Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#191

Post by CodeSgt »

ethbr1 wrote: post #185
sillysaurusx wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh please. First of all, how do you steal an idea? We’re talking about pictures. Supposing that you buy into the theory that you can, copyright was created to further the arts and sciences; it’s in the US constitution. The point isn’t to control your work — it’s to live in a richer society. And it’s not even clear that training a model counts as infringement. Being able to recite a quote from a book is different than…

It is immoral to create a device, from the labors of someone, which is capable of replacing their labor, without compensating them. Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free. Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists. Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky a…

I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years.

We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period.

Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them into their own original work.

Yet, no one is arguing that Van Gogh’s descendants should be paid a small royalty anytime a variation of on of his painting is produced, or even just when a painting in the style of one of his is produced.

Were all visual artwork to disappear from the world and collective human memory today, then the first new pieces produced by artists would look dramatically different - and likely much worse - than they do today.

What AI is doing is no different. Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#192

Post by Zetice »

HWR_14 wrote: post #113
ATMLOTTOBEER wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is determined to see no value. Today I couldn’t find the mouse acceleration toggle in macOS, and google turned up a bunch of mediocre results I would have to sift through. ChatGPT just gave me the terminal command I was looking for immediately.

Or, I literally asked a factual question of Google (several times, although similar questions) and didn't get a bard generated response. Strange to read "Google searches aren't doing this for me" as "they are doing it for me and I don't like it"

As a student it’s useful if only because professors don’t freak out if you say you got your answer from Google, vs. saying you got it from ChatGPT.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#193

Post by ToucanLoucan »

CodeSgt wrote: post #191
ethbr1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is immoral to create a device, from the labors of someone, which is capable of replacing their labor, without compensating them. Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free. Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists. Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky a…

I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years. We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period. Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them…

> Perhaps faster and on a larger scale than how humans learn from one another, but principally it’s the same.

I like how you just tucked this at the end there without any introspection on what kind of a paradigm shift that is. If you wanted a "Van Gogh style painting," you'd contract with a painter who specialized in it, and no, his descendants don't get royalties from that (which is an interesting discussion to have, I'm not sure they should, but I haven't thought about it but anyway) but you are paying a human creative to exercise a vision you have, or, from another perspective, perhaps a person goes into creating these style of paintings to sell as a business. Again the idea of royalties isn't unreasonable here but I digress.

Now, with these generative art algorithms, you don't need a person to spend time turning your/their idea into art: you say "I want a picture of a cat in Van Gogh's style" and the machine will make you dozens, HUNDREDS if you want, basically as many as you can stomach before you tell it to stop, and it will do it (mostly) perfectly, at least close enough you can probably find what you're looking for pretty quickly.

Like, if you can't tell why that's a PROBLEM for working artists, I'm sorry but that's clearly motivated reasoning on your part.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#194

Post by aceazzameen »

keyle wrote: post #67
Someone1234 wrote: post #2

Although let's see if it is sustainable. I pay for ChatGPT Plus but most people aren't, and from what I've read they're losing money like crazy. We may wind up seeing this as the technical high point before the various competitors cut back on expensive hardware/energy usage for the free tier, and the quality of the responses takes a dive. This might sound a bit conspiratorial so apologies for that but back when the c…

I'm actually worried of the inevitable enshitification of Open AI. Right now, GPT 4 is great and I use it every day. I rely less and less on Google and save a ton of time. Google has gone downhill hard for a few years, thanks to all these silly blog engines like medium, substack and the like. I'm really worried and would like to 'freeze' GPT 4 as is, at least with the data up to Sep 2021, and for them to not change o…

I too hope Open AI will always have a version with frozen data up to Sept 2021. At the very least for historical purposes. I know the data will start to go stale and not have the newest most relevant information. But data after that date will start mixing with content created with the original data, making it more unreliable over time.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#195

Post by ethbr1 »

CodeSgt wrote: post #191
ethbr1 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is immoral to create a device, from the labors of someone, which is capable of replacing their labor, without compensating them. Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free. Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists. Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky a…

I disagree with you, simply for the fact that artists have been learning from one another for thousands of years. We can see a clear timeline of art and it’s progression throughout human history, and it’s often clear how a later work took inspiration from an earlier period. Art school teaches techniques and methods pioneered by earlier artists, for the express purpose of their students to know how to incorporate them…

Alike in method is not like in output, and it's output that matters.

A human takes ~4-20 years to become a good artist. They can then produce works at a single human rate.

A model takes ~30 days to become a good artist. It can then produce works at an effectively infinite rate, only bounded by how many GPUs and much electricity can be acquired.

