3 ms·
The difference is that when a human creates Picasso inspired art they're creating it with the summation of all their life experiences. However, an AI trained on
by chickenpotpie 4y ago
The difference is that when a human creates Picasso inspired art they're creating it with the summation of all their life experiences. However, an AI trained only on Picasso, knows nothing of Picasso. It's a subset of his knowledge and can't add anything new. It doesn't know anything about art that Picasso didn't know. If you scale this up it's still true. An AI trained on many works of art doesn't know anything about art outside of the art that was put into it. It's the equivalent of a human living it's entire life in a pitch black room with only paintings of Picasso illuminated.
- mlboss 4y agoStable diffusion was not trained on Picasso only but on a much larger dataset. It is capable of generating art, photo-realistic images and much more. Also the thing that is interesting is that it can combine different styles with just a text prompt. I think that is its killer feature, you can generate based art quickly based on your creative ideas without going through the laborious process of drawing and painting. One can argue what is human experience if not looking all the images from your eyes and then mapping it to the wetware in the brain. By that argument, if we have a good enough AI system and we train it on all the human experience then it is similar to a person. The ultimate question is do we have "soul" that differentiate us from the machine. Are we not just walking neural networks trained by millions of years of evolution.
- dwringer 4y agoSometimes when using stable diffusion and character.ai's language model I feel like it's the other way around - like I, the ape sitting at the keyboard, am the mere machine.
- abxytg 4y agoThis demonstrates a truly thorough misunderstanding of technology at hand