22 ms·
This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural legacy is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no attribution to the original content with w
by mihaic 3y ago
This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural legacy is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no attribution to the original content with which it was fed, and so the creative industry seems to be in great danger.
Creativity being automated while humans are forced to perform menial tasks for minimum wage doesn't seem like a great future and the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to manage the situation.
- LoveMortuus 3y agoWe are all standing on the shoulders of giants, whose existence and names we will never know or acknowledge. The way these models are creative is the same way humans are. The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations that they had. Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will every other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much every job. But there are still people that weave baskets, and people are prepared to pay the premium to get a product that was 'hand-made'. While receiving the credit that you are deserved is nice and fair. The world doesn't work that way.
- padolsey 3y ago"The world doesn't work that way". Quite pessimistic a position to hold here, no? We–in technology especially–are in positions of significant leverage. We should be talking about how we can limit the negatives and bolster the positives from these generative models. The world can work in a different way if we put enough energy into it. We don't have to stand by as subjects of inertia. That is why OpenAI and others are treading carefully, trying to trigger some kind of momentum of reflection instead of letting our base demons run amok.
- Avicebron 3y agoThat's a massively charitable reading on their actions, whenever I see a "thought leader" behind these companies talk about how careful they are being, I just see marketing. Someone desperately trying to impress upon everyone how revolutionary their model and by extension they are, it's kind of sad..
- padolsey 3y agoI definitely see it as self-serving too, yes, but I also see it as a convenient temporary alignment of incentives. The world and its regulators definitely need time to adjust and educate themselves, so I'm glad for now that they're exercising restraint.
- deergomoo 3y agoNone of the examples you’ve given are even remotely the same thing. > The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations that they had. This is not “influence and inspiration”, this is companies feeding other people’s work into a commercial product which they sell access to. The product would be useless without other people’s work, therefore they should be compensated. > Just as cameras made many artists redundant, so too will every other new tool, and not just artist but pretty much every job. The camera enabled something that was not possible before, and I wasn’t built by taking the work of sketch artists and painters. It was an entirely new form of art and media. The only thing this stuff revolutionises is new ways to not pay people. I find the implications deeply depressing.
- ttoinou 3y agoDa Vinci also made money from the painting, and the Louvres continues to do so right now. They didn't credit his influence and inspiration. This is not sad. The camera did enable painters to pretend they were, for hours, at a scene they painted, but instead they painted photographs from others. Artists are not angels, they do the same "bad" things than OpenAI
- jonplackett 3y agoDa Vinci was just a man though. He was able to produce one or perhaps two paintings at a time. He was not able to create a monopoly on the creation of paintings across the entire world and undercut the price and ability of all other painters. It’s not a sensible comparisons.
- jaystraw 3y agomy name is timothy basket -- you're saying people have stolen my weave?! end sarcasm. but seriously -- claiming you made something you didn't isn't ok. but it happens, regardless of laws or regulations or norms. i don't have any solutions; the internet helps because you can publish something and point to it. i'm a musician and sometimes i only realize well after the fact how influenced i was by something after the fact for a song i've written. and of course, my precious baskets.
- mihaic 3y agoI don't really want to weave baskets, that's what I'd want a machine to do. "The world doesn't work that way" - I've seen this so often, but the most incredible thing about humans was the optimism to be able to change how the world worked -- that's the main impetus of most revolutions. Personifying computer programs also is an error, it's like saying that bombs kill people when there has to be a person dropping them (at least until we get Skynet).
- LoveMortuus 3y ago>I don't really want to weave baskets, that's what I'd want a machine to do. In my free time I like to code games, I don't have money to pay for an artist, nor the time/will to learn how to draw, that's what I'd want a machine to do. I do agree with you that personifying computer programs is an error. That's also why I avoid calling these AI, because they're FAR from that. But I do believe that there will come a day, where personifying a computer program will be a real question.
- pera 3y agoArtists do credit their teachers (Verrocchio in the case of da Vinci), schools, sources of inspiration and influences, so I'm confused by this comment. What kind of acknowledgement did you have in mind?
- s3p 3y agoWhat kind of acknowledgement should AI be giving?
