7 ms·

Oh no. This is going to be flooding youtube any minute, isn't it? Computer-narrated nonsense GPT-3 stories with a video background of Ken-Burns-effected DALL-E

Oh no. This is going to be flooding youtube any minute, isn't it? Computer-narrated nonsense GPT-3 stories with a video background of Ken-Burns-effected DALL-E images. If you thought Spiderman V Elsa was bad just wait until you see this lot. OH GREAT.

threads2 4y ago
Oh geez, you're totally right. Minus the narration. It will be that gross ukulele/whistling muzak in the background and weird wordless exclamations when the characters are reacting to things.
- DevX101 4y ago
  Text to speech models are pretty good. This is absolutely going to be all over youtube.
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    Funnel the ad rev into the cloud model training costs. Let the best models support themselves financially and evolve.
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      Hey let's just make it explicit and have a sociopath convention, we can give out badges.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - smegger001 4y ago
      self evolving autonomous algorithmic YouTube content generation... seems like how you would go about cheaply developing a basilisk hack
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  >Minus the narration. Adding the narration from the GPT-3 story is easier than automating background music and sound effects. I don't like this world at all. I really really don't.
- mysterydip 4y ago
  I'm mad that I know the exact music with just that description and it auto-played in my head.
  - brikil 4y ago
    Did yours have jaunty hand claps too?
- minikomi 4y ago
  .. and the Roblox oofs echoed off unto the night
RodgerTheGreat 4y ago
I wonder how many of the researchers working on this kind of technology realize that the single most suitable application is generating spam.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  The single most suitable application is manufacturing consent on social media. Reddit is absolutely full of GPT-3 bots. SEO is another big use.
- dqpb 4y ago
  Obviously, it’s easy to imagine a big increase in spam. But can you imagine if the content became reliably very good? What if every new thing you read was more interesting than any other thing you’ve ever read.
  - RodgerTheGreat 4y ago
    Can you imagine if it rained ice cream? If you bought 10 lottery tickets and every one won? What if all disease on earth spontaneously went away? I could imagine all sorts of wonderful things, but being able to imagine something is not a reasonable basis for expecting it to occur, especially when it contradicts what we already know about the world. GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it. At best, they are engines for contextually regurgitating chunks of real information, but in practice it's more like reaching for a volume from a lightly curated shelf of Borges' Total Library; self-cast shadows of information that roil and collapse into meaninglessness. The technique is fundamentally untrustworthy for any application with real stakes.
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      >GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it. GPT-3, I think, is most dangerous when it comes to reducing the amount of propaganda a human has to write in order to be 'taken seriously.' Long essays and long articles in major publications are taken seriously, but how many people read to the end? With GPT-3 a human propagandist can get away with writing a headline and initial paragraph. The filler text - that's required to make the article 'weighty' enough to be taken seriously can be GPT-3. That's one of the initial applications I see in terms of manufacturing consent and propaganda.
samstave 4y ago
OMG - I came to say simply ensure it cannot replicate ANYTHING disney.... But yours is FAR more dystopiatech... We need a cultural practice which prohibits ANY child from screen time until age ~5 -- and 50% of daylight time must be spent outside, where possible. Techno-Hippies (CyberAmish?)
- Tade0 4y ago
  Me and my SO practice this to an extent, but it's impossible to fully implement when your own life involves screens. Also just like with sugar, eventually someone will introduce the concept to your child, in which case you need to double your efforts.
  - samstave 4y ago
    So sad that 1980's latchkey kids with paperback cyberpunk in their hands made the dystopias of today ; s "What-If's" & "Wouldn't be cool if then"'s...
fenomas 4y ago
At least on the image side I guess they can expect takedown notices, since OpenAI claims to own all images generated by DALL-E, and forbids all commercial use. (IIRC their terms say they won't claim any ownership of GPT-3 output though.)
- gfaster 4y ago
  Wasn't there a decision in the US that said AI generated artwork has no copyright? Something along the lines of it has to be made by a human? https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944335/us-copyright-office-reject-ai-generated-art-recent-entrance-to-paradise https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944335/us-copyright-off...
  - detaro 4y ago
    That doesn't say that AI generated artwork has no copyright.
    - gfaster 4y ago
      It doesn't? What am I missing from the article then? I think it says pretty clearly that human artistry is a necessary component of a copyrightable work.
      - detaro 4y ago
        The much more narrow result is "AI art that didn't involve human contribution doesn't qualify for copyright". If there are people that did contribute, rulings about works that didn't involve people aren't really relevant. But "AI art" generally has human involvement of some form, and the standard for that is very low. The specific case of submitting for copyright and claiming that no human input was involved means that the copyright office can take that claim for face value. That doesn't mean AI art generally doesn't qualify for copyright, you just need to "admit to" human involvement of some form. And it's unclear if AI art without human involvement even is a thing. E.g. if as discussed in the subthread here we are talking about claims of copyright infringement, the first thing the claiment is going to assert is that humans had input into your "AI", and good luck disproving that (especially for the even more specific example here were the people making the claim were involved in building the core of your "AI", so even if you find an argument that your work wasn't human involvement you still need to disprove their claim that their work was!).
dqpb 4y ago
This will probably start off quite bad, but conceivably it could get to be very good.
phreack 4y ago
I'm sure this is already happening. I've caught some acquaintances' kids running around watching YouTube on their phones and the funnel gets them watching the most bizarre, awful, poisonous content you can't even imagine. It's absolute nonsense that has got to be generated by AI narrated by computer generated voices and featuring loose knockoffs of popular characters running around in weirdly random directions (mostly farm animals). It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them, who are otherwise the sweetest. I'm afraid of how their generation is going to turn out after being so attacked by the media they unwittingly consume in their childhood.
- Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
  Parents and govt have to clamp down hard and fast on this shit or there's going to be issues. Major major issues. It's not 'a mistake' that 'the algorithms' teach American kids to smash up their schools, it's cyberwarfare and we're losing.
  - l33t2328 4y ago
    I really thought HN was safe from people blaming “the internet” for school shootings
    - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
      I'm blaming cyberwarfare operations carried out by foreign adversaries, to be clear. Not some nebulous 'internet.' Targeted and deliberate actions carried out by nameable and identifiable parties.
- avereveard 4y ago
  We're skirting "old man yells at cloud" territory here For one these videos are hilarious. on the other hand you wouldn't be bothering them if they went to a museum of surrealist art If anything blame the parents for not teaching boundaries. And ultimately: > It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them stop stealing acquaintances' kids' property it's rarely a good look for a grown ass man to sidestep parents.
vanilla-almond 4y ago
This is going to be flooding youtube any minute, isn't it? Amazon too via Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) with AI-generated illustrated children books. I can imagine a future of personalised AI children books featuring your son or daughter in the story.

