|
Delthalaz posted:Regarding the fears of AI superintelligence and world domination, I'll be a lot more concerned if Paradox can ever develop an "AI" that can beat an average human player without cheating. Those games are pretty complicated, but not nearly as complicated as the real world, so...
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
It's not like we don't know how to solve climate change, just we don't want to do it. An AI super intelligence wouldn't change that.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
Mega Comrade posted:It's not like we don't know how to solve climate change, just we don't want to do it. An AI super intelligence wouldn't change that. I think the basis of the claim was that the theoretical AI super intelligence wouldn't ask or give anybody a choice
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:I think the basis of the claim was that the theoretical AI super intelligence wouldn't ask or give anybody a choice People seem to conceptualise AI kinda like, I dunno, nuclear weapons. The problem with nuclear weapons isn't the underlying physics. It's not that we happened to know and understand the underlying physics. Because it isn't like if you know the underlying physics then poof nuclear weapons just start appearing in your hands. We only got from the theoretical knowledge of nuclear weapons to a (barely) functional actual weapon by throwing all the resources available to one of the largest and most resource-rich nations in the history of the world at the problem. And then we didn't get from one nuclear weapon to "oh poo poo the world might end" in the Cold War just because we had managed to produce one weapon, it's because multiple nations spent absolutely titanic amounts of resources specifically to be able to produce that result. It's not something that "just happened" or something that was the result of a single decision or anything like that. The nuclear arsenals of the Cold War were (and to a large extent still are) a massive public project that required, and require, an enormous and continual outlay of resources to continue. The framing of "what if AI just takes over" is at best a fundamental attribution error. If you're a textile worker at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution you're fundamentally misunderstanding the situation if you watch a factory owner buying a steam loom and think it's the machine that's coming for your job.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 20:14
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I know you're joking but they do that on purpose because predictable computer players are more fun and easier to balance. It would be very annoying for new players if every time you changed your strategy, the AI adapted to cut you off. Expert players might appreciate that, but it's just not worth the effort. Hmm, that’s pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
SubG posted:This is only a plausible scenario if the theoretical AI is literal magic. It's not a realistic thing, hence referencing it as a Deus Ex Machina. I guess your argument is that it'd take a lot of effort to even accidentally do that, but we don't actually know how to do it at all, and these chatbots are going to get loads of investment and governmental support because everything that suppresses wages and expands the pool of desperate reserve labor does. It's arguing which fraction of infinity is most likely to be correct. Talking about real AI literally is talking about magic. It wouldn't need to master matter manipulation to create nukes out of the aether to stop climate change if for whatever reason it decided it needed to, it would just need to shut off the internet, fry a bunch of electrical hubs and generation, shut down or explode some pipelines, make flight far more dangerous, that sort of thing. These models are all being trained on data detailing how to do exactly that because they're scraping everything. Climate change solved, as the monkey paw's finger curls inward. Even in the Star Trek timeline it was aliens and only after we'd nuked ourselves and that's the optimist's techno-future.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:...and these chatbots are going to get loads of investment and governmental support because everything that suppresses wages and expands the pool of desperate reserve labor does.  I too remember the Good Old Days when people spun fiber by hand, now all those jobs are taken by spinning mules and jennies! Also blacksmiths were viciously outsourced to the Machines - sad!. Switchboard operators. Computers. Truly horrible how suppressed these wages have become to the point of obsolescence. e: Communists are masters of framing and wordplay: finding a more labour-efficient way of doing something = "suppressing wages". Getting laid off because a machine can do your work faster, safer, and smarter = "expanding the pool of desperate reserve labor". Poetry Serotoning fucked around with this message at 21:16 on May 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
Pvt. Parts posted:
That's....exactly what those things do? The workers previously employed don't just vanish from the world, and they are still expected to clothe and house themselves in a world in which you either own enough capital that you live off other people's labor or live off your own labor alone. Suppressing wages and keeping a non-zero amount of unemployed people knocking around the place go hand in hand and are the explicit goals of the Fed, and entire government generally, it's not any kind of theory at all much less a Communist one. We're literally living in the middle of a "crisis" that is defined in weekly press conferences as being the result of wages rising and unemployment going too low. This is the system that is building machines to reinforce and propagate itself, and those machines are what you're referring to. What is considered progress will always be highly context dependent, but just writing off every negative externality as fake or some Communist plot is fanciful utopianism. More efficiency is not always good. The Zaire variant of Ebola is pretty efficient too.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:27
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:It's not a realistic thing, hence referencing it as a Deus Ex Machina.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Folks, that was a joke post.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
No joking in D&D Humorously using old terms in new contexts that twist their meaning even more is EXTRA forbidden
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:05
|
|
|
I think we kinda already invented infinite food and infinite energy? We could use gravity and water to produce has much energy has we need. And with modern fertilicers, a single person can feed a entire city. Sometimes farmers overproduce food and have to destroy it. We could produce so much energy, to tank his market value into the negative (https://www.stanwell.com/our-news/energy-explainer/negative-prices/) So basically we already have the tech for infinite food and energy. We are technological developed, but socially underdeveloped to take advantage of that technology. With AGI / ASI, it could be the same. If our society continue primitive and based on scarcity, even huge technological changes represented for AGI / ASI might do nothing good for our society.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:13
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:That's....exactly what those things do? The workers previously employed don't just vanish from the world, and they are still expected to clothe and house themselves in a world in which you either own enough capital that you live off other people's labor or live off your own labor alone. Suppressing wages and keeping a non-zero amount of unemployed people knocking around the place go hand in hand and are the explicit goals of the Fed, and entire government generally, it's not any kind of theory at all much less a Communist one. We're literally living in the middle of a "crisis" that is defined in weekly press conferences as being the result of wages rising and unemployment going too low. This is the system that is building machines to reinforce and propagate itself, and those machines are what you're referring to. There's a legitimate economic reason to structurally have a couple percent (iirc the recommended numbers i've seen float between 0.5% and 2%, so as usually i lean towards the lower end that gives workers more power) unemployment as long as any individual person doesn't stay unemployed for too long, and it's subscribed to by the better Fed types. If it gets really close to zero percent, things start getting a little weird regarding job changes and career changes. in practice at the Fed this usually manifests as arguing that current unemployment rates are either fine or too high, in opposition to the people who think fewer people should be employed for worse reasons
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2023 22:39
|
|
|
Pvt. Parts posted:
The problem is that unless we change the notion of "you need to work to live" then making everything more efficient only benefits the people who already own everything. Which is why we need Universal Basic Income or something, so that 1 person doing the work of 3 (and therefore 2 people losing their jobs) doesn't ruin 2/3 of people's lives. And lower the relative status of the remaining 1/3, since they'll have to settle for less from the extra competition for their job. Clarste fucked around with this message at 06:11 on May 4, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:Honestly, I think once it reaches the point an AI can replace programmers, its basically capable of replacing any job, except for jobs that strongly rely on social interaction. There might be a slightly delay for physical labor, but the tech is almost already there. I honestly don't think it'll ever be a functional replacement for programmers. It can only interpolate from what it is trained on, and thus can't exactly find novel solutions to problems, and is incapable of any but the shallowest context. It'll speed up routine code much like predictive text messaging speeds that up, but won't replace human experience and knowledge. I've been in IT long enough to also understand that a lot of businesses will try to sell it as a replacement for coders, then spend a poo poo ton of money hiring people to unfuck the code the AI was confidently wrong about and they implemented without sanity checks. Doctor Malaver posted:It would be helpful for objections to AI to be specific and free of padding. For instance, why complain about "false text" flooding the internet? How's that going to be different from now? Are we in the end days of truthful internet, free of conspiracy theories, money scams, hate speech..? I think most of us old grumpy tech folks are well aware of the vast signal to noise ratio change in the internet brought about by social media, and understand that a tool that will allow individual bad actors to generate said noise vastly more efficiently will poison the usefulness of the internet as a platform in much the same way that junk mail, robocalls, and email spam either crippled those tools or required extensive legal and/or programmatic solutions to filter. Half the reason conspiracy theories get so much traction is that they're spread with great volume, and most people absolutely don't have the time in the day to research and critically evaluate every piece of information they consume. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 11:48 on May 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2023 11:09