- jazzyjackson 3y agoif the producers of these models weren't incentivized to hide their training data it would be almost trivial to at least retrieve the images most similar to the content produced some images will be maximally distant from training examples but midjourney repainting frames from "harry potter" could very easily automatically send a check to jk rowling per generation these AI start ups are just trying to have a free lunch in a very mature industry
- spookybones 3y agoYeah, some of these comments are clearly made by people who don't actually know the history of art.
- saagarjha 3y agoI'm not even sure the commenter knew who "the artist that painted Mona Lisa" was when they made that comment.
- jonplackett 3y agoda Vinci is a silly comparison. He is just one man. Even he didn’t have such great ability that he can put all other artists out of business. This is more like the invention of weaving machines. Yes we still have weavers but no where near as many.
- camillomiller 3y agoIt is absolutely not the same, and saying so disregards centuries of knowledge stratification. These machine produce superficial artifacts that lack any layering of meaning of semantic capital (see Luciano Floridi). They are the byproduct of the engineering extremism and lack of humanities knowledge of the people getting rich through their creation.
- mlrtime 3y agoIf what you say is true then people will still value non-superficial artifacts. However the mass produced semi-superficial artifact creators that were being created before AI will adapt or suffer.
- chefandy 3y agoModels learn exactly like artists, and also, for some reason, the person that uses those models are artists making art. Wait… Artists learn by passively ingesting many millions pieces of media someone feeds them for the non-specific purpose of “generating art” so some person who wants to take credit for making the end piece can tell them exactly what to make, right?
- nostrebored 3y agoIf the lack of humanities education is what allows us to create the most abundance of art in human history, was that education really worth it?
- TaupeRanger 3y ago> The way these models are creative is the same way humans are We have no idea how human creativity works, but we know with certainty that it doesn't involve a Python program sucking in pixel data and outputting statistical likelihoods.
- jerojero 3y agoYou know, Ive seen people do amazing things with math equations. Beautiful visualisations. As these tools improve and it becomes more possible for us to actually take our ideas into images and videos that fit a sort of "yes this is what I want" bill we are going to see amazing things come out. I mean, a few days ago I saw this clearly AI generated video of some wizards doing snowboard and having a blast in the mountains. It's one of the funniest things I've seen in a while, simply so ridiculous. Obviously someone had the idea "I want to make a video of wizards doing snowboard in a mountain" that's where creativity lies. So to say "creativity doesn't involve a python program outputting statistical likelihoods" imo is just you saying you're not creative enough to know what to do with the tools you've been given. Some people when they see a strawberry they see a fruit. Others see endless dishes where the fruit is just an ingredient.
- jazzyjackson 3y agorude obviously you can use python to create works of art whether a python script can itself be creative is the question posed by OP, but you went with "you're just not creative enough to get it"
- ben_w 3y agoThose Python programs are (loosely) inspired by how organic brains work. (I still have on my to-do list "learn more about why Hebbian learning is different from gradient descent and how much those differences matter").
- eric_cc 3y agoWe do have, at the very least, an idea about how human creativity works and it is an input output pattern.
- spunker540 3y agoI agree and actually think the camera was definitely more disruptive to artists than this AI stuff, and somehow the camera didn’t kill artists.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- reactordev 3y ago“whose existence and names we will never know or acknowledge.” That’s the problem. We know their names. We know their stories, their contributions. Babbage. Lovelace. Ritchie. Spielberg. Picasso. Rembrandt. This is what giving attribution is all about. So we don’t just stand there asking how we got here.
- soperj 3y agoThis is nonsense, people give credit to their influences all the time.
- nostrebored 3y agoTo the influences that they know. Our brain isn’t an attribution machine. When a musician recreates a chord progression that they’ve heard before without noticing it, is that theft? If a comedian accidentally retells a joke, is that theft? Our influences are subtle and often inscrutable.
- goatlover 3y ago> The world doesn't work that way. The human world works that way humans make it work. Pretty much what Jody Foster's character in the movie Contact told that asshole trying to steal all the credit from her, and take her place in the mission to go visit alien dad in Pensacola.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- IAmGraydon 3y ago>The way these models are creative is the same way humans are. The artist that painted Mona Lisa didn't credit any of the influences and inspirations that they had. I'm continually amazed at how many people argue against this point on HN, which is largely biased toward logical discourse. What you just said is exactly right, and is the Achilles heel of the legal arguments against generative AI. If what they are doing illegal, then so is the human act of creativity. If human creativity is legal, then so is generative AI trained on existing art. What has yet to come is the mass realization (or perhaps, admission) that the way AI works is no different from the way we work.
