5 ms·

You can be negative or enthusiastic about this. Either way the trend indicates the impending death of an entire occupation of creativity. I envision an AI that

You can be negative or enthusiastic about this. Either way the trend indicates the impending death of an entire occupation of creativity. I envision an AI that can replicate Kims art and replicate it better and faster. Now for the first time in my life I can see the future beyond science fiction. Where machines are capable of doing everything humans do, and do it better. The outrage is a violent attempt to stop the inevitable. I sympathize. Because artists won't be the only victims of this change when it's all over.

CamperBob2 4y ago
So it's your ambition in life to do a robot's job?
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. It's looking more and more like the inevitable future and all people talk about in the comments are trivial things like "intellectual property"
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. Yeah and then you starve to death because you have some measly salary. Who says you're the owner of the robot who took over your job? It may be possible, but thinking this is the only possibility is not intelligent. Every realistic possibility must be considered. With wealth inequality as it is right now, a Few plutocrats reaping most of the benefits of AI with the majority of people scraping by is not just the more realistic possibility, it is also remarkably similar to the current reality. >If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not. Oh there are tons of examples. You just view history through a biased lens. You're unable to see the times when technology did harm the population. I utterly guarantee that your conclusion is not data driven. You simply are unconsciously picking and choosing the data to support your optimism. A big portion of the wealth inequality we see today is the result of a century of technological advancement. But you're partly blind to it because you're on the positive side of the wealth inequality equation.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.
        deltasevennine 4y ago
        >None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.
- mc32 4y ago
  If 'robot's could imitate and exceed people's actual life and being --what should we do about people, virtualize all of them, most of them? They're better off living a virtual life than life in dirty reality.
lbwtaylor 4y ago
Creating a specific model from one artist shortly after their death is just plain gross and deserves backlash. It's not a good proxy to talking or thinking about these issues more carefully. I think there is a big difference between feeding an AI model a wide swath of an art style like anime and creating and using a model. Taking one persons particular work and style and copying in competition or near competition with that person is something that I don't think is inevitable and something I would be happy to see the expansion of legal protection for. I know I will get downvoted since HN hates legal protection for artists, but I just don't see the societal benefit from allowing an individual human to be replicated by AI without their consent.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  I sympathize with you and I won't vote you down. However I do think that the issue is much bigger then a moral issue. Realize that AI art will become better then human art. It's the trend. If AI art is better than what humans can make then this is more than a simple moral issue.... basically the inevitable future is that the entire occupation of "art" will be steam rolled and 99% of what's out there will become computer generated. Morals be damned, it won't even be a factor. A bunch of scholarly types trying to quantify the rightness and wrongness of something isn't going to mean jack when the power to do create art is so easy and trivial. In fact the morals will shift with the culture and technology and it will be a violent shift. People getting angry here is just the beginning of bigger conflicts in the future. If AI keeps improving things will stabilize into an age of humanity where original art is but a cheap commodity, but that age is not one that will arrive soon, the step before that is violence. The even scarier part is that it's not just art that's being targeted here. Art is just one of the first victims.
  - ipaddr 4y ago
