4 ms·

Then let the people who are so much smarter make their own art and writings, and train their creations on that. Crazy idea, huh? As Bill Hicks said: play from

Then let the people who are so much smarter make their own art and writings, and train their creations on that. Crazy idea, huh? As Bill Hicks said: play from your fucking heart. It doesn't have to be deep, but it has to be something you express. It doesn't matter, at all, if someone else said the same thing before. If a human says or does something, I potentially care. If a model outputs something I find interesting, I am interesting in my thoughts about it, not in the model, because I know for a fact there is nobody on the other side. Anything can create novel output. If anything, the opposite is impossible: even if you make an exact copy of something, it will not be in the same place at the same time. So that's no useful criterion for anything, and it's rich to call "sentience" a nebulous concept -- yeah, we can't define it, but we all experience it, and having a name and a complete definition for it would not make it one iota more real than it already is -- while talking about "novel output" as if that means anything interesting or useful whatsoever.

farts_mckensy 3y ago
People will inevitably continue to train models as they see fit. Nothing can stop that now. Creativity is a set of algorithms that can be mimicked, learned, and reproduced by a machine. Holding onto a deep-seated preference for humanism is limiting your perspective. Works should be judged on their own terms, not their origins. And in the near future, the lines between human-created art, collaborative human-AI art, and solely AI-generated art will blur. The point is, soon enough, you will not be able to tell the difference between art created solely by humans, art that is a product of the combined efforts of humans and AI, and art that was made solely by AI.
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  > Creativity is a set of algorithms This, following on the heels of mocking the usage of "sentience"? Heh. But more importantly, I judge things as I see fit, and I like what I like. What is it to you? If I say I only like to be fondled by my partner, and you say soon enough every place will be so crowded that I can't possibly tell if the hand on my butt is that of my partner, of a random stranger, or of a machine, I can only wonder why anyone would find that desirable, if that is supposed to be some sort of threat, and whether you'll enjoy me "reacting as I see fit" to it.
  - farts_mckensy 3y ago
    It's not a threat. It's a descriptive claim about what the world is going to be like once this technology matures. In due time, most art will be the result of humans and AI. Unless content has some kind of label stating that AI was involved in its creation, you simply aren't going to notice. Sure, there will be a niche of people who obstinately refuse to use any tech that employs machine learning. And we will view those people the same way we view people who believe that taking a photo of someone steals their soul.
    - johnnyworker 3y ago
      You, like everyone, skipped the question why the people who program the models can't also make the effort to create what they teach their creations, and hand-curate it from stuff given with consent. Yes, it can be done. People can just take it because they can, and hope to create facts on the ground that way. Kudos to them. > And we will view those people the same way we view people who believe that taking a photo of someone steals their soul. For me, art, or what I like about art, is an act of communication -- be that of talking to yourself, trying to communicate with others, screaming pain or joy incoherently into the void. It doesn't have to be words. But I care about something because it's from a human. > It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love. -- Stephen Hawking If people will learn to fake and mass-produce that without oversight, A/B testing for whatever gains they want to get out of it, great, kudos. Seems shitty to me, like something people who aren't creative themselves might do, or who like to fuck with other people en masse, etc. Like destroying something you can't have or make. It's like putting poison into the water supply is possible, but that's not the point. People can come up with hilarious or interesting prompts, and that is great. And then there is no need to "hide" it, either. But when it comes to the "art" aspect of it, it's still 100% the humans that tune the output (which is an act of judgement, versus calculation) and/or the humans from whom the input was taken with consent, or stolen without. And last but not least, I take things how I want to, anyway. How I think the author meant it is something I acknowledge and take into consideration, but no more. And I often have several including contradictory readings of something. The beholder always applies the final touch to everything that enters their ken, if you will. Oh, but it'll be also great for actual AI generated ElsaGate shit (like people used to pretend with EG, to not face how sick that phenomenon was... "oh, it's just AI run amok, tuned for views and toddlers obviously like that stuff, so hey") and for scamming the uneducated and elderly, I'm sure. Just gonna call that right now.

farts_mckensy 3y ago

People will inevitably continue to train models as they see fit. Nothing can stop that now. Creativity is a set of algorithms that can be mimicked, learned, and reproduced by a machine. Holding onto a deep-seated preference for humanism is limiting your perspective. Works should be judged on their own terms, not their origins. And in the near future, the lines between human-created art, collaborative human-AI art, and solely AI-generated art will blur. The point is, soon enough, you will not be able to tell the difference between art created solely by humans, art that is a product of the combined efforts of humans and AI, and art that was made solely by AI.

johnnyworker 3y ago
> Creativity is a set of algorithms This, following on the heels of mocking the usage of "sentience"? Heh. But more importantly, I judge things as I see fit, and I like what I like. What is it to you? If I say I only like to be fondled by my partner, and you say soon enough every place will be so crowded that I can't possibly tell if the hand on my butt is that of my partner, of a random stranger, or of a machine, I can only wonder why anyone would find that desirable, if that is supposed to be some sort of threat, and whether you'll enjoy me "reacting as I see fit" to it.
- farts_mckensy 3y ago
  It's not a threat. It's a descriptive claim about what the world is going to be like once this technology matures. In due time, most art will be the result of humans and AI. Unless content has some kind of label stating that AI was involved in its creation, you simply aren't going to notice. Sure, there will be a niche of people who obstinately refuse to use any tech that employs machine learning. And we will view those people the same way we view people who believe that taking a photo of someone steals their soul.
  - johnnyworker 3y ago
    You, like everyone, skipped the question why the people who program the models can't also make the effort to create what they teach their creations, and hand-curate it from stuff given with consent. Yes, it can be done. People can just take it because they can, and hope to create facts on the ground that way. Kudos to them. > And we will view those people the same way we view people who believe that taking a photo of someone steals their soul. For me, art, or what I like about art, is an act of communication -- be that of talking to yourself, trying to communicate with others, screaming pain or joy incoherently into the void. It doesn't have to be words. But I care about something because it's from a human. > It would not be much of a universe if it wasn't home to the people you love. -- Stephen Hawking If people will learn to fake and mass-produce that without oversight, A/B testing for whatever gains they want to get out of it, great, kudos. Seems shitty to me, like something people who aren't creative themselves might do, or who like to fuck with other people en masse, etc. Like destroying something you can't have or make. It's like putting poison into the water supply is possible, but that's not the point. People can come up with hilarious or interesting prompts, and that is great. And then there is no need to "hide" it, either. But when it comes to the "art" aspect of it, it's still 100% the humans that tune the output (which is an act of judgement, versus calculation) and/or the humans from whom the input was taken with consent, or stolen without. And last but not least, I take things how I want to, anyway. How I think the author meant it is something I acknowledge and take into consideration, but no more. And I often have several including contradictory readings of something. The beholder always applies the final touch to everything that enters their ken, if you will. Oh, but it'll be also great for actual AI generated ElsaGate shit (like people used to pretend with EG, to not face how sick that phenomenon was... "oh, it's just AI run amok, tuned for views and toddlers obviously like that stuff, so hey") and for scamming the uneducated and elderly, I'm sure. Just gonna call that right now.