- sebastiennight 3y agoThis reads like a wildly confident statement about art. While at the same time not mentioning the actual name of "the artist that painted Mona Lisa" (Leonardo Da Vinci), nor knowing that the name of his master is very well known, and even the influence of artists that he seemed to despise (eg Michaelangelo) are very well documented as well. Maaybe this narrow view of (art) history needs to be fine-tuned on more data :-)
- high_priest 3y agoHaven't we always attributed creations to people, to motivate our own egos to pursue higher achievements in the name if "glory"? With vision of wealth attributed to fame? Forgive me for being cynical here, but this is how I always viewed the world. Names are... just this, names. Things we use to communicate some ideas/phenomena, but are irrelevant in scope of endless evolution. And can function just aswell with some other "identifier" attached to it. I have come to terms with the fact, that I'm just a spit of sand, just as irrelevant to my own creation, as I am to the cells and bacteria that create me.
- mihaic 3y agoIf you truly feel like a grain of sand, that's your choice, but won't you help us that don't feel that way, if it won't do you any harm? I for one do feel really special, as for every human there are about as many bacteria as there are stars in the universe (give or take a bit).
- digging 3y agoI suspect chasing glory is the main driver yes, but we also like to understand how things came to be, and by knowing who made them and when and where we can do that. AI is ushering in a dark age of attribution where we may no longer be able to know how anything came to be after it's spit out of a computer. (I mean dark age as in "it's dark and we can't see," like the Greek Dark Ages or Dark Matter, not in the sense of "times are bad".)
- melagonster 3y agoThe creators just don't care humans haha. I don't know why people still learning communications, writing, art or any other crafts. everything will be displaced by next AI.
- bamboozled 3y agoI mean why do kids go to school, why learn anything at all I guess?
- test6554 3y agoI believe people will learn, but they will learn more at a lower price.
- melagonster 3y agoIn today's world, it may not be optimal to send children to school. I hope they can follow their passion, but alot of options are not good now.
- war321 3y agoAs said every time this "why are we automating creativity when menial jobs exist?" response comes up: 1) Errors in art programs messing up is less worrisome than a physical robot. One going wrong makes extra fingers in a picture, the other potentially maims or kills you. 2) Moravec's Paradox. Reasoning requires little computation versus sensorimotor and perception. 3) Despite 1 and 2, we are constantly automating menial jobs!
- reubenmorais 3y agoClassifying image generation and manipulation as "art programs" is the most beneficial possible reading of it. When you use them to generate disinformation, incitement and propaganda, they are potentially maiming and killing humans. This failure mode is well known, the mitigations ineffective, yet here we are, about to take another leap forward after a performative period of "red teaming" where some mitigation work happens but the harsher criticism is brushed off as paranoiac.
- scotty79 3y agoDisinformation is art. Art is disinformation.
- thegrimmest 3y agoI couldn't disagree more strongly that disinformation, incitement, or propaganda maim and kill people. People kill other people. Don't give killers an avenue to abdicate responsibility for their actions. Propaganda doesn't cause anyone to do anything. It may convince them, but those are entirely separate things with a clear, bright line between them. Best not mix them up.
- reubenmorais 3y agoIt might be instructive to consider for example the history of genocide, in particular of civilian collaboration in state lead genocide. It might be instructive to consider why the genocide convention criminalizes not only acts of genocide, but also incitement of genocide. Why it criminalizes not only the failure to prevent genocide, but also the failure to prevent incitement of genocide. The US has an extraordinarily strong position on freedom of speech, it is nowhere near a universal moral value. People kill other people is a statement so simple as to be devoid of any positive meaning. What are you actually trying to say? Don't justice systems almost universally contain notions of incitement of crime, criminal negligence to prevent a crime, and other accessory considerations to the actual act? Don't justice systems almost universally have several levels of responsibility in relation to intent, which at its most basic level can be established by predictable outcomes? If, for example, you are a leader of armed forces, and also a leader of organizations capable of creating propaganda. Let's say you create and distribute some propaganda (maybe using some AI tools), and a predictable outcome of that is that soldiers will be more lenient in their consideration of the rules of engagement and international law. In that case, one could at the very least establish that you were negligent in your creation and distribution of propaganda. The actual crime would have been the people killing people, namely your soldiers, but you would certainly be given some responsibility for that. You can similarly take a small next step after that and consider that a company producing, distributing, and profiting from a dual use technology capable of creating propaganda and disinformation that can be responsible for crimes could be held at the very least morally accountable for those crimes, if not criminally. Responsibility, accountability, moral and criminal, are not black and white notions. They are heaviest and easiest to attribute around physical acts of damage, but they stretch far and wide. To think otherwise is to allow the people with the most power to rampage unaccounted.