    That's what they said about sheet music. Bring music into the home was not sometime artists who performed live wanted any part of because it was feared that people wouldn't want to go out. The same was said about recorded music, radio. In the end it allowed more wealth and created more demand for music. There will be more demand for art.
didibus 4y ago
> Now for the first time in my life I can see the future beyond science fiction. Where machines are capable of doing everything humans do, and do it better Maybe one day, but we're still far away. To contextualize, Stable Diffusion needed 5.83 billion images to be trained on, and it also uses another model CLIP that needed 400 million labeled images to be trained. That means that all tasks where we don't have hundred of millions or more of available accumulated datasets are really far off from being learnable by current ML models.
- deltasevennine 4y ago
  To contextualize even further. Stable diffusion will fit on any persons computer AND the time it takes to run is minutes. But that's just about stable diffusion. You need to measure the speed of how fast stable diffusion came to be. 3 years ago all of this stuff was thought to be impossible. Now it's a SAS. What does the next 3 years bring? Contextualize that. Nobody knows when that day will come, BUT within our lifetimes is a very realistic bet given the speed in which the ML industry is changing and growing.
  - didibus 4y ago
    Trained Stable Diffusion can, but training it costed 600 000$ and took 150 000 GPU hours. Also, Stable Diffusion isn't a revolution in model architecture, it's still a deep neural network. There's been a lot of innovation in how you can best apply DNNs to problems, and that's where CLIP and stable diffusion innovate, but also a lot of the advancements has been purely due to sheer brute force from funding more compute resources to train deeper networks using larger datasets. I'm optimistic, but I'm also trying to contextualize to have the right expectations.
    - deltasevennine 4y ago
      > Trained Stable Diffusion can, but training it costed 600 000$ and took 150 000 GPU hours. So? The iphone as it is today took EVEN more man hours and billions of dollars to create. Yet every single person on the face the earth has one in their pocket. The effort to create stable diffusion is trivial when compared with many marvels of modern technology that we take for granted today. Stable diffusion in my pocket? It's already reality. >There's been a lot of innovation in how you can best apply DNNs to problems, and that's where CLIP and stable diffusion innovate, So? you talk as if this is a minor thing. It's very possible that enough innovations in this area and we'll find out that the entire human brain is layers and layers of complex "applications of DNNs". DNNs in theory can compute anything, so this path is forward is possible. > but also a lot of the advancements has been purely due to sheer brute force from funding more compute resources to train deeper networks using larger datasets. The training was trivial. Nobody expects AI technology to be able to be built by a single man. Like your iphone which lives in your pocket many lifetime hours of blood sweat and tears will need to be put into it. The half a million and 150,000 GPU hours is nothing. I expect more hours of training, larger datasets and eventually I expect all of tech to be encapsulated into some product that lives in the cloud or aka effectively in my pocket. >I'm optimistic, but I'm also trying to contextualize to have the right expectations. You don't realize it but this sentence is a declaration equivalent of saying "I'm a biased person." Optimism and pessimism is a form of bias. You state that you are optimistic, thus you stated you are biased. True logic has no leaning in either direction. This sentence here reveals what you are and that your "contextualization's" are inherently flawed. Additionally, research finds that pessimistic people tend to be right. Yes logic dictates that neither pessimism or optimism is the way to go, but the data driven conclusion is that people who are pessimistic tend to be more realistic. The data shows that most humans are biased with an optimistic delusional bent. This behavior is so pervasive that you even called yourself optimistic without realizing that it was a declaration of your own bias. Most reading your sentences miss it as well unconsciously thinking "optimism" of any form is more rational "pessimism" even though BOTH the logical and data driven conclusion show that this is not the case. Contextualize yourself first before you contextualize the external world.

