2 ms·

> control exactly when and how they are read this is, unfortunately, a right to distribution and display. It is most definitely not learning. > Contrast that

by chii 4y ago

> control exactly when and how they are read this is, unfortunately, a right to distribution and display. It is most definitely not learning. > Contrast that with a human drawing knowledge or inspiration from a work they read before. But neural networks is mimicking a human's brain function in simplified form. The requirement for consciousness is not needed. If the argument is that humans' brains do something so special that a machine cannot be made to reproduce it, then you have an argument; but i do not believe it to be true. Using a machine created algorithm to extract ideas, knowledge, structure and form from a literary work is exactly what i would call learning. Imagine, as an example, i learnt how to make/cook new recipes by looking at existing recipes. Is the knowledge gained from doing so a derivative work of the existing recipes? What if i wrote a machine and parsed these recipes, extracted all of the forms/patterns, and used it to reproduce new recipes? How is the outcome any different from above?

cudgy 4y ago
One huge difference is scale and effort, which have much larger implications than whether something is “learning”. When a human learns a work of art, it is a single human that took weeks, months, or even years to accomplish a similar work. Only that single human is incremental to the market for that product. Furthermore, that human can improve upon or create an entirely new field or style of work. With machines, this process is replicated instantly and becomes pervasive, resulting in elimination of many humans performing the work. This can destroy the potential creativity that was possible from the replaced humans within that specific trade. The machine learning of today is stupid and simple with no creativity, only copies or amalgamations of existing works. The end result is the death of progress within that trade and potentially stagnation of the human race as it perfects the use of the tools (e.g. prompt engineers, glorified button pressers) and ceases to move things forward.
- l33tman 4y ago
  While I agree with the dystopic projection, I strongly disagree with your notion that the AI image gens are not creative. I've used them for more than 6 months and am amazed every day I use them what creativity they display. I don't do anything generic, I usually push them to do odd things and I can guarantee they are not doing copies or amalgamations. They do understand the gist of most styles and objects and can combine everything in novel ways just like a human artist would. People who claim they copy/paste stuff and can't be creative have clearly not used them very much.
- chii 4y ago
  > This can destroy the potential creativity that was possible from the replaced humans within that specific trade. You could argue the same from any introduction of technology that replaces humans. If the output of the machine is of sufficient quality to replace humans, then they should be replaced. If the fear is that those displaced humans will no longer be useful, then society will need to subsidize their existence, or find a way to make use of those displaced humans (such as retraining). It is an unrelated problem to copyright, and copyright should not be used to ensure some group of humans do not get displaced. > only copies or amalgamations of existing works. Not that i agree with the premise of machines lacking creativity, but many of today's human created content is of such level as well.

by chii 4y ago

cudgy 4y ago

One huge difference is scale and effort, which have much larger implications than whether something is “learning”. When a human learns a work of art, it is a single human that took weeks, months, or even years to accomplish a similar work. Only that single human is incremental to the market for that product. Furthermore, that human can improve upon or create an entirely new field or style of work. With machines, this process is replicated instantly and becomes pervasive, resulting in elimination of many humans performing the work. This can destroy the potential creativity that was possible from the replaced humans within that specific trade. The machine learning of today is stupid and simple with no creativity, only copies or amalgamations of existing works. The end result is the death of progress within that trade and potentially stagnation of the human race as it perfects the use of the tools (e.g. prompt engineers, glorified button pressers) and ceases to move things forward.

l33tman 4y ago
While I agree with the dystopic projection, I strongly disagree with your notion that the AI image gens are not creative. I've used them for more than 6 months and am amazed every day I use them what creativity they display. I don't do anything generic, I usually push them to do odd things and I can guarantee they are not doing copies or amalgamations. They do understand the gist of most styles and objects and can combine everything in novel ways just like a human artist would. People who claim they copy/paste stuff and can't be creative have clearly not used them very much.
chii 4y ago
> This can destroy the potential creativity that was possible from the replaced humans within that specific trade. You could argue the same from any introduction of technology that replaces humans. If the output of the machine is of sufficient quality to replace humans, then they should be replaced. If the fear is that those displaced humans will no longer be useful, then society will need to subsidize their existence, or find a way to make use of those displaced humans (such as retraining). It is an unrelated problem to copyright, and copyright should not be used to ensure some group of humans do not get displaced. > only copies or amalgamations of existing works. Not that i agree with the premise of machines lacking creativity, but many of today's human created content is of such level as well.