threads2 4y ago

Oh geez, you're totally right. Minus the narration. It will be that gross ukulele/whistling muzak in the background and weird wordless exclamations when the characters are reacting to things.

DevX101 4y ago
Text to speech models are pretty good. This is absolutely going to be all over youtube.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  Funnel the ad rev into the cloud model training costs. Let the best models support themselves financially and evolve.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    Hey let's just make it explicit and have a sociopath convention, we can give out badges.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - smegger001 4y ago
    self evolving autonomous algorithmic YouTube content generation... seems like how you would go about cheaply developing a basilisk hack
Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
>Minus the narration. Adding the narration from the GPT-3 story is easier than automating background music and sound effects. I don't like this world at all. I really really don't.
mysterydip 4y ago
I'm mad that I know the exact music with just that description and it auto-played in my head.
- brikil 4y ago
  Did yours have jaunty hand claps too?
minikomi 4y ago
.. and the Roblox oofs echoed off unto the night

RodgerTheGreat 4y ago

I wonder how many of the researchers working on this kind of technology realize that the single most suitable application is generating spam.

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
The single most suitable application is manufacturing consent on social media. Reddit is absolutely full of GPT-3 bots. SEO is another big use.
dqpb 4y ago
Obviously, it’s easy to imagine a big increase in spam. But can you imagine if the content became reliably very good? What if every new thing you read was more interesting than any other thing you’ve ever read.
- RodgerTheGreat 4y ago
  Can you imagine if it rained ice cream? If you bought 10 lottery tickets and every one won? What if all disease on earth spontaneously went away? I could imagine all sorts of wonderful things, but being able to imagine something is not a reasonable basis for expecting it to occur, especially when it contradicts what we already know about the world. GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it. At best, they are engines for contextually regurgitating chunks of real information, but in practice it's more like reaching for a volume from a lightly curated shelf of Borges' Total Library; self-cast shadows of information that roil and collapse into meaninglessness. The technique is fundamentally untrustworthy for any application with real stakes.
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    >GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it. GPT-3, I think, is most dangerous when it comes to reducing the amount of propaganda a human has to write in order to be 'taken seriously.' Long essays and long articles in major publications are taken seriously, but how many people read to the end? With GPT-3 a human propagandist can get away with writing a headline and initial paragraph. The filler text - that's required to make the article 'weighty' enough to be taken seriously can be GPT-3. That's one of the initial applications I see in terms of manufacturing consent and propaganda.