CamperBob2 4y ago

So it's your ambition in life to do a robot's job?

deltasevennine 4y ago
No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. It's looking more and more like the inevitable future and all people talk about in the comments are trivial things like "intellectual property"
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  No. But there are people with ambitions to create robots that will take over my job and yours and everyone's. Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    Nothing is different. Everything is the same. You're just blind to what is happening around you. >Sure hope so. Then I can move even closer to self-actualization than I am now. Yeah and then you starve to death because you have some measly salary. Who says you're the owner of the robot who took over your job? It may be possible, but thinking this is the only possibility is not intelligent. Every realistic possibility must be considered. With wealth inequality as it is right now, a Few plutocrats reaping most of the benefits of AI with the majority of people scraping by is not just the more realistic possibility, it is also remarkably similar to the current reality. >If there had ever been a single inflection point in history where Luddism was the right answer in the long run, I'd be more sympathetic to the pessimistic point of view. As things stand, though, doesn't their argument amount to a special pleading fallacy? "It's different this time!" No... no, it's not. Oh there are tons of examples. You just view history through a biased lens. You're unable to see the times when technology did harm the population. I utterly guarantee that your conclusion is not data driven. You simply are unconsciously picking and choosing the data to support your optimism. A big portion of the wealth inequality we see today is the result of a century of technological advancement. But you're partly blind to it because you're on the positive side of the wealth inequality equation.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Oh there are tons of examples. None of which you seem to be able to cite. As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that.
      - deltasevennine 4y ago
        >None of which you seem to be able to cite. Able? The examples are obvious. I can cite them though. Once I cite them you should should 180 degree your opinion. But of course you won't. You're so biased you can't even see the obvious examples all around you: https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-plastic-crisis https://www.4ocean.com/blogs/blog/a-brief-history-of-the-pla... The plastic crisis. The result of the invention of plastic. https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fossil-fuels-and-climate-change-the-facts/ https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/stories/fo... The discovery of how to extract energy from fossil fuels looks to potentially herald massive damage to society and already has effected the lives of many. https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm https://rainforests.mongabay.com/09easter_island.htm Actual civilization destroyed through the introduction of wood based technology to an island resulting in deforestation and complete collapse. https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technology-caused-an-obesity-epidemic/ https://web.colby.edu/st297-global18/2018/10/30/has-technolo... Obesity epidemic caused by ultra processed food technology. Industrialization and the negative effects. "At least they're not starving and living better than kings" is what I imagine coming out of your privileged mind. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/619008/IPOL_IDA(2018)619008_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2018/6190... Fake news, misinformation created by social media technology. Before free press and technology people were simply less informed. Now, the current generation of people are likely the most informed but also the most misinformed people who've ever lived. People think they live in a more dangerous world, but in reality crime has gone down. This is all because of the current news cycle. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-of-technology https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/negative-effects-o... health issues with usage of internet related technologies. https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm Nuclear weapons. The discovery of the relationship between energy and mass and other advancements in physics and chemistry led to the development of technology that enables humanity to literally destroy the world if they chose to. This example literally expands the spectrum about the amount of harm technology can do. In less then a day ICBM and nuclear bomb technology can level the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster Nuclear power melt downs. There are several. This is the most famous one. Obviously there's nuance to this and I will address it. The net benefit of nuclear power is better then fossil fuels in terms of death and destruction when taken from a statistical standpoint. But you still cannot ignore the fact that a single mistake leveled a whole town. Blindly charging forward because you trust the numbers is equally ignorant. Need I go on? There are OBVIOUS benefits of technology I would be blind to not to see it. But I'm also able to see the OBVIOUS negative side as well. The nuance. I would be wrong if I said you didn't know about each of these things. You know it. These things are obvious. It's just you're not analytical enough to consider the full spectrum of information at your fingertips. You pick and choose data for your own bias. But it's not even conscious picking. You didn't even know you did it. That's why you're so freaking confident about how technology has always benefited society all the time always when it obviously has not. I mean what I expect next is rationalization. You have to logically analyze why you didn't consider these examples and explain your reasoning to me why they don't count. Think really hard when your mind comes to this inflection point. The logic did not previously exist. You are in the process of picking and choosing reasoning to support your current belief. This is Rationalization. Stop yourself before you do this. It's a waste of both of our times to read and write reasoning created as the result of rationalization. >As for "wealth inequality," because of capitalism, our homeless people live better than kings and princes did a few hundred years ago. I'm OK with that. I'm talking about homeless people who do drugs. I'm talking normal people in the US who have to work 3 jobs to stay alive. You are the reaper of the benefits of wealth inequality, OF COURSE you're ok with that. Or no, you're ok with that because that person who works 3 jobs lives better than a king. Whatever makes you sleep at night. Did the king have 3 jobs? How much better do you think the life of a typical US citizen is compared to a king? I think there's a lot of nuance in the word "better" that you are again ignoring.
mc32 4y ago
If 'robot's could imitate and exceed people's actual life and being --what should we do about people, virtualize all of them, most of them? They're better off living a virtual life than life in dirty reality.

lbwtaylor 4y ago

Creating a specific model from one artist shortly after their death is just plain gross and deserves backlash. It's not a good proxy to talking or thinking about these issues more carefully. I think there is a big difference between feeding an AI model a wide swath of an art style like anime and creating and using a model. Taking one persons particular work and style and copying in competition or near competition with that person is something that I don't think is inevitable and something I would be happy to see the expansion of legal protection for. I know I will get downvoted since HN hates legal protection for artists, but I just don't see the societal benefit from allowing an individual human to be replicated by AI without their consent.