|
|
|
This article in Ars Technica got me thinking about the concept of "post-human content" or "content for the algorithm". It describes how Spotify took down some songs that had been generated with the AI music app Boomy and then "streamed" by bots. Basically we have people pushing content that's not even made for human consumption and is tailored just to profit off the algorithm. All of the human creative spirit - or even human creators and consumers - is completely stripped out to become nothing more than a set of transactions between owners of capital.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:39
|
|
|
America Inc. posted:This article in Ars Technica got me thinking about the concept of "post-human content" or "content for the algorithm". It describes how Spotify took down some songs that had been generated with the AI music app Boomy and then "streamed" by bots. This isn't really a thing enabled by AI at all. It's just fraud with extra steps. Maybe the AI aspect helps hide the fraud better, because it's harder to tell that they aren't real songs than like 3 minutes of random noise or wherever, but I think that's largely incidental. Any situation where you have some form of arbitrage*, people will try to exploit it. *I don't think this is technically arbitrage but it's accomplishing the same thing of exploiting a loophole in the system to skim money
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
America Inc. posted:This article in Ars Technica got me thinking about the concept of "post-human content" or "content for the algorithm". It describes how Spotify took down some songs that had been generated with the AI music app Boomy and then "streamed" by bots. Someone is scamming a corporation. I don't think the scammers are necesarrily wealthy and I don't think it's particularly important that they are doing it without the human creative spirit. Ultimately this particular thing is aimed at the business model of streaming services and they will have to adapt or be less profitable but heaps of generic garbage is not a threat to artists or art.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
It will get interesting when the AI is powerful enough to create work of art that follow the same style of a song instead of ripping the chords and beats straight out simply by having all of the general knowledge of musicianship. Imagine when a new hit is made and you just feed it into an algorithm that creates a derivate work from that, tweaking it just enough as to not be called a rip off.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
IShallRiseAgain posted:AI being used to train AI is not the problem that people think it is. In fact, using AI to generate more training data is sometimes actually something desirable because you can better control the input. Midjourney for example uses RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) to improve its model, and Stable Diffusion is going to release a model using the same technique. The controls used to gather the original dataset will work fine with a bunch of AI data, because even before AI, there was a lot of really bad data out there. (You can check the LAION database and search for a term, and see there is a lot of unrelated garbage.) On my company we created a face generator AI to train a face recognition AI, because it was a way to avoid using faces of real people because of privacty and other legal issues. Is kinda a great way to do it. Do you need 200 faces on demand?, you press a button. The alternative is free datasets of faces you can use legally, but the quality is kinda crap. Or asking all the devs to give their face... that only me and another dev did. Imaginary Friend posted:It will get interesting when the AI is powerful enough to create work of art that follow the same style of a song instead of ripping the chords and beats straight out simply by having all of the general knowledge of musicianship. Among other things, my desire to see more art created by AI has waned to nothing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wng6CDTpb7g Theres this scene in One Piece where a maniac doctor has been creating zombies. And for him Zombies are like people, but better because are disposable. He has a hard on on this artist he reanimated has a zombie, and the doctor is phisically unable to tell the difference between a dead thing, and a live thing. The scene is super powerfull, and I think highlight the reason with "AI ART" is bad. Is not live, it was made by something unalive, and is unalive. And the authors can't tell the difference between a live thing and a dead thing. You need a artist to make art, and "AI ART" is not created by somebody that understand art, is because that fails to realize the ideal of art, that is provoque human feelings. Now, .. I am a techbro too. I use to deal with game engines and dream about creating content by algorithm, procedurally create the sky, the clouds, the sun, a world created by math, not by artists. All that would be a world, but a empty one, withouth meaning. Algorithm AI art can be created, when is created by a artists. Life can create life. Tei fucked around with this message at 21:14 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 21:05
