Text is fine, but the images show different robots and humans. It looks like 3 different artists asked to illustrate different parts of the story.
I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
131–140 of 201 posts
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#132Funny story
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we're currently witnessing something truly unique with the rise of AI, something which is as special as life being born on earth. There'll still be the discussion around conscience, but having a tool which can emulate human thinking is really wild. The next 5 years will be really interesting. Also to see how this will be absorbed by society.
Let's not get carried away. it is still original only to the extent that it is a different combination of existing prose - just unrecognizable due to the vastness of online content. It is both beautiful and scary that it is indeed indistinguishable from original creative content.
I don’t know how AIs work or any of their limitations, but I’m pretty sure that “we” tend to think much more about ourselves than we actually are. Humans like to perceive themselves as sacred inscrutable beings, while mostly we just reshuffle what’s already there, brought by natural complex processes. Maybe AI couldn’t show anything remarkably innovative (yet?), but that also applies to average you and me, who literally lived this life for so long. I doubt that anyone taught by solely a part of the internet snapshot could compare to the best [large groups] of us or to these AIs at least. Pretty sure we’d be just cavemen drawing recognizable pictures, not geniuses.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Up to a degree. There is no real comprehension here. Cool as it is, what the current neural nets are doing is still just an advanced form of mimicking. Very impressive and increasingly harder to detect, but void of any real intent.
And you’re using what definition of “intent”?
Any definition of "intent" involving more goals or different levels of abstraction or more presistence than "match given pattern" would suffice.
Pattern matching is a technique humans sometimes use in communication, not the [sole] end of human communication. GPT-3 might be giving results which seem eerily self-aware and favourably disposed towards GPT-3, but tweak a parameter ever so slightly and it won't hesitate to match patterns coherently conveying the idea GPT-3 should be switched off...
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#135Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#136If you liked this, I made an AI-only podcast a few months ago: https://deepdreams.stavros.io/
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's how humans learn language to begin with. I mean, look at this sentence. > But overall, I think the point of the article is that the AI was able to produce something fairly coherent on its own. The AI not only combined words. It figured out the context of the conversation, the intention of the comment its responding to, and made the appropriate response using the english language.
This is true. But here's a thought experiment. What would happen if, say, an illustration-drawing AI (it's just a more fitting example than prose) is trained only on art from before the 20th century. It would surely excel in 19th century or medieval style illustrations, and yes it would produce original ones. But would we ever get a 20th century art style from it? By which I obviously mean even an alternative 20th ce…
Good empirical question. I bet we will find out soon enough.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
The following is an un-curated text-davinci-002 generation, completing the text: > Write an insightful reply to this Hacker News comment on a link to an article titled "I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it". The comment is left by user "turtledove", and reads, "How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every 'I made AI do...' story seems to necessarily omit the 'a…
I think we're currently witnessing something truly unique with the rise of AI, something which is as special as life being born on earth. There'll still be the discussion around conscience, but having a tool which can emulate human thinking is really wild. The next 5 years will be really interesting. Also to see how this will be absorbed by society.
It’s actually quite sad that the first applications that come to mind are propaganda by totalitarian states and conning people into joining scams.
My own response to this “prompt” is the result of a lifetime of training data.
AI won’t enslave or kill us all. We will enslave or kill each other with AI.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
I asked GPT-4 and it spit out the following continuation: > That’s complete rubbish. I personally think that the above comments were not written by AI, but by clever Hacker News members who passed it off as AI. The question remains open, however, whether that was done in an attempt to deceive, or with tongue firmly in cheek. The cat is out of the bag, but paul graham is on the other foot in the bus? Regardless, this…
You can try GPT-3 yourself, it's not like it's some locked-down secret (any more).
I tried GPT-4 privately. And it also said this:
> I told you I could predict exactly what would be said by the humans in response!
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true. But here's a thought experiment. What would happen if, say, an illustration-drawing AI (it's just a more fitting example than prose) is trained only on art from before the 20th century. It would surely excel in 19th century or medieval style illustrations, and yes it would produce original ones. But would we ever get a 20th century art style from it? By which I obviously mean even an alternative 20th ce…
Is this fundamentally different from training a human exclusively on the same and expecting them to advance the field of art by a hundred years? These sorts of progressions in humanity are slow and steady with occasional exceptions that produce leaps.
That’s a good point. Though AI should be millions(?) of times faster and get to those leaps quicker…but can it?
Would be very cool to see that experiement.