|
GlyphGryph posted:You could absolutely ban certain types of AI, just like we ban lots of the other applications of math. Sure but we have been watching various job functions steadily becoming obsolete or automated for centuries. Is there anything different or special about it this time?
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Of course it exists. Your style is not built out of things unique to you. It can get that information in a ton of ways without having any access to your work. It can synthesize the styles you were inspired by, for example, under my guidance, to add and remove and tweak elements until it matches what you do. Or maybe I hire an artist to do ten original pieces in your style and feed that to the machine, tell it it's in your style, and there we go - I'm genning works without the machine ever seeing anything of yours. That would be a complicate way to copy my style, but is still copying the style. Ofuscating something might confuse robots and naive people, but it unimpress judges.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
Tei posted:That would be a complicate way to copy my style, but is still copying the style. Ofuscating something might confuse robots and naive people, but it unimpress judges. Copying styles is legal.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2023 22:40
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Copying styles is legal. Tei posted:That would be a complicate way to copy my style, but is still copying the style. Ofuscating something might confuse robots and naive people, but it unimpress judges. cat botherer fucked around with this message at 00:09 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
It's not just legal, it's very important for every kind of art that it remains legal.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
I think it's important to note that there are sizable communities ideologically devoted to open and free systems. Software like Linux or projects like Wikipedia are obvious but there's also loads of sites dedicated to creating and publishing media into the public domain - Unsplash, Pixabay, Public Domain Pictures etc etc. Quite a lot of people really want information and tools to be freely available and they are willing to expend a lot of time and effort to accomplish it so those public domain libraries are only going to keep growing - every day more stuff falls out of copyright and more stuff is published. Just based on that I think i the copyright debate is largely a distraction because we're fundamentally going to end up in the same place. Ban copyrighted material for training purposes and we end up with some commercial models trained on public domain material + proprietary material and some free models trained only on public domain material. The wrinkle is that beyond a certain point more training data isn't better so inevitably free models will catch up as free libraries keep expanding. Commercial models would only have the advantage over free models of being able to make art in the style of whatever is in their proprietary dataset. But if a lot of people really want to be able to make cartoons in the style of the Simpsons you only need to find one person who will dedicate their time to make cartoons in that style in order for your model to get the needed training data to acquire that ability.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Adobe paid for and owned those images well before the new AI stuff came out as part of their stock images collection, and is a company with a market cap of 190 billion dollars. I have no idea if openAI could pay or not, but if they had to pay for it I'm sure the model wouldn't be available to people like you and me. Even more fun, they won't tell us what they used for training. Seems legit.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 03:22
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Even more fun, they won't tell us what they used for training. Yeah... naked speculation, so fun. Just to be clear, Adobe says Firefly is trained on, "Adobe Stock images, openly licensed content and public domain content, where copyright has expired." And from however many people have been messing around with it these past few months, it's pretty hard to think that's a lie. It just has these enormous knowledge gaps around modern, IP related stuff that other AIs don't, where as when you ask it for things like, a cat, or ancient Greek architecture, it's brilliant.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 07:16
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:
I'd consider that a pretty heavy assumption. We can look to how often corporate tech builds on open source to vast profit, then takes their solutions closed source to protect that profit as an example of why. Along with the last ten plus years of VC influenced business operating on the base concept that since you can't jail a corporation, breaking the law is fine as long as the fines for doing so are less than the profit you make in the meantime. Some of your patsies may see fraud charges but the investors rake in the cash and that's what matters.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 10:37
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:Sure but we have been watching various job functions steadily becoming obsolete or automated for centuries. Is there anything different or special about it this time? Good news you don't have to work on art anymore, now you can go work at a harder to automate labour job just doesn't have the same ring to it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:25
|
|
|
Solenna posted:The argument for the previous jobs being automated away was "this is a good thing, you'll have more time to work on your passions like art and writing" The part of art that is being automated here is the labor part, not the creative part. I keep using this example, but it's similar to DAWs becoming a way to make music that doesn't require knowing how to play every instrument in the song. Songs that once required a full band can be made by a single producer. Bands that play live instruments still exist, but now so do a bunch of artists who wouldn't have been able to hire a professional drummer to help them create a song. Instead, they spend $25/month on Sonicpass and the barrier to entry comes way down. I can't overstate how much of a shift this was away from the norm. You used to need entire orchestras to realize something that a single producer can now do on a Twitch stream. Are people mourning the death of bands and the art of playing instruments? Maybe a couple people who are still screaming that 808s have no soul, but I'm not seeing mass protests of EDM concerts. KillHour fucked around with this message at 18:49 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
