Why is it difficult to believe? It's far more rooted in current understandings in neuroscience than any spiritual or mystifying narrative of the uniqueness of the "human soul" or whatever nonsense people attribute human creativity to stem from. — Christoffer
But artists who trace will still come out unscathed compared to how people react to AI generated images. — Christoffer
That's not enough of a foundation to conclude that machines do not replicate the physical process that goes on in our brain. You're just attributing some kind of "spiritual creative soul" to the mind, that it's just this "mysterious thing within us" and therefore can't be replicated. — Christoffer
And when we dig into it, we see how hard it is to distinguish what actually constitutes human creativity form machine creativity. — Christoffer
But are we saying that we shouldn't progress technology and tools because of this? — Christoffer
When photoshop arrived with all its tools, all the concept artists who used pencils and paint behaved like luddites, trying to work against concept art being made with these new digital tools. When digital musical instruments started becoming really good, the luddites within the world of composing started saying that people who can't write notes shouldn't be hired or considered "real" composers. — Christoffer
Therefore, a company who fires an artist in favor of someone who's not an artist to start working with AI generation, will soon discover that the art direction becomes sloppy and uninspiring, not because the AI model is bad, but because there's no "guiding principles" and expert eye guiding any of it towards a final state. — Christoffer
The "good enough" companies, before these AI models, have never been good for artists anyway. Why would artists ever even care for their work towards these companies if they themselves won't care for the artists? — Christoffer
Then you agree that the lawsuits going on that targets the training process rather than the outputs, uses of outputs and the users misusing these models are in the wrong. — Christoffer
Sorry, ready this too late :sweat: But still, the topic requires some complexity in my opinion as the biggest problem is how the current societal debate about AI is often too simplified and consolidated down into shallow interpretations and analysis. — Christoffer
So, it's essentially exactly the same as how our brain structure works when it uses our memory that is essentially a neural network formed by raw input data; and through emotional biases and functions synthesize those memories into new forms of ideas and hallucinations. Only through intention do we direct this into forming an intentional creative output, essentially forming something outside of us that we call art. — Christoffer
Because a mere intention to want to create a painting of a park doesn't get to the interesting parts about how our brains generate that image in our heads from what we know. Of course I don't know much about creativity, neuroscience, or AI like I said before, so I'm gonna avoid deeper conversations and skip over the following paragraphs you've written for the sake of time. — Mr Bee
They certainly deal with alot of criticism themselves if you're implying they don't. Tracing isn't exactly a widely accepted practice. — Mr Bee
I'm willing to reject dualism as well, though I'm not sure why you're attributing this and indeterminism to people who just believe that human creativity and whatever is going on in diffusion models aren't equivalent. — Mr Bee
I'm not saying that the human brain isn't a machine, I'm just saying that there are differences between the architecture of human brains and AI diffusion models something that may reveal itself with a further understanding of neuroscience and AI. — Mr Bee
Given how disruptive AI can be to all walks of society then I think that is a reason for pause unless we end up creating a very large society backlash. — Mr Bee
Those were more new mediums, new ways of making art and music then something that could completely replace artists can do. I'd look more at the invention of the camera and it's relation to portrait artists as a better example. — Mr Bee
Honestly we should all be concerned on that because if they're fine with it then artists are out of a job and we as consumers will have to deal with more sloppy art. Already I see advertisements where people have 6 fingers on a hand. — Mr Bee
Because they're the ones giving most artists a job at this point and they need those jobs. Unfortunately that's the society we live in. — Mr Bee
They're both related. If the output process is not considered transformative enough then if the input contains copyright material then it's illegal. — Mr Bee
I don't think intention is a requirement of artistic output. An artist may not have anything to say about what a particular work means. It just flows out the same way dreams do. Art comes alive in the viewer. The viewer provides meaning by the way they're uniquely touched. — frank
Intention is more than just will, intention drives creation in a fluid constant manner, not just a will to paint a park, but every detail of that park and the interpretation of it into reworks and changes.