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Maybe the AI aspect helps hide the fraud better, because it's harder to tell that they aren't real songs than like 3 minutes of random noise or wherever, but I think that's largely incidental. "fraudsters could already do this" is often true, but there's a big difference between fraud that takes a human several minutes to perform and is easily detectable vs something that can be executed on a massive scale and is almost impossible to detect
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 21:13
|
|
|
Most artists get gently caress all from streaming so it doesn't matter if Spotify gets destroyed by AI.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
Tei posted:Theres this scene in One Piece where a maniac doctor has been creating zombies. And for him Zombies are like people, but better because are disposable. He has a hard on on this artist he reanimated has a zombie, and the doctor is phisically unable to tell the difference between a dead thing, and a live thing. The scene is super powerfull, and I think highlight the reason with "AI ART" is bad. Is not live, it was made by something unalive, and is unalive. And the authors can't tell the difference between a live thing and a dead thing. You need a artist to make art, and "AI ART" is not created by somebody that understand art, is because that fails to realize the ideal of art, that is provoque human feelings. This snowball will probably grow our brains to be able to take in the rapidly multiplying sources of information/content though so I guess it's all good 🤯 Last edit (sorry) I also think it's good that it's open source so that the next live album by Kurt Cobain, Elvis or any other dead artist will be made by a basement dwelling goon and not some huge record label that currently owns the rights to Elvis's material. Imaginary Friend fucked around with this message at 22:35 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 22:16
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:It will get interesting when the AI is powerful enough to create work of art that follow the same style of a song instead of ripping the chords and beats straight out simply by having all of the general knowledge of musicianship. I could see something where instead of releasing a song that is the same every time, some artists release basically a very specific LoRA that riffs on a set structure and you pay a subscription for access to that. Obviously not all or even most music will go that way, but some genres could work well and it would essentially be an endless DJ set in a specific artist's style. Sivart13 posted:I think this downplays how rough this is going to be on certain markets going forward. Sure, but that arms race has been happening basically since the internet became a thing. It's important and interesting and complicated, but not new.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:I could see something where instead of releasing a song that is the same every time, some artists release basically a very specific LoRA that riffs on a set structure and you pay a subscription for access to that. Obviously not all or even most music will go that way, but some genres could work well and it would essentially be an endless DJ set in a specific artist's style.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:"Art" is in the eye of the beholder and looking at all creative works, whether it's movies, music or games, it's all derivate from other sources, that themselves are inspired by even more things. With AI, the time to churn out a copy that is superior will be shortened and the new popular thing will get bloated much faster by copies. AI ART is not creating art for people that are not artist. Is creating "Cool looking images". Artist could create art with "AI ART" tools, but only a minority are interested, many are put off by projects like Midjourney stealing the images, ignoring the copyright of these images, taking them in bulk, with metadata like "created by <name of author>" so people can write "make foo in the style of <name of author>". Copyright is SUPER SACRED HAS HELL if is Sony or Disney properties ...for corporations, but opt-out for artist if you are rich, or part of a "get rich quick" scheme with VC money, I guess. Nintendo can have slaves, because copyright laws. https://www.gamingbible.com/news/nintendo-forces-switch-hacker-to-pay-them-2530-of-his-income-for-res-170600-20230419 Midjourney would opt-out of copyright, because would be too expensive. https://petapixel.com/2022/12/21/midjourny-founder-admits-to-using-a-hundred-million-images-without-consent/ One rule of law for poor people, a different rule of law for rich people. Tei fucked around with this message at 00:25 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 00:21
|
|
|
