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

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

theaiunderwriter.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

581–590 of 927 posts

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#581

Post by whywhywhywhy »

ramraj07 wrote: post #439
MgB2 wrote: post #30

Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input? I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new. In the end, other than for co…

So I train a model to say y=2, and then I ask the model to guess the value of y and it says 2, and you call that overfitting? Overfitting is if you didn't exactly describe Indiana Jones and then it still gave Indiana Jones.

What would most humans draw when you describe such a well known character by their iconic elements. Think if you deviated and acted a pedant about it people would think you're just trying to prove a point or being obnoxious.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#582

Post by darkwater »

dash2 wrote: post #520
darkwater wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nice thing about humans is that not every single human being read almost every content present on the Internet. So yeah, a certain group of people would draw or think of Indiana Jones with that prompt, but not everyone. Maybe we will have different models with different trainings/settings that permits this kind of freedom, although I doubt it will be the commercial ones.

I mean, did anyone here read the prompt and not think “Indiana Jones”?

Is HN the whole world? Isn't an AI model supposed to be global, since it has ingested the whole Internet?

How can you express, in term of AI training, ignoring the existence of something that's widely present in your training data set? if you ask the same question to a 18yo girl in rural Thailand, would she draw Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones? Maybe not. Or maybe she would.

But IMO an AI model must be able to provide a more generic (unbiased?) answer when the prompt wasn't specific enough.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#583

Post by whywhywhywhy »

jauntywundrkind wrote: post #45

Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad. Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "rando…

How is it different from fan art, which is legal.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#584

Post by AnthonyMouse »

noduerme wrote: post #477
djoldman wrote: post #332

I don't condone or endorse breaking any laws. That said, trademark laws like life of the author + 95 years are absolutely absurd. The ONLY reason to have any law prohibiting unlicensed copying of intangible property is to incentivize the creation of intangible property. The reasoning being that if you don't allow people to exclude 3rd party copying, then the primary party will assumedly not receive compensation for t…

You're conflating trademark with copyright. Regardless, it's not just copyright laws that are at issue here. This is reproducing human likenesses - like Harrison Ford's - and integrating them into new works. So if I want to make an ad for a soap company, and I get an AI to reproduce a likeness of Harrison Ford, does that mean I can use that likeness in my soap commercials without paying him? I can imagine any court a…

> This is reproducing human likenesses - like Harrison Ford's - and integrating them into new works.

The thing is though, there is also a human requesting that. The prompt was chosen specifically to get that result on purpose.

The corporate systems are trying to prevent this, but if you use any of the local models, you don't even have to be coy. Ask it for "photo of Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones" and what do you expect? That's what it's supposed to do. It does what you tell it to do. If you turn your steering wheel to the left, the car goes to the left. It's just a machine. The driver is the one choosing where to go.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#585

Post by m000 »

grotorea wrote: post #200
tshaddox wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idk, a couple of the examples might be generic enough that you wouldn't expect a very specific movie character. But most of the prompts make it extremely clear which movie character you would expect to see, and I would argue that the chat bot is working as expected by providing that.

Even if I'm thinking of an Indiana Jones-like character doesn't mean I want literally Indiana Jones. If I wanted Indiana Jones I could just grab a scene from the movie.

Good luck grabbing that Ghibli movie scene, where Indiana Jones arm-wrestles Lara Croft in a dive-bar, with Brian Flanagan serving a cocktail to Allan Quatermain in the background.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#586

Post by mrweasel »

theshrike79 wrote: post #474
burnished wrote: post #25

Oooh those guardrails make me angry. I get why they are there (dont poke the bear) but it doesn't make me overlook the self serving hypocrisy involved. Though I am also generally opposed to the notion of intellectual property whatsoever on the basis that it doesn't seem to serve its intended purpose and what good could be salvaged from its various systems can already be well represented with other existing legal conc…

It's not just the guardrails, but the ham-fisted implementation. Grok is supposed to be "uncensored", but there are very specific words you just can't use when asking it to generate images. It'll just flat out refuse or give an error message during generation. But, again, if you go in a roundabout way and avoid the specific terms you can still get what you want. So why bother? Is it about not wanting bad PR or avoidi…

The implementation is what gets to me too. Fair enough that a company doesn't want their LLM used in a certain way. That's their choice, even if it's just to avoid getting sued.