But it's important to know the depths of all of this, because that's what's part of defining the foundation for laws and regulations. — Christoffer
And this is also why I say that artists won't disappear. Because even an AI that is a superintelligence and has the capacity to create art on its own because they're essentially sentient, would still just constitute a single subjective perspective. Becoming a single "artist" among others. Maybe more able to produce art quicker and int more quantities, but still, people might like its art, but will want to see other perspectives from other artists and that requires a quantity of individual artists, AIs included. — Christoffer
It's easy to fall into the debate trap of always summerizing anything against companies as having pure capitalist interests, but trying to solve AI tools is kinda the worst attempt if all intentions are just profit. — Christoffer
To defend human creativity with that it's magic isn't enough. — Christoffer
I find it a bit ironic that people don't want massive change while at the same time complain that nothing is done about the problems that actually exist in society. — Christoffer
If I have to be blunt, the benefits of these AI systems are potentially so massive that I couldn't care less about a minority of bitter artist who lost a job at a corporation that didn't even appreciate these artists contribution enough to value them staying. — Christoffer
Is that a bad thing? Does anyone actually care about ads in terms of aesthetic appreciation? Or is everyone trying their best to get their adblockers to work better and remove them all together? The working conditions for artists were already awful for these kinds of companies, maybe it's better that this part of the industry collapses and gets replaced by outputs of the same quality as the no-caring CEOs of these agencies. Why are we defending shit jobs like these? It's them which will be replaced first. — Christoffer
Companies who actually care about art but use AI will still need artists, they need their eyes to handle AI generative outputs and change according to plan and vision. — Christoffer
Then start learning AI and be the artist who can give that expertise showing an edge against the non-artists that are put to work with these AIs and who don't know what the word "composition" even means. It's an easier working condition, it's less stressful and it's similarly "just a job". Why is anyone even crying over these kinds of jobs getting replaced by an easier form? It makes no sense really. Why work as a slave because a CEO demanded 5 new concept art pieces over the weekend not caring how much work that this would demand of a concept artist?
A company hiring a non-artist to work with AI won't work and they will soon realize this. You need the eyes, you need the ears and the poetic mind to evaluate and form what the AI is generating, that's the skill the artist is bringing. — Christoffer
What you're saying is like saying that if an artist makes something that's not transformative enough, we should rule that artist to never be able to look in magazines or photographs again for inspiration and references. — Christoffer
Why are artists allowed to do whatever they want in their private workflows, but not these companies? — Christoffer
However, corporations do have a fiduciary requirement to generate profit for their shareholders. So, making money is the name of the game. The people who make up corporations, especially when engaged in new, cutting edge projects, clearly have lots of intellectual interests aside from the fiduciary requirement. I'm sure developing AI is an engrossing career for many people, requiring all the ingenuity and creativity they can muster. — BC
but the final uses to which this technology will be applied are not at all clear, and I don't trust corporations -- or their engineers -- to just do the right thing, — BC
Just an example. True enough, it's not quite the same as AI. But corporations regularly do things that turn out to be harmful--sometimes knowing damn well that it was harmful--and later try to avoid responsibility. — BC
I was thinking of intention as in a desire to create something meaningful. An artist might not have any particular meaning in mind, or even if they do, it's somewhat irrelevant to the meaning the audience finds. So it's obvious that AI can kick ass creatively. In this case, all the meaning is produced by the audience, right? — frank
Yea, an AI artist could create a century's worth of art in one day. I don't really know what to make of that. — frank
I don't know enough about the processes in detail, but just a first glance impression gives off the feeling they're different. — Mr Bee
Chat-GPT I don't think is as intelligent as a human is. It doesn't behave the way a human intelligence would. Can I explain what is the basis for that? No. Does that mean I think it's magic then? Not at all. — Mr Bee
The things is that for alot of people generative AI seems like a solution looking for a problem. — Mr Bee
I think this video sums it up pretty nicely: — Mr Bee
According to some reports, AI could replace hundreds of millions of jobs. If it doesn't replace it with anything else, then to brush off the economic disruption to people's lives without considering policies like UBI is the sort of thinking that sets off revolutions. — Mr Bee
When you're too cheap to hire someone to create something then you're probably also too lazy to fix the inevitable problems that comes with generated content. — Mr Bee
I can imagine the top art companies, like say a Pixar or a Studio Ghibli, focusing solely on human art, in particular because they can afford it. I don't see them relying on AI. Like a high end restaurant that makes it's food from scratch without any manufactured food, they'll probably continue to exist.
