3 ms·

> it would have a different conclusion. what would today's conclusion be?

by chii 4y ago

mitthrowaway2 4y ago
Today's humans should train for applications where they have a lasting advantage over machines: physical-object-manipulation tasks of low power and low-to-moderate repetitiveness, where the humans' cheap and nimble actuators outperform machinery on a cost basis.
- photonbucket 4y ago
  That brings an interesting question, what is the fully-loaded cost of these nimble actuators. It's not like they appear from the womb ready to be a worker
hcnews 4y ago
AI has generally been shown to have high creativity (e.g. Dall-E). However, AI is still lagging in other functional areas where humans excel (e.g. driving). So, the conclusion might be the actual opposite that AI will first achieve human level creativity before (if ever) acquiring human functional skills.
- randomdata 4y ago
  Creativity requires solving unexplored problems. Painting a picture isn't creative, nor is it particularly marketable. Figuring out a way to use your love of panting in order to provide a marketable product or service requires creativity, but I'm not sure Dall-E succeeds on that front. What marketable service it is able to provide has been left to the creativity of the humans who operate OpenAI.
  - theknocker 4y ago
    [dead]
egypturnash 4y ago
"shut up you luddite, it's perfectly acceptable for your artist job to be automated away, progress is inevitable and all of your objections about how this is playing fast and loose with copyright are meaningless" is pretty much what I get from a lot of Hacker News when I talk about how AI art is not making me happy for the future prospects of my field.
- photonbucket 4y ago
  I think these artists should be able to prohibit their work being used in a training set Somewhat related - how does copyright work on the output of these AIs? Can a piece of code be the copyright owner of a picture?
  - chii 4y ago
    > how does copyright work on the output of these AIs? the person who pressed the button to start the AI generation for that particular output _should_ own the copyright to it (and also be liable for the infringement if it does).
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - detaro 4y ago
    > Can a piece of code be the copyright owner of a picture? No. Copyright requires a human creator.

> it would have a different conclusion. what would today's conclusion be?

by chii 4y ago

> it would have a different conclusion. what would today's conclusion be?

Today's humans should train for applications where they have a lasting advantage over machines: physical-object-manipulation tasks of low power and low-to-moderate repetitiveness, where the humans' cheap and nimble actuators outperform machinery on a cost basis.

photonbucket 4y ago
That brings an interesting question, what is the fully-loaded cost of these nimble actuators. It's not like they appear from the womb ready to be a worker

hcnews 4y ago

AI has generally been shown to have high creativity (e.g. Dall-E). However, AI is still lagging in other functional areas where humans excel (e.g. driving). So, the conclusion might be the actual opposite that AI will first achieve human level creativity before (if ever) acquiring human functional skills.

randomdata 4y ago
Creativity requires solving unexplored problems. Painting a picture isn't creative, nor is it particularly marketable. Figuring out a way to use your love of panting in order to provide a marketable product or service requires creativity, but I'm not sure Dall-E succeeds on that front. What marketable service it is able to provide has been left to the creativity of the humans who operate OpenAI.
- theknocker 4y ago
  [dead]

egypturnash 4y ago

"shut up you luddite, it's perfectly acceptable for your artist job to be automated away, progress is inevitable and all of your objections about how this is playing fast and loose with copyright are meaningless" is pretty much what I get from a lot of Hacker News when I talk about how AI art is not making me happy for the future prospects of my field.

photonbucket 4y ago
I think these artists should be able to prohibit their work being used in a training set Somewhat related - how does copyright work on the output of these AIs? Can a piece of code be the copyright owner of a picture?
- chii 4y ago
  > how does copyright work on the output of these AIs? the person who pressed the button to start the AI generation for that particular output _should_ own the copyright to it (and also be liable for the infringement if it does).
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- detaro 4y ago
  > Can a piece of code be the copyright owner of a picture? No. Copyright requires a human creator.