samstave 4y ago

OMG - I came to say simply ensure it cannot replicate ANYTHING disney.... But yours is FAR more dystopiatech... We need a cultural practice which prohibits ANY child from screen time until age ~5 -- and 50% of daylight time must be spent outside, where possible. Techno-Hippies (CyberAmish?)

Tade0 4y ago
Me and my SO practice this to an extent, but it's impossible to fully implement when your own life involves screens. Also just like with sugar, eventually someone will introduce the concept to your child, in which case you need to double your efforts.
- samstave 4y ago
  So sad that 1980's latchkey kids with paperback cyberpunk in their hands made the dystopias of today ; s "What-If's" & "Wouldn't be cool if then"'s...

fenomas 4y ago

At least on the image side I guess they can expect takedown notices, since OpenAI claims to own all images generated by DALL-E, and forbids all commercial use. (IIRC their terms say they won't claim any ownership of GPT-3 output though.)

gfaster 4y ago
Wasn't there a decision in the US that said AI generated artwork has no copyright? Something along the lines of it has to be made by a human? https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944335/us-copyright-office-reject-ai-generated-art-recent-entrance-to-paradise https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944335/us-copyright-off...
- detaro 4y ago
  That doesn't say that AI generated artwork has no copyright.
  - gfaster 4y ago
    It doesn't? What am I missing from the article then? I think it says pretty clearly that human artistry is a necessary component of a copyrightable work.
    - detaro 4y ago
      The much more narrow result is "AI art that didn't involve human contribution doesn't qualify for copyright". If there are people that did contribute, rulings about works that didn't involve people aren't really relevant. But "AI art" generally has human involvement of some form, and the standard for that is very low. The specific case of submitting for copyright and claiming that no human input was involved means that the copyright office can take that claim for face value. That doesn't mean AI art generally doesn't qualify for copyright, you just need to "admit to" human involvement of some form. And it's unclear if AI art without human involvement even is a thing. E.g. if as discussed in the subthread here we are talking about claims of copyright infringement, the first thing the claiment is going to assert is that humans had input into your "AI", and good luck disproving that (especially for the even more specific example here were the people making the claim were involved in building the core of your "AI", so even if you find an argument that your work wasn't human involvement you still need to disprove their claim that their work was!).

dqpb 4y ago

This will probably start off quite bad, but conceivably it could get to be very good.

phreack 4y ago

I'm sure this is already happening. I've caught some acquaintances' kids running around watching YouTube on their phones and the funnel gets them watching the most bizarre, awful, poisonous content you can't even imagine. It's absolute nonsense that has got to be generated by AI narrated by computer generated voices and featuring loose knockoffs of popular characters running around in weirdly random directions (mostly farm animals). It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them, who are otherwise the sweetest. I'm afraid of how their generation is going to turn out after being so attacked by the media they unwittingly consume in their childhood.

Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
Parents and govt have to clamp down hard and fast on this shit or there's going to be issues. Major major issues. It's not 'a mistake' that 'the algorithms' teach American kids to smash up their schools, it's cyberwarfare and we're losing.
- l33t2328 4y ago
  I really thought HN was safe from people blaming “the internet” for school shootings
  - Dan_Sylveste 4y ago
    I'm blaming cyberwarfare operations carried out by foreign adversaries, to be clear. Not some nebulous 'internet.' Targeted and deliberate actions carried out by nameable and identifiable parties.
avereveard 4y ago
We're skirting "old man yells at cloud" territory here For one these videos are hilarious. on the other hand you wouldn't be bothering them if they went to a museum of surrealist art If anything blame the parents for not teaching boundaries. And ultimately: > It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them stop stealing acquaintances' kids' property it's rarely a good look for a grown ass man to sidestep parents.

vanilla-almond 4y ago

This is going to be flooding youtube any minute, isn't it? Amazon too via Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) with AI-generated illustrated children books. I can imagine a future of personalised AI children books featuring your son or daughter in the story.