10 ms·
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
by harry8 3y ago
The photographers who took those stock photos also trained on stock photos.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wilimitis 3y agoNope - a.i. is essentially just rearranging pixels because you can formally delineate (via mathematical expressions) how to arrive from input set to output image. To compare this in any respectable degree to human creativity is not reasonable.
- vidarh 3y agoHow does human creativity work?
- Kuinox 3y agoWith something representable with math functions that nobody knows yet.
- wilimitis 3y agoThat is an incredibly strong assertion that evidence does not seem to support currently. So, you may take it on faith if you wish, however there is growing interest in the notion that creativity itself is that which is not systemetizable.
- Kuinox 3y agoYou gotta back up claims like that with a source. As far as I know, nobody can prove we are not in a simulation. Meaning everything is made out of math.
- wilimitis 3y agoI think my point flew over your head. The burden of proof is on you to provide the source that human creativity can be computed mathematically.
- ksaj 3y agoToday's AI has taught us that everything people show us they think is unique, isn't really. Everything comes from somewhere, including the things that add up to what we call creativity.
- wilimitis 3y agoThat's actually untrue to me as a professional artist. A.I. art has shown me that cheap permutations (which have been done in art even before A.I.) can still capture the untrained eye. I don't think that's anything particularly new. And absolutely, however creativity is the tip of the spear which pushes beyond constraints to develop novel AND meaningful style (like Beksinski, Kopera, Kostetsky, Moebius, etc). Nice try.
- Kuinox 3y agoAre saying that all artists that got fooled by AI art, have untrained eyes ?
- snapcaster 3y ago
- ksaj 3y agoInteresting. Evolution is a series of happy accidents. So is creativity.
- vidarh 3y agoIt's an assertion that rests only on the assumption that the brain adheres to known physics or if it relies on unknown physics that the computational effects of those differences can be simulated or the physical effect replicated. It'd take a truly extraordinary find that'd upend both physics and areas of logic for that assertion to be false.
- wilimitis 3y agoLet's try something else, because you seem to take it that "brain = physics" is a strong enough argument to believe that all of human creativity is inherently systematic. The definition of creativity itself should include the ability to subvert a system through abstraction. AI is a system so it cannot subvert itself (or, it hasn't yet). As humans, we subvert systems in mathematics by creating higher dimensional abstraction and shattering previous understanding of the fields. Often, mathematicians achieve this with a "lightening bolt-like realization" that they do not attribute to systematic thinking. Please reconsider whether systematizability should be so quickly assumed through napkin philosophy. If you want, prove with a topological map of the creative apparatus in the brain that it produces results in a systematic way. That would at least scratch the itch and get the conversation going somewhere interesting.
- vidarh 3y agoThere's no "napkin philosophy" here. What you call "systematizability" is irrelevant. Only whether or not a function can be computed matter, and if a function can be computed by a brain restricted to known physics, there is no reasonable theory under which it can compute anything which can't be computed by any universal turing machine. Given the absence of even any real hypothesis for any category of functions which can't, it'd be an absolutely extraordinary claim to suggest such a function exist. Where you'd get a Nobel in physics if you could show unknown physics in the brain, you'd secure a Nobel in mathematics if you could come up with a class of functions the brain can compute which can't be computed by a computer, because it'd fundamentally break basic assumptions in any number of subfields of both maths and computer science. What you describe as "subverting itself" does not require anything as drastic. It merely requires thought processes unobservable by the person in question, and processes to complex to casually understand and/or randomness. Given a large proportion of people don't even have an inner voice they can "listen to" in order to observe their thought processes other than via outputs, and we know e.g. from split-brain experiments that the conscious part of human reasoning often outright invents knowledge and observation of thought processes, we have no reliable way of analysing the extent to which thinking is "systematic", and plenty of evidence to suggest we can not trust any such notion.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoSlight jitter + strong and complex selection functions, like "is it useful?", "is it more useful than what came before?", "is it appreciated by the audience?", etc. The creative generation part - adding some randomness to the process - is trivial with machines. Much easier than with humans adults, who often have to learn to allow more randomness and in their thinking/feeling, in order to make some creative work. But the selection functions are deeply social, which is something we're instinctively good at, and had little luck teaching the machines so far. Well, with the possible exception of GPT-4, which may have learned just enough about what humans like, that it could do a passing job at discriminating art/innovation from noise. I say may - it feels possible, but we won't know until someone properly tests for it.
- vidarh 3y ago> Well, with the possible exception of GPT-4, which may have learned just enough about what humans like, that it could do a passing job at discriminating art/innovation from noise. I say may - it feels possible, but we won't know until someone properly tests for it. I've tried giving GPT4 some axes to rank writing on, and feed it some paragraphs. It's not perfect at it, but it's a far better critic than writer. E.g. a while back I had it write something "in the style of Douglas Adams" and then had it critique it in another chat, and it recognised the imitation and proceeded to quite harshly judge its own writing for being flat and lacking direction and purpose. It was quite entertaining (more so than its superficially amusing Douglas Adams imitation).
- pulvinar 3y agoAny output from a brain can also be represented mathematically-- it's a physical object, after all. Coming up with the parameters for those expressions is the much harder part, for both brain and AI.
- wilimitis 3y agoOnce again, that is an incredibly strong assertion and if you wish to be reasonable then the burden of proof is on you to prove those parameters before making such claims (e.g. that creativity = math). The notion that creativity lies beyond what is systemetizable (or otoh, the value in creativity is to defy that which can be computed), seems more in line with my sense of it.