These are very different economic constraints and therefore require different solutions.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#196

Post by ben_w »

zirgs wrote: post #164
kypro wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most depressing thing is talking to children about potential careers at the moment... My girlfriend have a couple of younger siblings, one of them loves art and draws endless – he really wants to design characters for cartoons and video games. The other loves programming and wants be a developer. I've always encouraged these passions of theirs, telling them if they work hard they can do the things they love as a…

AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce. And yes - it will make sense to physically draw stuff, because it's a much better way to tell the AI what to do. You can massage prompts all day and you will sti…

> AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon

"Not any time soon" in computer years is "not in the next nine months or so".

> Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce.

The original DALL•E was terrible. DALL•E 2 was 15 months later, and was good enough to be interesting. 15 months after DALL•2, out comes SDXL.

That it is still better to use a sketch than an ex-nihilo prompt: I agree, but it doesn't seem to support your claim "not going to replace artists" — if a talentless hack can wipe stains of Nacho cheese from their fingers into a vague humanoid shape with the same attention to anatomical correctness as a child with crayons, take a photo of the now un-recyclable waste, and get useful result when they ask an AI to turn in into "a wizard riding a motorcycle up the side of the Empire State Building"… then talented artists already have an economic problem.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#197

Post by ben_w »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #189
simonjgreen wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does a Human generate their ideas, styles, etc? We absorb everything we come in to contact with too.

A human doesn't exist in servers, work for free (well, minus utilities) 24 hours per day and work as long as you want on a project you've given it with zero input. If you can't appreciate the difference between an AI model and a person I think that says more about you than AI.

None of those differences really says anything about morality of having an AI do things, unless you want to argue that the AI suffer from their (mis)treatment.

People sometimes state that The Simpsons is now drawn in sweatshops somewhere in Asia. Assuming that's true, or at least that it's happened at least once for at least some cartoon, does it make any difference at all to the question of where the people directing them get their ideas from or how those workers learned to do their thing?

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#198

Post by Atropos »

donkeyd wrote: post #168
doublerabbit wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fed up of the line: AI is a tool and is not going to replace artists any time soon. Take a look at the VFX industry; it's starting to crumble. I'll wager within five-ten years, ML Generated Art will be churning out content of that an experienced artist is capable of. In seconds, compared to months, years it takes for an artist. And once we master the formula of emotion, it's game over. Stream AI/ML a real-life dr…

> I wager $50 five-ten years, that we'll be churning out content that an experienced artist is capable of. I wager $50 that 'artists' will still exist and that this becomes a tool for those artists if they just accept it. We all have phones that can make great photos, yet I still paid for someone to photograph my wedding, because they are much, much better than anyone with a phone. Just understanding all the knobs of…

"Replace" is difficult to define. Will there not be a single artist? Obviously wrong.

But possibly we have seen "peak" numbers in some professions? There are some exceptions, but in many modern professions, the numbers of professionals have only been increasing with GDP growth (e.g. quantity of lawyers/accountants/doctors).

I would guess there are more professional human translators today than there were in 1950. However, I think this is one profession that may "peak" at some point: For low-value texts, machine translation will be good enough, leading to a smaller pie of paid translation work, which can only sustain a smaller number of translators. The field will certainly stop growing and may decrease at some point. Anecdotal, but in the European Union institutions (https://www.politico.eu/article/translators-translation-euro...), it appears that we have already hit this "peak" and the future is gradual decline in the number of translators employed.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#199

Post by ben_w »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #162
schnitzelstoat wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We aren't even close to development work being automated away. Maybe art because it's often less critical. If your logo looks a bit goofy because it's AI-generated it doesn't matter. If your production server crashes because of a problem in your AI-generated code, it does.

>If your logo looks a bit goofy because it's AI-generated it doesn't matter. So, you're evidently not a designer?

The biggest problem with logos IMO, which AI absolutely won't help with, is that everyone tries to stand out by copying everyone else's design.

Re: ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

#200

Post by shagie »

lakomen wrote: post #29

I'd like to have LawGPT, where it reads all laws of a certain country, and I can ask it things like, "what are my options when the neighbors tree crosses over into my property?"

There was an example project a bit ago... https://www.chatpdf.com - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35626312 and also https://askyourpdf.com https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35430409

I don't recall which one it was (or if it might have been another one) that had a rental contract as the example document. The interesting part (to me) was the ability to ask it questions like "can you bring a dog to a party" and have it answer and show the passages that restricted pets and parties.

Post reply on HN