Yeah but when people talk about AI art they don't care if its actually art. They don't care about whether the art they get from actual artists is actually art. They care about whether it does what they need it to do. Is it beautiful? Does it represent what I want to see to see in a pleasing way? Does it generate the right response in the viewer? It doesn't matter if something that is unalive can create real "art", what matters is that it can create *something* that meets that need, which, previously, only actual artists could really do. It may not be art, but if it isn't, what it is is something that makes people not need nearly as much art.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
Tei posted:AI ART is not creating art for people that are not artist. Is creating "Cool looking images". Artist could create art with "AI ART" tools, but only a minority are interested, many are put off by projects like Midjourney stealing the images, ignoring the copyright of these images, taking them in bulk, with metadata like "created by <name of author>" so people can write "make foo in the style of <name of author>". Yeah I heard the same thing about digital art in the mid 2000s and back then it was my job to deal with that question. It was true then (and now) there was a ton of stuff just showing off cool looking but hollow things people could do with photoshop. Amateur art is for "cool looking images" , the stuff that floods reddit is, the stuff people just messing around with a medium is. The internet is flooded with art that is just very cool but nothing else. It's a new medium like any other medium and can be used to do all kinds of things. I actually don't think most professional artists are put off by it, some are that I've seen but the majority are just sorta neutral and kinda have the attitude that it's not their medium so whatever. But since it's a thing that's existed in any real way for less than a year we haven't even seen what artists will come from it. GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but when people talk about AI art they don't care if its actually art. If someone's asks themselves these questions when making something then they do care whether or not it's art and they are, in fact, making art.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yeah but when people talk about AI art they don't care if its actually art. They don't care about whether the art they get from actual artists is actually art. They care about whether it does what they need it to do. Basically you are saying that if AI ART produce a placebo of real art and people don't notice. Does the difference matter? Theres a huge difference between something just "decorative" or real art. The difference being big enough artist have a special place in our society, where somebody creating decoration is just another job. There are many ways to explain why Art is important, and some decoration you can put in a corner in a room is not. This is my way: Culture is what a civilization is made of. A civilization is not made of stone houses or steel ships. Stell ships and stone houses are made of culture. Your culture inform how kids need to be educated, what values they will have, what they can be or not. Then these kids grown and are teachers, policemen, scientest, engineers. They build the stuff where you live, the car you drive, and the laws you obey. Spaniards conquered many lands just trying to find California, a mythical land from a epic fantasy book inhabited by tall pretty black muslim womens. Many rocket scientist are rocket scientist inspired by Star Trek or Julio Verne or other. So many people has died under a flag, and a national anthem... for a love of a culture, customs, achievements of a country. And you are taunting me if a placebo, a sham, will generate the right response on the viewers? Absolutelly not. Like a placebo of a real medicine lack the parts that make the medicine work. Or a beer withouth alcohol will not make you drunk. People will not watch a entire movie made by AI, because it will lack art, and art made it interesting for the viewer in the very important ways. In the many ways Art is important for a society,... AI ART made by somebody that is not a artist, will not supply or complete these parts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 01:41
|
|
|
Tei posted:Basically you are saying that if AI ART produce a placebo of real art and people don't notice. Does the difference matter? Who says what art is though? If you look at something and say "that is not art" but I look at it and appreciate it as art and hang it on my wall and contemplate its meaning, why are you correct and I'm not? "Art" is a concept made up by people. There's no natural definition for what makes something art. Talking about what is and isn't art is meaningless because of how personal art is. You don't have to like the art I like, and you don't have to agree about whether its good or not, but nobody has the right to exclude something as art. People keep trying - Roger Ebert famously said video games aren't art. I think he is squarely in the minority now.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 02:20
|
|
|
Tei posted:
This discussion has been ongoing for like 50 years with people submitting works made by children, animals or computers to art galleries. Ultimately it doesn't matter if you describe it as art or decoration - the impact it will have on society is the same. If an author uses AI to illustrate their book an illustrator is not getting paid to do it. Is it devoid of artistic meaning? Sure but that doesn't help the illustrator. It helps the author though...