- mediumsmart 3y agogood point, as an artist the joy is in creating - the result is not that important, but that is my work, other artists results can be very dear to me.
- GaggiX 3y agoLLM and text-to-image models already show empirically that creativity is computable, of course, as the AI effect[1] says, if a machine did it, then it's just predicting the next word or rearranging pixels (which doesn't really make sense), if a human did it, then it's intelligence or creativity. [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
- wilimitis 3y agoThe reverse is also true which makes your entire point hypocritically paradoxical. If a human makes it we immediately assume it can be computed (creativity). That is the strong claim which I think requires the burden of proof.
- GaggiX 3y agoWhat is the paradox of both humans and machines showing signs of creativity?
- Trapais 3y agoThat's a very fancy way with lots of fancy words to say "I have no idea how NN work, but if I sound smart maybe ppl will not figure out how stupid I sound". Well, you sound stupid and nothing what you said makes sense. Delineate? Diffusion models can't be further away for delineating. They literally work by throwing random shit at the wall. Input set? There is no input set once training is complete. Human creativity? In stock photo industry? What next? "How I write while loop instead of for loop and I have achieved the nirvana?"
- wilimitis 3y agoIncorrect - I'm clearly using delineate to mean providing the exact set of computational instructions which produce the output (image), which by the definition of "computable" must be true. You seem emotional, "you sound stupid and nothing what you said makes sense", I wonder, why are you so triggered by a challenging idea? The very point of computation is to evaluate clear, distinct, mathematical expressions (like reading a list of algorithmic steps to produce an NN). Hmmm. Did I threaten your religious belief in the power of AI? :)
- wnkrshm 3y agoThe difference is that now only the owner of a machine profits where before lots of individuals profited. More power to the owners, I guess.
- pbhjpbhj 3y agoThe trajectory of ML appears to point towards massive transfer of wealth to capital owners and impoverishment of the working classes. We need to find a way to distribute the benefits of such developments.
- aloisdg 3y agoMaybe there is something to do about workers owning their own means of production.
- dontlaugh 3y agoAll road lead to revolution, but it takes time to build. Until then, some sabotage may be in order.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago[always has been.jpg] Seriously though, I used to think this was mostly a done deal that's being occasionally brought up by people fascinated with socialism or something. But the longer I live, the more I realize that the issue has not meaningfully improved at all - we've only been distracted from it. And it's much, much older than Marx and co. too. This, and not some general fear of technology, was the whole point of the Luddite movement (very relevant in context of AI). And you can probably find examples stretching back way before industrial revolution too.
- satvikpendem 3y agoWhat workers own the means of production in the case of an AI? Democratization via open source works, but it actually extends beyond workers to end users. If all the workers at OpenAI were equal shareholders and owned the means of their production, this would not change anything about them profiting from the company and all of their users. Stallman was and continues to be right, open source and freedom for end users is really the only way.
- ksaj 3y agoThat's an interesting observation. Painters are trained by copying the Masters. Shredding guitar players are trained on violin caprices. Martha Stewart was trained by watching Julia Child.
- wnkrshm 3y agoReal life is what good illustrators actually train from: figure studies, value studies etc. - from life. (Edit: you study like the old masters, not necessarily the paintings of them - though it is also done ofc, but not the most important part)
- wilimitis 3y agoAnd the Masters developed their style over decades pushing beyond the previously systematized constraints of their peers, something which can definitionally not be achieved by AI which works within the dimensionality of the training set and thus will always lag behind the next artistic stylistic advancements.
- candiodari 3y agoThen how come everybody thinks AI has a more or less distinct style? Incredible amounts of detail everywhere, whereas human artists tend to focus details in service of the "object" or purpose of the artwork. AI art is more like what would happen if you took Baroque art and applied it to modern styles. For a human artist the effort is not worth it.
- wilimitis 3y agoMost artists actually can tell which style each AI piece is stealing from. If you want the perfect example google "Beksinski". The overall goopy feeling of AI art is actually a turn off for most people, btw.
- vkou 3y agoYes, and they own their creative output, instead of the firm who trained them. The proper analogy to ML is that the owners of the latter train a slave, and then use that training process as justification for owning everything[1] the slave ever produces. How can freemen compete with that? [1] Which also happens to be a perversion of copyright law, since AI can't enter into a contract that can assign rights to creative output to it's owner.
- ChatGTP 3y agolol no they're not..wow
- kixiQu 3y agoI understand why people are making this argument about drawing/painting – I don't really agree with it, but I understand how it coheres – but it doesn't follow for photography.
- kortilla 3y agoThis is incorrect. I was a photographer and trained very little looking at other pictures. There are a few guidelines about framing I got from both written rules and a few examples, but those examples were never of things I took pictures of. I took pictures of a much wider variety of things than I looked at pictures of. Instagram and other sources of millions of pictures did not exist and I was perfectly capable of taking a picture without that “training”.
- jachee 3y agoIt may not have been conscious, proactive “training”, but before you ever picked up your camera you’d been exposed (pardon the pun) to thousands (at least) of photos others had taken. That unconscious exposure still counts, even if you don’t think of it as training.
- kortilla 3y agoNo I hadn’t. I don’t think you understood how infrequently you would come across photos of things like rare wildlife and remote wilderness locations in the 80s. You’re missing the forest for the trees here. The point is that a photographer doesn’t learn how to produce pictures of a screwdriver by looking at pictures of a screwdriver. A photographer learns how to take pictures generally and then can instantly be capable of producing pictures of far more objects than he/she has ever observed. Generative AI is not capable of that because it’s not operating a camera in reality.