5 ms·
It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the original images in an AI's data set is an important element to consider when thinking of the "difficu
by catach 4y ago
It seems to me that the human effort spent in creating the original images in an AI's data set is an important element to consider when thinking of the "difficulty" here.
- lifthrasiir 4y agoYes, that 4 GB of data can't be really independently generated, but the fact that a large chunk of that effort can be compressed into 4 GB is still amazing.
- CamperBob2 4y agoIf your life's work can be compressed down to 2 bytes, it wasn't that hard. OTOH, if the 2 bytes is an index into a larger corpus of collected works, the question becomes more interesting. OTOH, if the corpus is an ensemble of other 2-byte objects...
- causality0 4y agoCertainly, but those human artists were also trained on a data set their whole lives. Raise a baby with no training data set and they might produce a handprint on a wall or a rectangle of facepaint. There's a reason indigenous tribesmen don't spontaneously invent hyperrealism.
- catach 4y agoAbsolutely. Though I think that speaks to one of the ways we tend to discount the difficulty of developing human artistry, rather than a defense of AI gen being "not hard".
- bayindirh 4y agoHowever, there's a major misconception about training of humans and AI. Image generating AIs are trained with massive amounts of images and text, however image generating humans train with much broader spectrum of experience. Also, feeding a model tons of images created by humans (directly or by proxy) and claiming that AI is generating something completely new is a bit naive IMHO. Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts. An AI model blurts out something derived from a corpus of images and text created by humans, that's all. The technology is impressive for sure, and it marks a new era in terms of possibilities, but it doesn't take my breath away, sorry.
- catach 4y ago> claiming that AI is generating something completely new is a bit naive IMHO. I don't see how AI art is less new than the vast majority of human art. Both can create unique compositions that are still deeply rooted in patterns and principles thousands of years old. > Humans mix a much more broader and deeper experience pool to create things without prompts. AI does not have understanding, but it's stealing the underlying patterns that are the end result of that human experience.
- quitit 4y agoFurther to your point, comparing humans to AI is not just misunderstanding AI, but also looks past how humans create and choose the styles which this AI is now reproducing through a statical approach. Without the human guidance the AI would be bland, AI is limited to the walls of whatever it has been exposed to - humans are not. The AI emulates. Humans create. - The significance here is not trivial.
- practice9 4y agoHumans emulate as well, and produce bland art as well. I've seen lots of human-made art (especially on Artstation) that failed to elicit any emotional response in me. The reason people are having this discussion is a fear of AI creating aesthetically pleasing and deep emotionally through statistical approach. And the deeper fear that AI can potentially "hack" our senses by providing us with exactly what we want to see, read or hear (statistically). i.e. if some subset of art is pushing our biological buttons more than all other art, and the effect is generalizable over human population, what would that say about us?
- quitit 4y agoI think the point has been missed. AI is bound. Humans are not. To better illustrate that difference: Just because anecdotally some human might produce crap doesn't mean that is the limit of all humans.
- 4y ago