- adabaed 3y agoWe have been on this path for centuries. Compare the symphonies of 200 years ago with our current music or painting. We humans prefer quantity over quality.
- wruza 3y agoI see nice paintings (not black squares or abstract nonsense) like all the time. Feels like more people can paint at the level of “classics” now. Of course they cannot surpass the deeper meaning of the originals, because they aren’t dead yet and there’s no mystery and legacy around their names. But otherwise they are pretty good at making cool pics.
- boppo1 3y agoFind me 15 painters who have non-digital works at this level of scale/detail: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436482 https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/436482 I suspect you will struggle. The economics for that sort of work don't exist anymore.
- flkenosad 3y ago> We humans prefer quantity over quality. Speak for yourself.
- bamboozled 3y agoThey manage it by meeting with Sam Altman while he runs around in incredibly expensive suits and tells them he will open an office in their country so they will all benefit.
- vin047 3y agoYeah we all thought machines would automate menial labour allowing us to focus on creativity and passion. Looks like it’s the exact opposite.
- brtkdotse 3y agoTo be fair, generating stock images and videos and writing listicle blog post is pretty menial labour.
- posterguy 3y agonot really
- DiscourseFan 3y agoHumans are still cheaper than robots for some tasks...
- flkenosad 3y agoNot for long...
- wruza 3y agoIt’s too early to close the bets. Arts (I mean, drawn porn) was just the easiest to kickstart from all the tech that the invention of modern ML and GPUs will enable. It doesn’t look the opposite, it looks it automated even what we all couldn’t think of, and did that first.
- hackerlight 3y agoMost labor is being automated within the next few decades. It'll be a post-labor world with one less factor of production. Capital and land ownership is all that will matter assuming we don't completely redesign our economic and political system. Pretty scary. My one hope is that the price of goods becomes so low due to AGI/automation, that the uselessness of labor in the economy won't matter. People can still be materially prosperous even with a meagre UBI (and it will be meagre because people have no political power in a post-labor society where the only thing that matters is capital).
- whywhywhywhy 3y agoWish I could go back in time and tell myself to not bother learning how to do any of this stuff the old fashioned way.
- erur 3y agoI feel like a lot of that frustration comes from seeing "arts and culture" as the pinnacle of anything when maybe it's just an overvalued side-effect of human wiring to avoid boredom. Imho. it's just really hard to reason that average non-educational entertainment has a positive net effect on global society. Seeing it this way makes it way less surprising that "art" and "creative entertainment" is one of the first things that gets hit by automation.
- boppo1 3y agoPainter/illustrator here. I mostly agree with you. I often have wondered if what I do is a total waste of time, long before generative models showed up. My close childhood peers became doctors and engineers, and there just isn't any comparison about our contributions to society. People get all whimsical when I bring this up and say "but what about the [spirit/feelings/blah]. I'm clear eyed about it though. If I could go back & re-roll my character sheet (i.e. slap my younger self into realizing STEM is cool while those doors were still open), I certainly would. However, there's a line somewhere. I've spent most of my life around drab midwestern utilitarian/corporate/commercial buildings, and it has been noticeably depressing. In the periods where I've spent time in beautiful buildings, I have felt much better. Based on anecdata, I'm not the only one. There's something important & essential for humans about ornamentation & beauty. It's more than entertainment. Humans can live on rice and kidney beans, but if one must do so without hope for more tasty options[0] it is demoralizing. [0] lots of people are happy with spartan diets, but most often those people are doing so by choice. H
- brookst 3y agoThink of your favorite musicians. How many of them give attribution to where each musical idea came from? The concept of art as exclusive property is very new. Throughout history, artists have built on one another’s works with no attribution or provenance. It’s really just the past 100 years — Disney, specifically - that have created the cultural mindset that the first person to express something owns it forever and everyone else has to pay them for the privilege of building that next work. BTW I’m old enough to remember people decrying the rise of desktop publishing (“WYSIWYG”) as the automation of creativity. I share your disdain for the geriatric political class, but I strongly disagree that this is a situation that needs to be managed. I say we let the arts return to the free for all they were for the fist 80,000 years or whatever.