How they then go about implementing those guardrails is pretty telling about their understand and control over what they've build and their line of thinking. Clearly, at no point before releasing their LLMs onto the world did anyone stop and ask: Hey, how do we deal with these things generating unwanted content?

Resorting to blocking certain terms in the prompts is like searching for keywords in spam emails. "Hey Jim, I got another spam email from that Chinese tire place" - "No worry boss, I've configured the mail server to just delete any email containing the words China or tire".

Some journalist should go to a few of these AI companies and start asking questions about the long term effectiveness and viability of just blocking keywords in prompts.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#587

Post by g0db1t »

barrkel wrote: post #557
jl6 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The success that we can now measure through hindsight wasn’t assured at the time of greenlighting the film. They took a huge gamble: https://variety.com/2021/film/news/lord-of-the-rings-peter-j... It would have been an even bigger gamble if they weren’t able to bank on any long term revenue (I’m certain Netflix continues to pay for the rights to stream the trilogy after 2021).

This argument works against you. The probability of a long tail of revenue is even less likely than a major hit, so it necessarily has less weight in any decision to swing for the fences. Producers don't invest in movies for hypothetical revenues in 20 years time. If it doesn't pay off soon after release, it's written off as a loss. Revenues in 100 years time are completely irrelevant.

Yeah, we live in a world of "That's next quarters problem" is the de facto standard but on HN we regard the 120th year as the true icing on the cake of the pudding lol

How many movies did you see last year that is more than 10 or 20 years old? Or 50, for that matter?

Also, in what other industries are 100 year old designs/products/tech/standards/stuff relevant and hold up like the golden standard worth dying for?

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#588

Post by planb »

dvsfish wrote: post #418
Pet_Ant wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine. I hate how it is common to advance a position to just state a conclusion as if it were a fact. You keep repeating the same thing over and over until it seems like a concensus has been reached instead of an actual argument reasoned from first principle. This is no theft here. Any copyright would be flimsier than software patents. I love Studio Ghibli (including $500/seat f…

The engagement ring is a good example object, but I feel it serves the opposite argument better. If engagement rings were as ubiquitous and easy to generate as Ghibli images have become, they would lose their value very quickly -- not even just in the monetary sense, but the sentimental value across the market would crash for this particular trinket. It wouldn't be about picking the right one anymore, it would be fin…

>If I could print 30 rings a day, my partner wouldn't want any of them as a show of my undying love. Something more special and rare and thoughtful would have to take its place.

And now I think this serves the opposite argument better. Downloading some random ring from the internet would not show your undying love. Designing a custom ring just for your partner, even if it is made from plastic, and even if you use AI as a tool in the process, is where the value is generated.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#589

Post by sksrbWgbfK »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #512
codedokode wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can stable diffusion be created without using copyrighted content? Maybe we should have some exemption for non-commercial research but definitely not for commercial exploitation or generating copyrighted images using open-source models.

Can an artist be created without using copyrighted content? Raise a child without movies, books, songs or the internet, see how much they contribute to "popular culture".

Neglect is illegal and I don't understand your point.

Re: An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

#590

Post by red75prime »

vkou wrote: post #419
Lerc wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure if this is a problem with overfitting. I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details, it just seems that it's generating images from that knowledge in cases where that isn't appropriate. I wonder if it's a fine tuning issue where people have overly provided archetypes of the thing that they were training towards. That would be the fastest way for…

> I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details, ClosedAI doesn't seem to be OK with it, because they are explicitly censoring characters of more popular IPs. Presumably as a fig leaf against accusations of theft.

If you define feeding of copyrighted material into a non-human learning machine as theft, then sure. Anything that mitigates legal consequences will be a fig leaf.

The question is "should we define it as such?"

Post reply on HN