deltasevennine 4y ago
I sympathize with you and I won't vote you down. However I do think that the issue is much bigger then a moral issue. Realize that AI art will become better then human art. It's the trend. If AI art is better than what humans can make then this is more than a simple moral issue.... basically the inevitable future is that the entire occupation of "art" will be steam rolled and 99% of what's out there will become computer generated. Morals be damned, it won't even be a factor. A bunch of scholarly types trying to quantify the rightness and wrongness of something isn't going to mean jack when the power to do create art is so easy and trivial. In fact the morals will shift with the culture and technology and it will be a violent shift. People getting angry here is just the beginning of bigger conflicts in the future. If AI keeps improving things will stabilize into an age of humanity where original art is but a cheap commodity, but that age is not one that will arrive soon, the step before that is violence. The even scarier part is that it's not just art that's being targeted here. Art is just one of the first victims.
- ipaddr 4y ago
  That's what they said about sheet music. Bring music into the home was not sometime artists who performed live wanted any part of because it was feared that people wouldn't want to go out. The same was said about recorded music, radio. In the end it allowed more wealth and created more demand for music. There will be more demand for art.

didibus 4y ago

> Now for the first time in my life I can see the future beyond science fiction. Where machines are capable of doing everything humans do, and do it better Maybe one day, but we're still far away. To contextualize, Stable Diffusion needed 5.83 billion images to be trained on, and it also uses another model CLIP that needed 400 million labeled images to be trained. That means that all tasks where we don't have hundred of millions or more of available accumulated datasets are really far off from being learnable by current ML models.

deltasevennine 4y ago
To contextualize even further. Stable diffusion will fit on any persons computer AND the time it takes to run is minutes. But that's just about stable diffusion. You need to measure the speed of how fast stable diffusion came to be. 3 years ago all of this stuff was thought to be impossible. Now it's a SAS. What does the next 3 years bring? Contextualize that. Nobody knows when that day will come, BUT within our lifetimes is a very realistic bet given the speed in which the ML industry is changing and growing.
- didibus 4y ago
  Trained Stable Diffusion can, but training it costed 600 000$ and took 150 000 GPU hours. Also, Stable Diffusion isn't a revolution in model architecture, it's still a deep neural network. There's been a lot of innovation in how you can best apply DNNs to problems, and that's where CLIP and stable diffusion innovate, but also a lot of the advancements has been purely due to sheer brute force from funding more compute resources to train deeper networks using larger datasets. I'm optimistic, but I'm also trying to contextualize to have the right expectations.
  - deltasevennine 4y ago
    > Trained Stable Diffusion can, but training it costed 600 000$ and took 150 000 GPU hours. So? The iphone as it is today took EVEN more man hours and billions of dollars to create. Yet every single person on the face the earth has one in their pocket. The effort to create stable diffusion is trivial when compared with many marvels of modern technology that we take for granted today. Stable diffusion in my pocket? It's already reality. >There's been a lot of innovation in how you can best apply DNNs to problems, and that's where CLIP and stable diffusion innovate, So? you talk as if this is a minor thing. It's very possible that enough innovations in this area and we'll find out that the entire human brain is layers and layers of complex "applications of DNNs". DNNs in theory can compute anything, so this path is forward is possible. > but also a lot of the advancements has been purely due to sheer brute force from funding more compute resources to train deeper networks using larger datasets. The training was trivial. Nobody expects AI technology to be able to be built by a single man. Like your iphone which lives in your pocket many lifetime hours of blood sweat and tears will need to be put into it. The half a million and 150,000 GPU hours is nothing. I expect more hours of training, larger datasets and eventually I expect all of tech to be encapsulated into some product that lives in the cloud or aka effectively in my pocket. >I'm optimistic, but I'm also trying to contextualize to have the right expectations. You don't realize it but this sentence is a declaration equivalent of saying "I'm a biased person." Optimism and pessimism is a form of bias. You state that you are optimistic, thus you stated you are biased. True logic has no leaning in either direction. This sentence here reveals what you are and that your "contextualization's" are inherently flawed. Additionally, research finds that pessimistic people tend to be right. Yes logic dictates that neither pessimism or optimism is the way to go, but the data driven conclusion is that people who are pessimistic tend to be more realistic. The data shows that most humans are biased with an optimistic delusional bent. This behavior is so pervasive that you even called yourself optimistic without realizing that it was a declaration of your own bias. Most reading your sentences miss it as well unconsciously thinking "optimism" of any form is more rational "pessimism" even though BOTH the logical and data driven conclusion show that this is not the case. Contextualize yourself first before you contextualize the external world.