- geraneum 3y ago> Think of your favorite musicians. How many of them give attribution to where each musical idea came from? Great many, if you care to read a bit more of the biographies, autographies, history of music books, interviews, blogs, etc.
- scotty79 3y agoAt some point we'll probably have insight into learning data of AI. For now copyright makes that super hard.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoIn what sense does copyright make attribution of that data so hard? Is it because people are violating copyrights to train these AIs?
- brookst 3y agoHow can training violate copyright? Is reading a book also violation? My understanding was that copyright was about reproduction, not consumption.
- scotty79 3y agoI think turning human creativity into industry was huge mistake. I welcome its fall.
- flkenosad 3y agoFor sure. It's only being kept alive by ritual sacrifice these days.
- yakito 3y agoAutomatizing creativity, some claim, is an endeavor akin to catching smoke with bare hands—futile, if not utterly fanciful. Yet, I can't help but ponder over the peculiar ballet of human ingenuity and mechanical precision. Consider for a moment, this strange juncture we find ourselves at, a place where the tools crafted by our own hands begin to sketch the outlines of what could very well be new breeds of creativity. Let's muse on the notion that creativity, as we've known and cherished it, can be bottled up and dispensed by machines, up to a certain whimsical point. Beyond that? We stumble upon creations like these, novel tools that beckon us, the flesh-and-blood creators, to mold unforeseen "creativities." It's one spectacle to mechanize the known realms of artistic endeavor, quite another to boldly claim that machines shall inherit the mantle of creativity, henceforth dictating the contours of all future artistic landscapes. History, that grand tapestry, is peppered with instances where the mechanical muses have dared to tread upon the sacred grounds of creativity. Take photography, for instance, a marvel of the 19th century that promised to capture reality with an accuracy that scoffed at the painter's brush. Or consider the digital revolution, which flung open the doors to realms of visual and auditory experiences previously consigned to the realm of dreams. The synthesizer, not merely an instrument but a portal, has ushered us into a new era of musical exploration, challenging the supremacy of the acoustic tradition. Each of these milestones, while distinctly modern, echoes the age-old dance between creator and tool, where each step forward is both a continuation and a departure from the past. In this light, the question isn't whether creativity can be automated, but rather how our definition of creativity evolves as we, hand in hand with our mechanical counterparts, stride into the unknown.
- activitypea 3y agoyaaaaawn
- TheRealDunkirk 3y agoSo... you fed the GP comment into some LLM, and it produced this meaningless pablum?
- panagathon 3y agoThis reads a little hysterical to me. It's just a new medium of expression. Who knows, maybe the lack of genuine artistic merit, if there is such a thing, would lead more people to watch Jim Jarmusch flicks.
- seanw444 3y agoIt's impressive how much hysteria I absorb from this site. Maybe I need a break.
- kajumix 3y agoI didn't go to film school or had any training in creative arts. I love the fact that I will have an outlet for creative expression where my text can generate image, video and sound. I can iterate over them, experiment with visualizations, and get better without technical barriers. Generative AI is making everyone an artist as well as a coder
- threetonesun 3y agoYou could take your phone and film something outside your house in an interesting way and I'd probably argue that's more "art" than whatever glorified stock video AI generates for you. I'm interested where the tooling can go in the long run - can I scribble a picture of a cat and have it turned into an accurate 3D model, then have AI animate it based on text? That would be neat. Text prompts into "something" isn't, to me.
- namlem 3y agoI disagree. I think this is going to empower creatives like never before. Filmmaking currently takes a huge amount of time and money. Countless would be filmmakers are relegated to making 30 second tiktoks because that's all they can afford to do. This could change all that.
- marcc 3y agoExactly this. Art changes over time. The mediums that we use to express ourselves creatively evolves. The position that AI is the end of creative art isn't taking this evolution into account. When video became an affordable medium, would people say "this is the end of art, live performances are art. Now the people will just watch the same recordings over and over?" Maybe, if the internet existed. But it's had the effect of creating and introducing new art forms. AI generated content won't replace art. It will evolve it to a new creative.