There will also be companies that use AI to a certain extent as well, and then companies that rely on it too much to the point of being low-end. — Mr Bee
None of this really addresses their concern about financial stability. I fear that this new technology just gives more leverage over a group of people who have been historically underpaid. I hope it ends up well, but I'm not gonna brush off these concerns as luddite behavior. — Mr Bee
Not at all. They're just not allowed to use their non-transformative output based on those references and expect to get paid for it. Like I said before, if you want to look at a bunch of copyrighted material and download it on your computer, that's fine since all you're doing is consuming. — Mr Bee
Noone is allowed to do whatever they want. Is private use suddenly immune to the law? I don't think so.
Whether a particular use violates the law is obviously not for the user to decide. It's a legal matter. — jkop
The more I "input", the more of my subjective intention I bring into the system as guiding principles for its generation. — Christoffer
If the private use is within law and identical to what these companies do, then it is allowed, and that also means that the companies do not break copyright law with their training process. — Christoffer
All sorts of meaning could be projected onto it, but my intention probably wouldn't show up anywhere because of the way I made it. The words I entered had nothing to do with this content. It's a result of using one image as a template and putting obscure, meaningless phrases in as prompts. What you get is a never ending play on the colors and shapes in the template image, most of which surprise me. My only role is picking what gets saved and what doesn't. This is a technique I used with Photoshop, but the possibilities just explode with AI. And you can put the ai images into Photoshop and then back into ai. It goes on forever — frank
I think the real reason art loses value with AI is the raw magnitude of output it's capable of. — frank
You claim it's identical merely by appeal to a perceived similarity to private legal use. But being similar is neither sufficient nor necessary for anything to be legal. Murder in one jurisdiction is similar to legal euthanasia in another. That's no reason to legalize murder. — jkop
Corporate engineers training an Ai-system in order to increase its market value is obviously not identical to private fair use such as visiting a public library. — jkop
We pay taxes, authors or their publishers get paid by well established conventions and agreements. Laws help courts decide whether a controversial use is authorized, fair or illegal. That's not for the user to decide, nor for their corporate spin doctors. — jkop
If you do not want the AI to know a particular information, then simply do not put that information onto the internet. — chiknsld
I'll give you an example: You are a scientist working on a groundbreaking theory that will win you the Nobel Prize (prestige) but the AI is now trained on that data and then helps another scientist who is competing with you from another country. This would be an absolutely horrible scenario, but is this the AI's fault, or is it the fault of the scientist who inputted valuable information?
In this scenario, both scientists are working with AI.
We all have a universal responsibility to create knowledge (some more than others) but you also do not want to be a fool and foil your own plans by giving away that knowledge too quickly. It's akin to the idea of "casting pearls" — chiknsld
In terms of science however, one area that's gotten a huge improvement with AI is versions of models trained on publications. The level of speed at which someone can do research on and getting good sources for citations has increased so much that it's already speeding up research in the world overall. — Christoffer
This here is the problem with the overall debate in the world. People replace insight and knowledge with "what they feel is the truth". A devastating practice in pursuit of truth and a common ground for all people to exist on. Producing "truths" based on what feels right is what leads to conflict and war. — Christoffer
No on is claiming that either. Why is this a binary perspective for you? Saying that ChatGPT simulates certain systems in the brain does not mean it is as intelligent as a human. But it's like it has to either be a dead cold machine or equal to human intelligence, there's no middle ground? ChatGPT is a middle ground; it mimics certain aspects of the human brain in terms of how ideas, thoughts and images are generated out of neural memory, but it does not reach the totality of what the brain does. — Christoffer
However, while people fear the economic disruption, the world is also worried about how work is stressing us to death, how people have lost a sense of meaning through meaningless jobs and how we're existentially draining ourselves into a soulless existence. — Christoffer
It's ironic that people complain about these AI companies through the perspective of capitalist greed when the end result of massive societal disruption through AI would effectively be the end of capitalism as we know it, since it removes the master/slave dynamic. — Christoffer
