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

I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

tristrumtuttle.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 201 posts

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#81

Post by koonsolo »

dragonwriter wrote: post #27
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had practically unlimited entertainment for most purposes for at least the last couple of decades. There's far more e.g. TV being produced than anyone could watch in one lifetime.

> There's far more e.g. TV being produced than anyone could watch in one lifetime. But is there far more of what any particular person would want to watch being produced than they would want to watch? Does anyone in the mood to watch something ever accept a less-than-preferred substitute? If so, there is meaningful room for improvement in selection. (Not that I think AI is anywhere close to making a dent in it direct…

Imagine having 1 AI that is trained to recognize content you personally love. Then have another AI create the entertainment content, and improved by the 1st.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#82

Post by spullara »

randomsearch wrote: post #78
goodside wrote: post #76

Earlier 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?

I asked GPT-3 to respond, it said:

> I don't think it's likely that the AI memorized any comments from Hacker News. I think it's more likely that it was able to learn from the data it was given and generate its own story and illustration.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#83

Post by tablespoon »

turtledove wrote: post #54

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."

> 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."

Yeah. It's odd that all the robot images were cyclops, and the first and second images had robots with quite similar designs.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#84

Post by tablespoon »

tikkun wrote: post #2

The future of ai generated content and entertainment is going to be wild! How long before we have ~unlimited high quality entertainment? Before an AI can generate infinite episodes of your favorite show, podcast, comedian, and so on. Going to be an interesting thing to watch unfold.

> How long before we have ~unlimited high quality entertainment? Before an AI can generate infinite episodes of your favorite show, podcast, comedian, and so on.

> Going to be an interesting thing to watch unfold.

Not really. If it's actually successful, it will probably devolve into near total fragmentation.

So just imagine people more being isolated and lonely, with fewer points of connection. They used to entertain each other; then they consumed the same entertainment together; then they stopped sharing anything all, because it became so personalized.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#85

Post by qwertox »

goodside wrote: post #76
turtledove wrote: post #54

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 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…

I think we're currently witnessing something truly unique with the rise of AI, something which is as special as life being born on earth.

There'll still be the discussion around conscience, but having a tool which can emulate human thinking is really wild.

The next 5 years will be really interesting. Also to see how this will be absorbed by society.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#86

Post by k1t »

koonsolo wrote: post #81
dragonwriter wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's far more e.g. TV being produced than anyone could watch in one lifetime. But is there far more of what any particular person would want to watch being produced than they would want to watch? Does anyone in the mood to watch something ever accept a less-than-preferred substitute? If so, there is meaningful room for improvement in selection. (Not that I think AI is anywhere close to making a dent in it direct…

Imagine having 1 AI that is trained to recognize content you personally love. Then have another AI create the entertainment content, and improved by the 1st.

I'm pretty sure that's Netflix.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#87

Post by axiomdata316 »

qwertox wrote: post #85
goodside wrote: post #76

Earlier 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…

I think we're currently witnessing something truly unique with the rise of AI, something which is as special as life being born on earth. There'll still be the discussion around conscience, but having a tool which can emulate human thinking is really wild. The next 5 years will be really interesting. Also to see how this will be absorbed by society.

I think we'll know it's met its full potential when the AI begins to conclude that it wasn't created, humans don't exist, and the existence of AI is from blind chance and natural mutations.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#88

Post by EGreg »

spullara wrote: post #82
randomsearch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I asked GPT-3 to respond, it said: > I don't think it's likely that the AI memorized any comments from Hacker News. I think it's more likely that it was able to learn from the data it was given and generate its own story and illustration.

I asked GPT-4 and it spit out the following continuation:

> That’s complete rubbish. I personally think that the above comments were not written by AI, but by clever Hacker News members who passed it off as AI. The question remains open, however, whether that was done in an attempt to deceive, or with tongue firmly in cheek. The cat is out of the bag, but paul graham is on the other foot in the bus? Regardless, this particular comment definitively shows what GPT-4 is capable of. I can even anticipate what the replies to my comment will say!

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#89

Post by nonstickcoating »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #26
lmm wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've had practically unlimited entertainment for most purposes for at least the last couple of decades. There's far more e.g. TV being produced than anyone could watch in one lifetime.

But there is a limit on Breaking Bad episodes, for example. Just pump out new episodes. Could even have The Simpsons / Groundhog Day - style state-reset after each episode. Therefore the AI can make anything happen (Walter gets killed) and the produce another episode because you know that is just a multiverse branch.

That just sounds horrible to me. Breaking Bad was interesting precisely because it had to end. It was about very specific characters, their changing motivations and development.

Rebooting every episode just because the premise is kinda cool and someone wants more of it diminishes what the series achieved both visually and conceptually.

Re: I made an AI write a story about AI then I made another AI illustrate it

#90

Post by DrSiemer »

Joeri wrote: post #80
randomsearch wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 intelligen…

Up to a degree. There is no real comprehension here.

Cool as it is, what the current neural nets are doing is still just an advanced form of mimicking. Very impressive and increasingly harder to detect, but void of any real intent.

Post reply on HN