No post body was provided.
I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
71–80 of 201 posts
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#72How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every "I made AI do..." story seems to necessarily omit the "and I filtered out a LOT of rubbish before picking this one good example."
As someone's who's played with GPT-3 prompting a lot, I can tell you almost no curation would be needed to get this result. This output is pretty mundane — it's even written in the perfunctory "so there you have it" tone that GPT-3 uses by default, where it speaks like the task is mutually understood to be silly and it's doing the the bare minimum needed to prove it understands. GPT-3 will easily write bare-bones stories like this for just about any subject. It's much harder getting it to write long stories with coherent structure.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
That could be the job description of the editor of the New Yorker
New job title: Chief Editor, AI Content Bonus points for outsourcing that to AI.
AI is too complicated, it is too complex in order to build an algorithm that could be the machine for its own purposes.
Comment generated by hncynic.leod.org
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#74So who owns the copyright on this story and its illustrations. :)
This is like asking someone to write an AI that would be able to read a picture of a cube farm without a licence.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to say because even a model like GPT-3 is limited in its ability to generate a textual story that remains coherent over time. When you're talking about generating video, you need to have lots of story and visual details remaining coherent over a very long time horizon. Generally speaking, I think this is an area where deep neural networks are fairly weak and symbolic AI shines. It's much easier to program a…
Having a story remain coherent over time is not a prerequisite of Hollywood blockbusters.
Incoherency is not all bad, and choosing the subject carefully can be enough for the intrinsic weirdness of ai generation shine.
I.e. this batman short: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fn4ArRmzHhQ (ai story and human drawing) provide a spot on jocker
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#76How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every "I made AI do..." story seems to necessarily omit the "and I filtered out a LOT of rubbish before picking this one good example."
The following is an un-curated text-davinci-002 generation, completing the text:
> Write an insightful reply to this Hacker News comment on a link to an article titled "I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it". The comment is left by user "turtledove", and reads, "How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every 'I made AI do...' story seems to necessarily omit the 'and I filtered out a LOT of rubbish before picking this one good example.'"
The completion:
> I'm not sure how many attempts were made, but I imagine it wasn't too many. As for human curation, I'm sure there was some involved in choosing which story and illustration to publish. But overall, I think the point of the article is that the AI was able to produce something fairly coherent on its own.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#77But can it does it without the prompts? I'd be really impressed if you could have an AI spit out original story complete with plot.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#78How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every "I made AI do..." story seems to necessarily omit the "and I filtered out a LOT of rubbish before picking this one good example."
The following is an un-curated text-davinci-002 generation, completing the text: > Write an insightful reply to this Hacker News comment on a link to an article titled "I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it". The comment is left by user "turtledove", and reads, "How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every 'I made AI do...' story seems to necessarily omit the 'a…
This is really very impressive. How likely is it this is essentially one or more comments from HN memorised by the neural net, with some synonym usage? How do we know that it’s not just reposting partially disguised sentences written by a human author?
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#79I'm conflicted but interested in how all this plays out. Traditionally stories, music, art, dance were mediums for humans to express ideas/culture/transmit stories/history to other humans. When we get to a point where AI is able to generate an infinite stream of TikTok dances, jazz, film scripts, etc. It will be interesting to see how that affects society. When you remove the soul, what is/was the point of entertainm…
There will certainly be a lot of money to be had selling products and ideologies to the mass consumer via cheap mass-generated hyper-targeted content. That's not too far of a leap from Marvel/Star Wars where 'The Customer Is Always Right' and creative control is made by committees and focus groups.
But real art can survive. Just like art adjusted to photography or music adjusted to recordings, artists will find a way. In the scenario where current art is truly indistinguishable from AI-generated art, artists of the future could e.g. choose in-person forms of artistic expression which exclude AI by design, like live music, live painting, live storytelling, improv, etc.
Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
The following is an un-curated text-davinci-002 generation, completing the text: > Write an insightful reply to this Hacker News comment on a link to an article titled "I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it". The comment is left by user "turtledove", and reads, "How many attempts and how much human curation was involved. Every 'I made AI do...' story seems to necessarily omit the 'a…
This is really very impressive. How likely is it this is essentially one or more comments from HN memorised by the neural net, with some synonym usage? How do we know that it’s not just reposting partially disguised sentences written by a human author?
It is not as if every comment here is a gem of wholly original storytelling. For the most part we’re all just regurgitating other people’s sentences.
Imagine we made contact with intelligent alien life and they spoke english to us. Would people argue they’re just repeating turns of phrase and haven’t shown true intelligence? I feel like we are setting the bar for AI too high. Current AI systems are clearly intelligent.