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

Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

billwadge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#71

Post by selestify »

kuramitropolis wrote: post #62
synapticpaint wrote: post #13

"Finally, a vital question is, how will this affect today’s working artists? Here the answer is not so optimistic." I have a different take on this. I think this technology will allow more people, not less, to make money as a living (so, professionally) in a visual arts related industry. So I'm broadening the field to include not just "artists" but "commercial art" as well (designers, commercial illustrators, video/f…

"Working artists" (lol) are gonna be just as subservient with or without 2D typewriters, because the "creative industries" are to art basically what porn is to sex. (Anglophones have this linguisic quirk where half of the time "art" is synonymous with "graphics", which to other languages sounds like trying to tie your shoelaces with one hand fused to your face.) Truth be told, I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-ass…

> while no AI-made thing has yet got me thinking anything other than "hey, cool tech?"

That’s just, like, your opinion man.

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#72

Post by shrimpx »

tomrod wrote: post #33
shrimpx wrote: post #16

It could affect commercial artist deeply, like game artists and commercial illustrators making logos and icons and whatnot. But it won't affect studio artists at all. Studio art is not about "the image", it's about the practice, physical qualities of the artifacts, and an ongoing evolution of the artist.

The subreddit for stablediffusion has several examples of high quality stitching of SD-generated images. If I am interpreting your vernacular of "studio artist" correctly, then yes, studio artists will be affected. Artists that produce a "real" medium like charcoal, sculpting, etc. aren't directly affected yet, but could be in the future. As always, there is a power law distribution when it comes to perceived value.…

I’m thinking about the “art world”. People who invest in art bet on the artist continuing to put out work, evolve a narrative, grow their brand. The art is important because of who made it. “I own a Matisse”. I don’t see how diffusion models can disrupt that world.

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#73

Post by dredmorbius »

On who or what benefits from generative AI (Dall-E, GPT3, etc.), I'm reminded both of Veblen and Warholl

Thorstein Veblen's The Engineers and the Price System, which looks at the relationships between art (engineering, in the original sense of the term), on the one hand and the nexus of management, ownership, and profits on the other.

Andy Warhol industrialised art. Or more accurately, applied 20th century production methods to art --- the practice of applying any specific age's best mass-production practices to the production of artworks long pre-dated him, look to, for example, Michelangelo's workshops churning out cultural affirmations for the newly-established Medici dynasty in renaissance Italy. In both cases, technical methods of production were applied to art.

Veblen asks qui bono. Warhol answers how. Both look to technology.

I'm being less coherent here than I'd like though I hope the gist of the issues I'm pointing at comes through.

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#74

Post by nonima »

kuramitropolis wrote: post #62
synapticpaint wrote: post #13

"Finally, a vital question is, how will this affect today’s working artists? Here the answer is not so optimistic." I have a different take on this. I think this technology will allow more people, not less, to make money as a living (so, professionally) in a visual arts related industry. So I'm broadening the field to include not just "artists" but "commercial art" as well (designers, commercial illustrators, video/f…

"Working artists" (lol) are gonna be just as subservient with or without 2D typewriters, because the "creative industries" are to art basically what porn is to sex. (Anglophones have this linguisic quirk where half of the time "art" is synonymous with "graphics", which to other languages sounds like trying to tie your shoelaces with one hand fused to your face.) Truth be told, I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-ass…

>I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-assisted work that provokes any internal experience other than thinking "hey, cool pixels/sounds/sentences/whatever"

Maybe because you knew it was AI generated before you looked at it?

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#75

Post by ativzzz »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #65
sdenton4 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While horses don't consume fossil fuels, they also don't solve the problem of transoceanic flight. Yet for some reason every discussion of airplane design ends up dominated by a vocal contingent of buggy whip salesmen.

Turns out, we don't need transoceanic flight; we can put horses on stirrups, and have an elegant system of clockwork to allow them to power a boat. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-past...

Carmack or someone said that all of the pieces needed for AGI are already solved, it's just a matter of someone scouring through 40+ years of AI research and finding the right papers/techniques and putting the concepts together

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#77

Post by Existenceblinks »

I'm like an old man yelling at ML. I lost interested in AI since ML was introduced. A*, Simulated Annealing, Minimax, Propositional Logic are not cool anymore. I feel quite obsoleted in this field. Probably because the need to make money, the businesses involving AI are still niche, jobs are a few. ML based is getting out of niche, Generative AI is mass now. But there's still a few business needs, I hope it would pass the stage of gimmick vibe to being a platform to build on top.

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#78

Post by kuramitropolis »

nonima wrote: post #74
kuramitropolis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Working artists" (lol) are gonna be just as subservient with or without 2D typewriters, because the "creative industries" are to art basically what porn is to sex. (Anglophones have this linguisic quirk where half of the time "art" is synonymous with "graphics", which to other languages sounds like trying to tie your shoelaces with one hand fused to your face.) Truth be told, I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-ass…

>I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-assisted work that provokes any internal experience other than thinking "hey, cool pixels/sounds/sentences/whatever" Maybe because you knew it was AI generated before you looked at it?

Or because I knew it was AI generated when I looked at it. Either way, that shouldn't be the differentiator.

An artwork is judged by how it exists within the totality of the context. We can consider "art" in the broadest sense, as "artifice" - and from that standpoint the algos themselves can be seen as staggering works of art in their own right. But on the other hand if we view the algos strictly as tools, and only consider individual pieces of content that are created through them, so far it's been only "meh" with a very occasional "hmm".

A similar example is the audio gear scene. There are many electromusical devices that are true works of art, worth of historical study even - then someone picks em up and starts by making bleeps and bloops that may have some novelty value but don't create a lasting impression.

I try to keep an open mind - even Facebook can be seen as AI-facilitated performance art evoking a profound feeling of dread, but that's a much broader context.

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#79

Post by kuramitropolis »

selestify wrote: post #71
kuramitropolis wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Working artists" (lol) are gonna be just as subservient with or without 2D typewriters, because the "creative industries" are to art basically what porn is to sex. (Anglophones have this linguisic quirk where half of the time "art" is synonymous with "graphics", which to other languages sounds like trying to tie your shoelaces with one hand fused to your face.) Truth be told, I'm yet to see an AI-generated or AI-ass…

> while no AI-made thing has yet got me thinking anything other than "hey, cool tech?" That’s just, like, your opinion man.

That's exactly what it is. Show me some mind-blowing AI art :-)

Re: Good Old Fashioned AI is dead, long live New-Fangled AI

#80

Post by pharmakom »

triska wrote: post #2

The "new-fangled" AI, as the article calls it, is often useful when the stakes are low, and you can accept mistakes in outcomes. Examples of such applications are: trying to determine which of your friends occur in a photo, which movies a subscriber may be interested in, or which action could lead to victory in a computer game. Getting a rough translation of a newspaper entry, as mentioned in the article, is also a g…

I agree with your broad point however I think the proof example is off.

Finding a proof is the hard part. Verifying a proof is the easier part. So the AI could search for likely proofs and we can use other mechanisms to reliably verify them. This doesn’t require high accuracy in the search stage to be reliable overall.

Post reply on HN