- daniel_reetz 3y agoBut an equally likely future is tiktok/insta generate all the videos. After all, they can afford the hardware and they understand how to be addictive.
- throwaway98797 3y agotake shakespeare, he borrowed from so many and yet most people don’t know a few examples Plutarch's Lives Holinshed's Chronicles Ovid's Metamorphoses good artist copy, great artist steal so on and worth i, for one, welcome these creative machines slurping all that was created!
- PeterStuer 3y agoLet's go beyond the philosophical. Which sources would you expect the "woman walks through Tokyo" video to attribute?
- MichaelDickens 3y agoToday, only a highly privileged slice of the population can make a living making art. Nearly everyone who enjoys making art can't make a living off of it, and even the vast majority of people trying to do it full time still can't make ends meet (hence the cliche of the starving artist). But everyone can make art as a hobby if they'd like, that's what almost all artists do, and that will continue to be true as AI advances. So I don't see AI art as changing careers much. Even if AI fully replaces human artists, all that means is the 0.1% of people who make a career off their art will have to join the rest of us 99.9% who only do art for the fun of it.
- ddbb33 3y agoCreative fields encompasses much more than art creation.
- mezeek 3y agoYou sound like "making art" is only the painter in his Brooklyn studio. But it's video game designers, movie animators, videographers, graphic artists, and more that work in agencies and marketing departments of all companies that will be affected.
- ben_w 3y agoThose are mostly not well paid roles[0], and there are clearly many hobbyists in these areas also — looking at YouTube, all output is necessarily videography or animation, but what's the income distribution? I have a channel, no money from it (not that this was ever the point). [0] Unless you're doing furry art, but that's only because furries are "suspiciously wealthy".
- digging 3y ago> Today, only a highly privileged slice of the population can make a living making art. I think this is less true than it's been in centuries or perhaps all of history. Artistry is widespread, anyone can do it, and many choose to pursue it even though the pay isn't going to be great; in preindustrial times even having access to the ability to create art was quite limited as were the media types that existed.
- underlipton 3y agoProactively splitting up the menial tasks so that everyone is doing a little bit, inasmuch as they are able to, for a few hours a day, a few days a week, and getting paid a full-living wage for it seems like the way to go. Or, everyone pulls a Xiu Xiang from Rainbows End and goes back to high school. The main obstacle to this is the pride and ego of the people who've "made it" up until now. Let go. Let society have nice things, even if you have to reinvent yourself. I don't think that creativity is endangered; art, uh, finds a way.
- cdelsolar 3y agoWhy is the machine monstrous?
- mengibar10 3y agoThis is a similar problem manuscript duplicating workers in the Ottoman realm. The printing machines would take their job, but they resisted and lobbied against it in the courts of the sultan. They succeeded in delaying the adoption of printing for some time for the detriment of the people. Unfortunately, this has been the history of man and technology destroying something for the better or worse. Some twisted the story as if the underlying issue was the religion but economic concerns were the real reason.
- ben_w 3y ago> Creativity being automated while humans are forced to perform menial tasks for minimum wage doesn't seem like a great future and the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to manage the situation. May I introduce you to the entire history of humanity between 7 millennia before the invention of writing to approximately 50 years after the invention of communism? :P More seriously: yes, we have no clue how to manage the situation. The best guess right now is UBI, which looks cool, but then at a first glance so does communism and laissez-faire capitalism. Time for, ironically because humans are surprisingly bad at this, a creative idea for how to manage all this.
- rmbyrro 3y agoI used to have the same view. Watching "Everything is a Remix" [1] helped me broaden my perspective. [1] https://youtu.be/nJPERZDfyWc https://youtu.be/nJPERZDfyWc
- Subdivide8452 3y ago[flagged]
- mihaic 3y agoI watched that many years ago, but still see a difference here. Everything was a remix made by humans that put in their unique selves into the remixing process. An AI model has no "unique self" to add to creation, at least not as we've understood so far.
- rmbyrro 3y agoI have the impression you think that it's OK for humans to learn upon other people's work and then create their own, but it's not OK for machines to do that. Am I right? I don't think this position will lead to good outcomes in terms of progress for civilization.