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:This discussion has been ongoing for like 50 years with people submitting works made by children, animals or computers to art galleries. Way longer than that, that was like the whole lesson of the 20th century for art. Art can't be contained by really stiff rules. I've been to outsider art/folk art/intuitive art exhibits that are absolutely, unquestionably art. Meaningful art. But stuff that wouldn't actually fit in a lot of people's definitions of art they give to exclude AI. The art world at least is pretty unanimous in the artistic validity of appropriation even when it's just 'I changed the context for this commercial thing by calling it art so now it's art" BrainDance fucked around with this message at 04:12 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
Imaginary Friend posted:It will get interesting when the AI is powerful enough to create work of art that follow the same style of a song instead of ripping the chords and beats straight out simply by having all of the general knowledge of musicianship. I'm sorry, do you think that's not already essentially what's happening? If so, I've got some very bad news about the past several centuries of Western music.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 04:04
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:This discussion has been ongoing for like 50 years with people submitting works made by children, animals or computers to art galleries. Also, I'm no pro but all the paid work I've done for folks is just as much about discussing the idea/concept and evolving it together as it is creating it and that is something AI can't do. PT6A posted:I'm sorry, do you think that's not already essentially what's happening?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 04:11
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:This discussion has been ongoing for like 50 years with people submitting works made by children, animals or computers to art galleries. The bigger point to me is that it's a force of stagnation. AI can't create, it can only interpolate from its training set. Meaning you're never going to get an AI Andy Warhol, or see new mediums or forms of expression evolve out of emerging art styles because without references it cannot duplicate them. Hell, the first major use of deepfake stuff outside porn was duplicating dead actors for Disney so they didn't have to recast the character they were relying on a nostalgia bump from. As AI art makes it impossible for artists to find paying work, we lose any future works they would have made as well, and the works inspired by them. There's a reason the New Deal included funding for the arts.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 06:48
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:AI can't create, it can only interpolate from its training set. Is there a practical, objective way to put this to test? What is the simplest creative task that humans can perform, but AI can not?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 09:01
|
|
|
BoldFace posted:Is there a practical, objective way to put this to test? What is the simplest creative task that humans can perform, but AI can not? It is more the part about the "it can only interpolate from its training set" part, as that is basically what most generative AI does. As it turns out if you have some heuristic mechanism that is good for making predictions, it isn't hard to run that mechanism in reverse and create something consistent with said predictions. Text prediction becomes text generation, image recognition becomes image generation, and so on. There are technically exceptions to this but not anything overly impressive that I'm aware of. Smiling Demon fucked around with this message at 10:12 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 10:09
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The bigger point to me is that it's a force of stagnation. AI can't create, it can only interpolate from its training set. But, how is that different from what humans do? If it comes down to creativity, creativity isn't magically creating something from nothing. The only difference I can see is that for humans our "training data" includes our senses and AIs don't (yet) have that, but I guess that's its training data. Though it's not for much of a technical reason, there's nothing stopping someone from sticking a webcam somewhere, having it all get captions with CLIP, then finetuning Stable Diffusion with it. Anyone who thinks their creativity can do more than that, they should try to create a new color not connected to any colors we've already seen. AI can absolutely create things that, while being connected to what it was trained on (or many, many things it was trained on), are conceptually and stylistically new. Especially when guided by a human who has an understanding of how to bring certain things out of latent space. Warhol was a weird pick because his style could definitely be created with AI even if it wasn't trained at all on any pop art. BrainDance fucked around with this message at 11:53 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 11:50
|
|
|
AI invented the genre of people eating their own spaghetti fingers.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 07:31 |
|
|
BrainDance posted:But, how is that different from what humans do? If you can't understand the difference between a script that puts pixels together based on what humans labeled training datasets as, then waits to see if the result provides enough of a pattern for human pattern recognition to think it's what they wanted and a human being creating representational art to try and convey their lived experience to others, I'm not sure I can help you. AI doesn't create. It does statistical prediction based on a massive dataset to try and make a pattern the user will recognize. It no more understands what a 'dog' is than a toaster, and can only contextualize it by the files in its training dataset labeled (by humans) as 'dog'. PBS of all mainstream sources did a pretty good segment on just how much (mostly developing world exploited workforce) human labor is actually behind making current AI tools look smart. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/concerns-rise-over-treatment-of-human-workers-behind-ai-technology Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 14:50 on May 10, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2023 14:45
|
|