4 ms·
I find these frequently brought-up comparisons of robots to humans pretty funny, personally. I think we can and absolutely should delineate between a human draw
by sensanaty 4y ago
I find these frequently brought-up comparisons of robots to humans pretty funny, personally. I think we can and absolutely should delineate between a human drawing inspiration from their peers and an AI taking a trillion images (far more than any human could possibly ever draw inspiration from) at once, shuffling them all together and spitting out the resulting amalgamation. I see no reason why we should be treating this as if the AI should be treated the same way we treat humans - we definitely shouldn't.
As an example of someone with negative artistic talent of any kind, even if I were to take any one of their works and tried to trace them, it'd come out looking a mess, especially once I came to the portion that required any actual artistic skill like coloring and shading.
With an AI, I save a few of their works, stick it in some blackbox A"I" that gives me 8 trillion different derived images that are in truth just kind of spitting out whatever makes statistical sense to stick together and boom, I've just managed to take a dozen artists' works and gain something out of it.
- randyrand 4y agoYou are drastically underselling the amount of emergent intelligence that comes from $500,000 of Stable Diffusion training. This is not merely "averaging" input images. It can literally understand human speech.
- tstrimple 4y agoMaybe I'm being too pedantic, but I'd feel it's far more accurate to say it can interpret human speech within a specific context. There's no understanding going on.
- kurtreed 4y agoComputers do it more efficiently, yes, but you're not giving an argument as to why being more efficient means there should be different rules.