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

601–610 of 927 posts

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

#601

Post by hackable_sand »

ars wrote: post #522
kazinator wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New rule: you get to keep your belongings for 20 years and that's it. Then they are taken away. Every dollar you made twenty or more years ago, every asset you acquired, gone. That oughtta be enough to incentivize people to work and build their wealth. Anything more than that is unnecessary.

Intellectual property does not belong to you. The entire concept of "owning" intellectual property is a very recent thing. So how about we go back to how it used to be and just remove this entire concept. You can own things you can't own an idea.

I disagree that you can own things, but I certainly concede IP as a good starting point.

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

#602

Post by IanCal »

KronisLV wrote: post #551

I think the cat is out of the bag when it comes to generative AI, the same way how various LLMs for programming have been trained even on codebases that they had no business using, yet nobody hasn’t and won’t stop them. It’s the same as what’s going to happen with deepfakes and such, as the technology inevitably gets better. > Hayao Miyazaki’s Japanese animation company, Studio Ghibli, produces beautiful and famously…

Fundamentally I think this comes down to answering the question of "why are you creating this?".

There are many valid answers.

Maybe you want to create it to tell a story, and you have an overflowing list of stories you're desperate to tell. The animation may be a means to an end, and tools that help you get there sooner mean telling more stories.

Maybe you're pretty good at making things people like and you're in it for the money. That's fine, there are worse ways to provide for your family than making things people enjoy but aren't a deep thing for you.

Maybe you're in it because you love the act of creating it. Selling it is almost incidental, and the joy you get from it comes down to spending huge amounts of time obsessing over tiny details. If you had a source of income and nobody ever saw your creations, you'd still be there making them.

These are all valid in my mind, and suggest different reasons to use or not to use tools. Same as many walks of life.

I'd get the weeds gone in my front lawn quickly if I paid someone to do it, but I quite enjoy pottering around on a sunny day pulling them up and looking back at the end to see what I've achieved. I bake worse bread than I could buy, and could buy more and better bread I'm sure if I used the time to do contracting instead. But I enjoy it.

On the other hand, there are things I just want done and so use tools or get others to do it for me.

One positive view of AI tools is that it widens the group of people who are able to achieve a particular quality, so it opens up the door for people who want to tell the story or build the app or whatever.

A negative side is the economics where it may be beneficial to have a worse result just because it's so much cheaper.

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

#603

Post by M95D »

zipmapfoldright wrote: post #574
M95D wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a very clear difference between a cheap animation and Ghibli. Anyone can see it. In the first case, there's only one static image for an entire scene, scrolled and zoomed, and if they feel generous, there would be an overlay with another static image that slides over the first at a constant speed and direction. It feels dead. In the second case, each frame is different. There's chaotic motions such as wind and t…

anyone _can_ see it, but _most_ people don't (and don't care) To be clear, I am not saying it's not valuable, only that to the vast majority, it's not.

Who cares if it's valuable for the majority? What do you think this is? Stock market for slop?

This is art.

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

#604

Post by neomantra »

> Maybe Studio Ghibli making it through the seemingly deterministic GPT guardrails was an OpenAI slip up, a mistake,

The author is so generous... but Sam Altman literally has a Ghibli-fied Social profile and in response to all this said OpenAI chooses its demos very carefully. His primary concern is that Ghibli-fying prompts are over-consuming their GPU resources, degrading the service by preventing other ChatGPT tasks.

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

#605

Post by soneca »

zipmapfoldright wrote: post #596
soneca wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if really great stuff are always for a minority. You have to have listened a lot of classical music to notice a great interpretation of Mozart from a good one. To realize how great was a chess move, how magical was a soccer play, how deep was the writing of a philosopher. Not only for stuff that requires previous effort, but also the subjectiveness of art. Picasso will be really moving for a minority of peop…

I think of a lot of thing in terms of distributions, and I think the how-much-people-value-quality distribution is not that much different. On the right side, you have the minority of connoisseurs. And on the left, there is a minority who really don't care at all. And then the middle majority who can tell bad from good, but not good from great.

Yep, and what if good things only exist because they were created by and for those who can tell good from great.

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

#606

Post by codedokode »

chii wrote: post #430
codedokode wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root problem is that the model reproduces Indiana Jones instead of creating a new character. This contradicts the statement that the model "learns" and "creates" like a human artist and not merely copies; obviously a human artist would not plagiarize when asked to draw a character.

> the model reproduces Indiana Jones the model isn't the one infringing. It's the end user inputting the prompt. The model itself is not a derivative work, in the same way that an artist and photoshop aren't a derivative work when they reproduce indiana jones's likeness.

The end user didn't ask for Indiana Jones though.

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

#607

Post by lupusreal »

johanvts wrote: post #570
jl6 wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are approximately zero people who decide they'll create something if they're protected for 95 years after their death but won't if it's 94 years. I’m sure you’re right for individual authors who are driven by a creative spark, but for, say, movies made by large studios, the length of copyright is directly tied to the value of the movie as an asset. If that asset generates revenue for 120 years, then it’s slig…

For movies in particular the tail is very thin. Only very few 50 year old movies are ever watched. Was any commercial movie ever financed without a view to making a profit in the box office/initial release?

With books it's even worse. Movies might get a trickle of revenue from TV licensing but once a book is out of print (which usually happens very quickly, and most never go into print again), that's it. No more revenue from that book, it continues to circulate in libraries and used bookstores but the author and publisher gets nothing from that.

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

#608

Post by IanCal »

9dev wrote: post #470
fluidcruft wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But... the prompt neither forbade Indiana Jones nor did it describe something that excluded Indiana Jones. If we were playing Charades, just about anyone would have guessed you were describing Indiana Jones. If you gave a street artist the same prompt, you'd probably get something similar unless you specified something like "... but something different than Indiana Jones".

And… that is called overfitting. If you show the model values for y, but they are 2 in 99% of all cases, it’s likely going to yield 2 when asked about the value of y, even if the prompt didn’t specify or forbid 2 specifically.

> If you show the model values for y, but they are 2 in 99% of all cases, it’s likely going to yield 2 when asked about the value of y

That's not overfitting. That's either just correct or underfitting (if we say it's never returning anything but 2)!

Overfitting is where the model matches the training data too closely and has inferred a complex relationship using too many variables where there is really just noise.

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

#609

Post by codedokode »

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".

There is liberally licensed content like creative commons.

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

#610

Post by mjburgess »

nearbuy wrote: post #455
flessner wrote: post #384

Everyone is talking about theft - I get it, but there's a more subtler point being made here. Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new. Everything is simply a blend of prior work. I am not saying that this doesn't have economic value, but it means these AI models are closer to lossy compression algorithms than they are to AGI. The following quote by Sam Altman from about 5 years ago is intere…

> Current generation of AI models can't think of anything truly new. How could you possibly know this? Is this falsifiable? Is there anything we could ask it to draw where you wouldn't just claim it must be copying some image in its training data?

Novelty in one medium arises from novelty in others, shifts to the external environment.

We got brass bands with brass instruments, synth music from synths.

We know therefore, necessarily, that they can be nothing novel from an LLM -- it has no live access to novel developments in the broader environment. If synths were invented after its training, it could never produce synth music (and so on).

The claim here is trivially falsifiable, and so obviously so that credulous fans of this technology bake it in to their misunderstanding of novelty itself: have an LLM produce content on developments which had yet to take place at the time of its training. It obviously cannot do this.

Yet an artist which paints with a new kind of black pigment can, trivially so.

Post reply on HN