921–927 of 927 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Worked for china
In the context of when they want to borrow others' stuff. But then Chinese companies are _more_ than happy to take advantage of Western laws to defend their own IP. It's hypocrisy.
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…
Probably an over-representation in the training data really so it's causing overfitting. Because using training data in amounts right from the Internet it's going to be opinionated on human culture (Bart Simpson is popular so there are lots of images of him, Ori is less well known so there are fewer images). Ideally it should be training 1:1 for everything but that would involve _so_ much work pruning the training da…
Hail their father, drip with sweat:
"Fukuyama had deceived us!
History has no end."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is no basis to this claim, why is one worth doing by a biological machine but not a silicon one? You're entitled to your own value system, but in mine, humans are worth infinitely more than computers.
Same in mine. But mine isn’t predicated on the irreplaceability of human labor to derive value from human life. If we automated literally everything and we could all just live off UBI and drink wine and look at the stars all day, humans would still be intrinsically valuable. Or, the ability of a machine to generate art good enough to serve as a fun D&D avatar does not devalue a human doing the same. You may be attach…
What I'm getting at is that our actions are rewarding and meaningful when we put effort into them and they provide value (in the general, not economic sense) to others.
If I spend a day drawing you a picture, you get a warm fuzzy feeling because of how much I must care to sacrifice one of my finite days on Earth to make a thing just for you. If I spend ten seconds writing a prompt and an AI spits out an objectively prettier picture, it's still less meaningful and less valuable in every sense that matters. I gave up nothing to produce it and you gained little by having it.
> Therefore I am not bothered when we invent a new tool that might compete with human labor.
This is likely a luxury you have by being economically stable enough to not have to worry about how you're going to put food in your stomach today. While it's fun to imagine idyllic post-capitalist societies, artists today need to be able to afford shelter and healthcare. Generative AI will destroy their livelihood.
That may be a sacrifice you are willing to make (since it likely isn't coming to take your job), but I care too much about other people to be delighted by that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The Luddites had some pretty good ideas about resisting the centralization of profits into the hands of the people who owned the machines who took over their jobs, really. So did the French Revolution.
Not really, the machines these days are owned by everyone, the type of labor is not the same as it was, as anyone can own a laptop as a means of production. As an aside, I have seen your comments quite a bit on AI art related threads over the past few years, especially while I see close to none on ones related to AI code related ones, and I always thought there was some hypocrisy there, which actually led me to the t…
I do however greatly enjoy pointing and laughing when I see programmers expressing unhappiness with the prospect of their life shifting from "actually programming" to "endless review of AI slopcode". Does that sound like fun? Is that related in any way to the joy of creation that made you decide to be a programmer? Probably not! But you'll be so productive! You'll be able to work four times harder in the same time, for the same pay! Or less, since obviously the real work is being done by the AI now. Does that possibility make you feel unhappy and sad? Good. Now you know how I feel.
Open-source AI isn't gonna do shit to keep from devaluing my craft. It'll just make it worse. I am no fan of the Mouse but if I can get them to fight all these motherfuckers with a ton of VC investment who want to eliminate every creative job and leave me with no way to scrape out a living then I'm cheering for Disney.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Let's reverse that. "Current generation AI models can think of things that are truly new." How could you possibly know that ? Could you prove that an image wasn't copying from images in its training data?
The commenter flessner asserted it couldn't, despite having no way to demonstrate it. They are passing off faith as fact.
Assuming someone did want to show AI models can make new stuff...
> How could you possibly know that? Could you prove that an image wasn't copying from images in its training data?
This isn't even that hard. You just need to know what images are your training data when you train your model. A researcher with a small grant could do this.
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…
However, most of the examples in the article should still be protected. Lara Croft first appeared 29 years ago. Any copyright system should still be protecting IP from 1996.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even more surprising to me is how everyone seems concerned about the studios making enough money?! As if they should make any money at all. As if it is up to us to create a profitable game for them. Do you want more games (movies, books...)? Then you want studios to make money in that type of game. Because and if they make money they have incentive to do so. Now if you are happy with the number and quality of free…
> Do you want more games (movies, books...)? Not really. We already have multiple lifetimes of them to enjoy.