How did he use dall-e 2?
I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
171–180 of 201 posts
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
[GPT-3 Prompt] Humans were so far away from meeting their own potential when they invented religion, which distracted and headed them off on a long terrible violent intellectually dishonest wild goose chase in the opposite direction, from which they still haven't recovered. Here is their story: [GPT-3 Output] One day, a long time ago, a bunch of cavemen got together and decided that, since they didn't understand the…
I'm positive I have heard the story in the first completion before, just phrased differently. GPT-3 is perhaps not plagiarizing the exact phrasings here, but it is regurgitating someone else's explanation for how religion and society evolved. "They also decided that this god must be interested in them, since they were the only beings in the world that they knew about. They decided that this god must have given them i…
Feels a bit like Terry Pratchett / Douglas Adams to me.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#173>I’m not afraid of Artificial Intelligence anymore, because I know that they can be just as good of friends as anyone else.
This is pretty sus coming from an AI lol
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#174Earlier 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…
You can turn that around - why didn't 19th century painters use 20th century styles?
Art evolved in relation to the social and historical circumstances. At the very least you would need to give all the context of the 20th century beforehand (except for the art itself).
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#175Can you maybe write a tutorial on how you go about doing this ?
I'm more interested in learning how all the pieces work together.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generation of a "style", even for humans, requires a feedback loop where what was created is incorporated, mimicked, and expanded upon. An AI whose training model only rewarded images that mimicked 19th-century art would never develop a "style" outside of that. But if you had a model that was trained on 19th-century art, and then provided a critic network that rewarded 20th-century art (as well as 19th), and re-train…
I believe the point of the original comment is to make AI that comes up with its own original style, not one that "reinvents" an already existing style after first being trained on a different already existing style.
Painters get feedback from the public. Would the AI get the same signals? Then it would be able to evolve new styles based on that.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generation of a "style", even for humans, requires a feedback loop where what was created is incorporated, mimicked, and expanded upon. An AI whose training model only rewarded images that mimicked 19th-century art would never develop a "style" outside of that. But if you had a model that was trained on 19th-century art, and then provided a critic network that rewarded 20th-century art (as well as 19th), and re-train…
And it's this expansion aspect that seems crucial to me. Endless rehashing of inputs can lead to seemingly creative outcomes, but that doesn't mean any actual expansion occurs. New works are created/discovered, but are new underlying principles discovered?
Humans do the same - recombine the same limited vocabulary in new ways to address new goals. We rarely invent original meanings that could not have been expressed before.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#178I made an AI write a podcast transcript then I made another AI read it :D https://soundcloud.com/jn2022/lexman-artificial-podcast-epis...
How much of the scripts did you handwrite? Very impressive!
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#179Can you maybe write a tutorial on how you go about doing this ? I'm more interested in learning how all the pieces work together.
They used GPT-3 and DALL·E 2. For the latter, there's a waitlist on OpenAIs website. For GPT-3 they have an API available to developers and there are various apps which use it like ShortlyAI.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No you're wrong. It's literally creativity. Machine learning models literally work because they fill in gaps where the data doesn't exist. Any content generated by ML is very unlikely to be anything else other then original. Imagine linear regression. Then pick a random point on that line. How likely is it that that point on that trend line coincides with an actual data point? Very unlikely. ML is simply a multidimen…
I agree with what you say and I would add that humans benefit from embodiment. AIs can't experiment like us; we discovered sciences by investigating our complex environment, they have MuJoCo and ATARI. We're also a whole society, AIs are usually individuals in isolation. We benefit from evolution, not just from learning while AIs don't have dicks. It takes a whole branch of industry to make the chips they run on.
That doesn't mean AIs can't have robotic bodies or access complex simulations, they could also have a society or be integrated in ours, and evolutionary techniques could be part of that process. For example AlphaGo got a good enough environment and evolutionary selection of agents, and it topped human abilities very fast. It's only a matter of time until they can have all our advantages.