Any nation who spots these disruptions will begin to incorporate societal changes to make sure living conditions continue to be good for the citizens. — Christoffer
And instead of working ourselves to death with meaningless jobs, people may find time to actually figure out what is meaningful for them to do and focus on that. — Christoffer
I'm rather optimistic about a future that has, through automation, disrupted capitalism as we know it. — Christoffer
Still doesn't change the fact that these lazy CEOs and companies were treating artists badly before firing them due to AI. I don't think this is a loss for artists. — Christoffer
Yes, consuming like the training process does with these models. It's a training process, like training your brain on references and inspirations, filling your brain with memories of "data" that will be used within your brain to transform into a new ideas, images or music. This is what I'm saying over and over. Don't confuse the output of these AI models with the training process. Don't confuse the intention of the user with the training process. Because you seem to be able to make that distinction for a human, but not for the AI models. You seem to forget that "user" component of the generative AI and the "user decision" of how to use the generated image. Neither having to do with the training process. — Christoffer
I said I was withholding my judgement. I have never claimed that the case is definitively settled for the reasons I've mentioned before regarding the state of our knowledge about both neuro and computer science. You clearly seem to disagree but I suppose we can just agree to disagree on that. — Mr Bee
I have never said it was binary. I just said that whatever the difference is between human and current AI models it doesn't need to be something magical. — Mr Bee
In any case, you seem to agree that there is a difference between the two as well, well now the question is what that means with regards to it's "creativity" and whether the AI is "creative" like we are. Again I think this is a matter where we agree to disagree on. — Mr Bee
One may argue that for some work is what gives their life meaning, It's unhealthy working conditions that are the problem more so. — Mr Bee
It also removes the leverage that workers usually have over their employers. In a society that is already heavily biased towards the latter, what will that mean? That's a concern that I have had about automation, even before the advent of AI. It honestly feels like all the rich folk are gonna use automation to leave everyone else in the dust while they fly to Mars. — Mr Bee
History shows that that is rarely how things go. If that were the case then wealth inequality wouldn't have been so rampant and we would've solved world hunger and climate change by now. People are very bad at being proactive after all. It's likely any necessary changes that will need to happen will only happen once people reach a breaking point and start protesting. — Mr Bee
The irony is that it seems like AI is going after the jobs that people found more meaningful, like creative and white collar jobs. It's the more monotonous blue collar jobs that are more secure for now, at least until we see more progress made in the realm of robotics. Once automation takes over both then I don't know where that will leave us. — Mr Bee
We'll see. Maybe I've just been a pessimist recently (nothing about what's currently going on in the world is giving me much to be hopeful about) but I can just as easily see how this can end up going in a dystopian fashion. Maybe it's because I've watched one too many sci-fi movies. Right now, assuming people get UBI, Wall-E seems to be on my mind currently. — Mr Bee
Certainly alot of them don't value their workers on a personal level alot of the time but I'd distinguish that from abuse. Of course that isn't really the main concern here. — Mr Bee
I mean if you want to just train a model and keep it in your room for the rest of it's life, then there's nothing wrong with that, but like I said that's not important. None of what you said seems to undermine the point you're responding to, unless I am misreading you here. — Mr Bee
Such exploration through random choices is still guidance. And we've seen that in traditional art as well, especially abstract art. — Christoffer
Art is the interplay between the artist and the audience, the invisible communication through creation, about anything from abstract emotions to specific messages. The purpose of a created artwork is the narrative defining the value of it. If all you do is generating images through randomization, then what is the purpose you're trying to convey? — Christoffer
So AI becomes another tool, not a competing intellect. — frank
My view is based on people seeing my work and reading complex messages into it. And this is painting, not ai art. I'm interested in their interpretations. My own intentions are fairly nebulous. Does that mean I'm not doing art? I guess that's possible. Or what if communications isn't really the point of art? What if it's about a certain kind of life? A work comes alive in the mind of the viewer. In a way, Hamlet is alive because you're alive and he's part of you. I'm saying what if the artist isn't creating an inanimate message, but rather a living being? — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.