, not the expression of an artist in communicating themselves

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#117

Post by iamacyborg »

MOARDONGZPLZ wrote: post #114
iamacyborg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> categories such as tattoo design It's wild that this is a thing when the tattoo artists job is literally to create the artwork for you

Isn’t it their job to put it on you? My understanding is many people bring in designs. That’s the easy part that is so replaceable, whereas needling someone’s skin is not strictly ai replaceable quite yet.

It depends on the person buying the work I guess, but most tattoo artists that I know wouldn't be overly happy with being given an image and asked to just tattoo it.

They're artists after all, not artisans.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#118

Post by pbhjpbhj »

astrange wrote: post #67
mattkevan wrote: post #41

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…

> 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.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#119

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ninetyninenine wrote: post #80
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Copyrights only apply when there is copying; independent production is allowed. As it's tort (mostly!), you only have to prove they copied on balance of probability (in jurisdictions I'm familiar with), but you still have to show they copied.

Fwiw, copyright is named for "rights", legally allowed/restricted activities. "Copywrite" is the verb meaning to write content for a publication, content being referred to as "copy" in this context.

Re: AI doppelgänger experiment – Part 1: The training

#120

Post by pbhjpbhj »

spywaregorilla wrote: post #84
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Impressionism has scope. Most people can tell a [famous] Renoir from a Monet and would not think Renoir copied Monet (in general). The devil is in the detail, courts have too decide what is too close and what isn't, but it's very much 'I know it when I see it', I feel. Allowances to be made for distinctiveness.

I'm not a movie buff, I know a few films from Spielberg's oevre, but I've never seen anything that I thought was a copy of his style ... perhaps you have examples you feel are so close that 'a blind man on a horse' would see (sic) that they are copying Spielberg's style?

I like the change of tack though, would appreciate some more push back.

Post reply on HN