ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool” • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by zirgs » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 7:02 PM UTC

doublerabbit wrote: post #173

donkeyd wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I did edit my post, but case still stands. > Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs. Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now? Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet. Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a tra…

> But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work;

I don't see why it is a problem. Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable.

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

#222

Post by ryathal » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 7:29 PM UTC

thordenmark wrote: post #138

Gigachad wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

That's my profession you're talking about. Many of my colleagues are freaked out about losing their jobs, they've spent decades honing their craft. I heard one art director describe the future of professional artists as "visual janitors" who will spend their time generating images and using their skills cleaning up the weird mistakes the AI makes.

That's like 90% or more of programming jobs is just making different APIs talk to each other. Just because you may not like doesn't make it bad.

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

#223

Post by BoorishBears » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 8:08 PM UTC

josefresco wrote: post #188

BoorishBears wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm still lost on how you reached the conclusion Bing Chat should do be able that? Does MS imply it can do that somewhere? Did you assume Whisper is from OpenAI => OpenAI is related to Microsoft => Bing Chat can transcribe MP3s? I'm really just lost on the thought process here.

Bing Chat is marketed as an AI assistant with a long list of capabilities beyond simply generating copy. It's not far fetched to think it could also transcribe audio. How is a user supposed to know that their AI assistant can and can't do without asking?

Not exactly the longest list: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/edge/features/bing-chat

Are you assuming people should know what their AI assistant can do without asking? Because I'm saying that a tool not doing some arbitrary task it never implied it could isn't surprising, I don't think anyone has proposed what you just said.

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

#224

Post by doublerabbit » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 8:40 PM UTC

zirgs wrote: post #221

doublerabbit wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did edit my post, but case still stands. > Just understanding all the knobs of generative AI takes a lot of time. We have more technological people in the field who can understand the knobs faster than we've ever had before. ML now has the ability to figure it's own knobs. Who knew about Linux in 1994, compared to now? Then: not a lot, now? Half the internet. Steam engines, very mechanical. Back then to drive a tra…

> But the skill of actually producing the image will turn in to menial work; I don't see why it is a problem. Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable.

> Most people don't even give a shit about how much effort you put into the work. They only care about the end result. Spending a lot of time on something doesn't make it more valuable.

If you gave me a hammer and chisel, you won't get an end result, you'd get something that looks like junk.

Compared to someone who put's time and effort in to mastering the skill, you will get an end result.

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

#225

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 11:50 PM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

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…

>> We want to further science.

Can you point to some scientific result(s) that you have produced?

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

#226

Post by YeGoblynQueenne » Thu, Aug 24, 2023, 11:56 PM UTC

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…

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

They learn from each other and then give back to each other, and to everyone else, by creating new works of art and inventing new styles, new techniques, new artf-orms.

What new styles, techniques or art-forms has Stable Diffusion created? How does generative AI contribute to the development and evolution of art? Can you explain?

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

#227

Post by RecycledEle » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 1:21 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #106

keyle wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm almost hoping for some enshittification. It's so depressing seeing how many skills and jobs have been instantly devalued. Take a look at the artist communities and it's total depression that peoples life passion and source of income has just been deleted over the course of a few months. We aren't talking about burger flipping and checkout scanners. This is a creative pursuit which takes years of grinding to becom…

If our countries destroy GPT / LLM AIs, we will fall behind the countries that have a clue.

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

#228

Post by fayalalebrun » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 5:30 AM UTC

Beefin wrote: post #97

vunderba wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generative image systems are notoriously poor at producing legible text without significant rerolls. You'd be far better off generating a textless logo and then layering text afterwards using PS, Photopea, Krita, etc,

why are they so bad at text?

These models work on a "latent" representation of the image, instead of working on the pixels directly. The model essentially learns a compression algorithm which allows it to process images most efficiently according to its loss function. The latent space might not represent certain types of shapes very well, as is the case with text characters.

Models like DeepFloyd IF work in pixel space, without learning a latent space. This means they can capture much more detail, but require more computational power. This is why these types of models usually rely on creating a smaller image and then using a separate model to upscale the image.

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

#229

Post by asu_thomas » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 11:54 AM UTC

sillysaurusx wrote: post #121

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even deleted! Actively stolen. No one has yet grappled with the reality that especially in the realm of generative art, these models do not work without a basis of absolutely stressful amounts of stolen artwork to train them. They simply do. Not. Exist. Without that baseline unethical contribution that tons of artists made without their knowledge and certainly without their consent. None of the major figures behi…

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…

> Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal.

You sure give the profit motive a lot of due for someone who claims to be above it.

Hard work and perseverance is a human instinct that is undermined by antisocial institutions like copyright, which has no precedent absent the barbaric mode of relations we call capitalism.

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

#230

Post by otagekki » Fri, Aug 25, 2023, 12:25 PM UTC

ethbr1 wrote: post #212

signatoremo wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are very different economic constraints and therefore require different solutions. This is often listed as the reason why it’s ok for human to learn from a prior art, but not for a LLM. The question is why? If the act of learning is stealing, then it is still stealing, no matter how small scale, and every single human on earth has committed it. The LLM vendor may benefit more than a mere mortal pupil because…

Law exists to benefit humans. Either directly (outlawing murder) or indirectly (providing for roads and bridges). And well (libraries) or poorly (modern copyright law). But fundamentally, law benefits people. Most modern economic perversions are a consequence of taking laws which benefit people (e.g. free speech) and overzealously applying them to non-people entities (e.g. corporations). So "why [is it] ok for [a] hu…

> Because a human has fundamental output limitations (parallel capacity, time, lifespan) and a machine does not.

Industrialization as we know it would have never happened if we artificially limit progress, just so that people could still have jobs. I guess you could hold the same kind of argument for the copists, when printing became widespread; for horses before the automobile; or telephone operators before switches got automated. Guess what they have become now. Art made by humans can still exist although its output will be marginal compared to AI-generated art.

LLMs are not humans but are used by humans. In the end the beneficiary is still a human.