- mihaic 3y agoWhy do you think this, right now? I'm not ideological about this, I wish for a future with self-driving cars for instance. The current situation is simply too rapidly evolving and can cause significant economic destruction, for instance if many middle-class jobs are lost without anything to replace them. Change is inevitable, but reckless speed is not, that's a choice we make as a group.
- thiscatis 3y agoHave you ever danced or even just enjoyed listening to Daft Punk?
- moritonal 3y agoA part of the book Look to Windward by Ian M. Banks wrote of this. How the machine minds could comfortably write opera's greater than any man, but still humans would go to the theatre, just to appreciate it, but the impact was recognised in society. Of course that world was based on post-scarcity whilst we are not.
- leovingi 3y agoMachines can reliably beat humans at chess. Has that stopped anyone from playing? Has it stopped anyone from watching chess tournaments?
- suprxd 3y agoI guess when you know why and how of something it doesn't feel surprising anymore. That's why two computers playing chess is not a fun event. People would however watch two humans playing even if their moves are secretly controlled by a machine. In contrast the generative content if (and will) reach indistinguishable levels, I doubt majority of people would care if a machine created it or a human? The biggest problem with AI which is disguised as its pros is that it is reachable to anyone and everyone and can be used as a weapon.
- legohead 3y agoYour argument is similar to the classic hand vs. power tools argument in crafting, which eventually boils down to "did you mine the ore and forge the tools yourself?" Nowadays the argument is about CNC vs. hand crafting. This is just a point in our overall evolution. It's an exciting time. We are here to learn and adapt. Humans can still be creative all they want. There's still the stamp of "created by a human" that will never go away. You can choose to respect it or ignore it.
- eric_cc 3y ago> will never go away Nothing is forever. It’s unlikely unmodified Homo sapiens are dominant on earth 1,000 years from now.
- d0mine 3y ago> never go away It reminds me: centaurs (human+AI) in chess/go were better than either humans or AI just for a short time. People still play chess but they are outclassed by modern AI.
- halinc 3y agoTrue, but while the 'best' chess is played by computers, few people care to watch Stockfish playing with itself. Meanwhile the human-powered chess world is enjoying a surge in popularity.
- j-wags 3y ago> centaurs (human+AI) in chess/go were better than either humans or AI just for a short time. I was having a conversation about this with a friend last weekend, and we'd assumed that centaurs were still better than either top humans or top computers. I'm unable to easily find this info on google, could you share where you saw that centaurs are no longer better than top computers?
- d0mine 3y agoI saw it here, perhaps, in articles about competitions where both humans and computers were allowed (computers-only teams won). I too can’t find anything relevant on google.
- arendtio 3y ago> This is both amazing and saddening to me. All our cultural legacy is being fed into a monstrous machine that gives no attribution to the original content with which it was fed, and so the creative industry seems to be in great danger. It is the same as what every human being is doing. We consume and we create. Sometimes creations are very good, but most of the time they are just mediocre. If the machines can create better average results, it will be due to the genius of the humans who invented those machines. So we can be happy, that we have such beings among us and should cherish, that we will have better content to consume in the future. When you look at the world, you will see, that there are still plenty of problems to be solved for humans.
- robomartin 3y ago> the geriatric political class has absolutely no clue how to manage the situation. OK, well, you walked right into this one: You must know the answer: How do you manage it?
- michaelcampbell 3y agoYes and no; I mean there are still painters around and we still appreciate their skill in the world of photographs. Sometimes it's only marginally about the finished product, but also about the work to make it.
- honkycat 3y agoIn the same way the "organic" movement took over food, and we want to feel human skill and touch in what we are consuming, I think we will see a similar swing in media. People invest in stories. They also invest in other people. This is why people love seeing Tom Cruise over and over again in movies. Or why I'm going to go see the next Scorsese movie. Reality television is designed to be addicting, and engaging, and it is very successful at that. I get pulled into The storylines whenever I watch. But I quickly turn it off. I don't watch it not because it is not enjoyable, but because I realize it is a cotton candy: empty trash that is not worth my time. Artists are already often criticized for being "corporate." I think we'll see a similar effect for AI generated content. The hoi polloi and normies will slurp it up. The true fans and passionate ones who give a shit aren't going to be fooled. Edit: for length