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

Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

stockperformer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 230 posts

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#201

Post by wilimitis »

Kuinox wrote: post #76
wilimitis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

> You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further. I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines". You are the one who made this claim: > That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support…

You are literally a troll.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#202

Post by wilimitis »

vidarh wrote: post #93
wilimitis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it can't. And you're mistaken unfortunately - it is extremely difficult to prove a negative, as most people trained in philosophy intimately understand. For instance, "prove God is NOT real". You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further.

Proving that we can't reliably simulate human brains only requires a single example of a signal emanating from anywhere in any brain that can not be traced to a cause via known physics. Proving that we can reliably simulate human brains requires showing that nowhere in any human brains does such signals ever emanate. We can get close if we one day have the capacity to run a simulated brain for long enough to show it…

If we can infinitely reach things untraceable to known physics then I don't see how it could ever be proven that we could perfectly simulate human brains, but for the sake of the argument: what resolution do we care to simulate the brain at? Technically speaking, a 1990's chatbot simulates the human brain to some non-zero resolution.

My point is that to make the claim "human creativity" can be simulated surely would have the burden.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#203

Post by wilimitis »

satvikpendem wrote: post #198
wilimitis wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine. And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are interested in is not just "permutation", there is clearly a human component. I'm trying to show you that you are falling into the reverse of the AI effect by assuming that permutation is creativity.

It doesn't seem like you can even define creativity in the first place for any of us to even attempt to answer your supposed point that flew over everyone's heads.

I have defined it in your other comment, relax dude. No need to jump threads because you're emotional.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#204

Post by wilimitis »

vidarh wrote: post #98
wilimitis wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable .

It's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated. It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.

Let's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic.

The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstraction and shattering previous understanding of the fields. Often, mathematicians achieve this with a "lightening bolt-like realization" that they do not attribute to systematic thinking.

Please reconsider whether systematizability should be so quickly assumed through napkin philosophy. If you want, prove with a topological map of the creative apparatus in the brain that it produces results in a systematic way. That would at least scratch the itch and get the conversation going somewhere interesting.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#205

Post by GaggiX »

wilimitis wrote: post #191
GaggiX wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where the concept of "consciousness" came from in the discussion but as I said in the first comment these models already empirically show intelligence and creativity, proving otherwise would be much more meaningful than aligning with the evidence.

Yeah I think my point flew over your head, which is fine. And you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity". As a professional artist I don't think you quite understand that the type of creativity we are interested in is not just "permutation", there is clearly a human component. I'm trying to show you that you are falling into the reverse of the AI effect by assuming that permutation is creativity.

>you're incorrect - you cannot "empirically prove creativity"

Do humans even have creativity at this point or do you require a formal proof even for that? Ahah

>As a professional artist

Now I understand where the friction against accepting that even machines show signs of creativity comes from, I imagine you're an illustrator, so the feeling of becoming obsolete is the bias against machines.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#206

Post by Kuinox »

wilimitis wrote: post #201
Kuinox wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You might be new to analytical thinking, and I would recommend diving a bit deeper into "burden of proof" type arguments before proceeding further. I guess my last response was too hard for you to understand since you respond with this. Perhaps you are new to things like "reading between the lines". You are the one who made this claim: > That is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support…

You are literally a troll.

No, you are so far up in your ivory tower, you started to use pseudo-science, and now accuse peoples of being a troll, it's easier to lie to yourself than face the reality.

You still didn't send any link to the evidence you were talking about.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#207

Post by vidarh »

wilimitis wrote: post #199
vidarh wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that the presence of anything in the brain which violates the laws of physics (necessary for the above claim to be false) is equivalent to Russells teapot, and absent extraordinary evidence it's a reasonable assumption to make that the brain adheres to known physics.

Adhering to physics does not necessarily imply that creativity is systematizable.

Yes, it does, because if the brain adheres to known physics it means the brain has the same limits on computability as any other universal turing machine, and while replicating the process can still be difficult, it can't be impossible.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#208

Post by vidarh »

wilimitis wrote: post #202
vidarh wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proving that we can't reliably simulate human brains only requires a single example of a signal emanating from anywhere in any brain that can not be traced to a cause via known physics. Proving that we can reliably simulate human brains requires showing that nowhere in any human brains does such signals ever emanate. We can get close if we one day have the capacity to run a simulated brain for long enough to show it…

If we can infinitely reach things untraceable to known physics then I don't see how it could ever be proven that we could perfectly simulate human brains, but for the sake of the argument: what resolution do we care to simulate the brain at? Technically speaking, a 1990's chatbot simulates the human brain to some non-zero resolution. My point is that to make the claim "human creativity" can be simulated surely would…

The extraordinary claim would be the claim that something that violates known physics is happening in the brain, and that claim is a necessary prerequisite for it to be impossible to replicate the processes of the brain. As such the burden is squarely on anyone suggesting they can't be replicated to show at the very minimum a plausible indication that there's unknown physics going on.

Just one measurement that doesn't fit would be enough to shift the burden. Absent that, any suggestion we can't is no more than a religious belief.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#209

Post by vidarh »

wilimitis wrote: post #204
vidarh wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated. It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.

Let's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic. The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstr…

There's no "napkin philosophy" here.

What you call "systematizability" is irrelevant. Only whether or not a function can be computed matter, and if a function can be computed by a brain restricted to known physics, there is no reasonable theory under which it can compute anything which can't be computed by any universal turing machine. Given the absence of even any real hypothesis for any category of functions which can't, it'd be an absolutely extraordinary claim to suggest such a function exist.

Where you'd get a Nobel in physics if you could show unknown physics in the brain, you'd secure a Nobel in mathematics if you could come up with a class of functions the brain can compute which can't be computed by a computer, because it'd fundamentally break basic assumptions in any number of subfields of both maths and computer science.

What you describe as "subverting itself" does not require anything as drastic. It merely requires thought processes unobservable by the person in question, and processes to complex to casually understand and/or randomness. Given a large proportion of people don't even have an inner voice they can "listen to" in order to observe their thought processes other than via outputs, and we know e.g. from split-brain experiments that the conscious part of human reasoning often outright invents knowledge and observation of thought processes, we have no reliable way of analysing the extent to which thinking is "systematic", and plenty of evidence to suggest we can not trust any such notion.

Re: Is AI killing the stock photo industry? A data perspective

#210

Post by moi2388 »

I sure hope so. I get that people like to take pictures, but paying for stock photos has always felt really bad. Thank god for AI.

Paying for something like wedding photos or art photos never felt bad for some reason. I think the work for photographers will really change the coming years

Post reply on HN