KillHour posted:The part of art that is being automated here is the labor part, not the creative part. I keep using this example, but it's similar to DAWs becoming a way to make music that doesn't require knowing how to play every instrument in the song. Songs that once required a full band can be made by a single producer. Bands that play live instruments still exist, but now so do a bunch of artists who wouldn't have been able to hire a professional drummer to help them create a song. Instead, they spend $25/month on Sonicpass and the barrier to entry comes way down. No, it's just the opposite. Bands can still make money playing live, that's the labor part. Theoretically artists could paint pictures that were created with an AI, but I doubt people will pay much for that. OTOH I can imagine EDM artists performing AI created dance music live and making money selling tickets.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
SaTaMaS posted:No, it's just the opposite. Bands can still make money playing live, that's the labor part. Theoretically artists could paint pictures that were created with an AI, but I doubt people will pay much for that. OTOH I can imagine EDM artists performing AI created dance music live and making money selling tickets. You missed my point. There's still labor in performing an EDM concert, but you don't need the skill of playing every instrument, so you don't need a full band. AI art can do much the same for movies, video games, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
The artist is playing every instrument at an EDM concert, as they're generally solo sets. What the hell are you on about?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The artist is playing every instrument at an EDM concert, as they're generally solo sets. What the hell are you on about? Playing a sampled drum kit is not the same as playing the drums. Playing a sampled guitar is not the same as playing a guitar. I'm not discounting the amount of effort that goes into EDM sets (in fact, they are my favorite genre, and I have dabbled in making my own and I can play the guitar), but I'm pointing out that before sampled instruments became a thing, it would be an incredible amount of effort and money for a solo artist to make music like that. When sampled instruments first came out, a bunch of people complained that it hurt "real" musicians and lamented the death of learning to do things "the old fashioned way." In ways that resemble artists in this thread lamenting that art is changing from underneath them. But what it ended up doing was creating opportunities for entirely new kids of musical expression, in much the same way generative AI can do for the visual arts.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 20:31
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Playing a sampled drum kit is not the same as playing the drums. Playing a sampled guitar is not the same as playing a guitar. I'm not discounting the amount of effort that goes into EDM sets (in fact, they are my favorite genre, and I have dabbled in making my own and I can play the guitar), but I'm pointing out that before sampled instruments became a thing, it would be an incredible amount of effort and money for a solo artist to make music like that. When sampled instruments first came out, a bunch of people complained that it hurt "real" musicians and lamented the death of learning to do things "the old fashioned way." In ways that resemble artists in this thread lamenting that art is changing from underneath them. But what it ended up doing was creating opportunities for entirely new kids of musical expression, in much the same way generative AI can do for the visual arts. The EDM artist still has to be there in person in order to get paid. There isn't an equivalent to live concerts for the visual arts.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:The artist is playing every instrument at an EDM concert, as they're generally solo sets. What the hell are you on about? At the vast majority of them no the DJ is not and at least in the early and mid 2000s (and probably before? And probably now? Those were my partying years) the producers were seen as musicians but a large, large chunk of the community absolutely did not see what the DJs were doing as any kind of artistry or playing anything. It was actually a very similar situation to this. And then when mashups blew up, that was a whole other thing. Like the joke about Girl Talk (and DJs in general) just pressing play on a laptop. I saw GT in Detroit. He totally did just press play on a laptop. But pressed play on something he had arranged as basically a go button on art (imo.) As large as that group was most of the community still saw artistry in it. SaTaMaS posted:The EDM artist still has to be there in person in order to get paid. There isn't an equivalent to live concerts for the visual arts. Art shows exist. They serve baked brie and have live jazz it's great.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:At the vast majority of them no the DJ is not and at least in the early and mid 2000s (and probably before? And probably now? Those were my partying years) the producers were seen as musicians but a large, large chunk of the community absolutely did not see what the DJs were doing as any kind of artistry or playing anything. It was actually a very similar situation to this. Just because an audience who has never tried to create an art form lacks understanding of the technical skill it requires does not mean that skill is not being used. Connecting right back to AI gen art, where users want art made to spec, without either investing themselves in gaining the skills to create it or resources to hire someone who has done so. (And as someone's inevitably going to Kramer on with it: generating an AI prompt is in no way similar, if anything it's less effort than creating a proper spec for commissioned work.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 23:42
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just because an audience who has never tried to create an art form lacks understanding of the technical.skill it requires does not mean that skill is not being used. You think it was the audience, in clubs and parties, that was sitting there saying "yes the dj, while a technical skill, it's not really artistry is it?" That was not how the dj artistry discussion happened. Liquid Communism posted:(And as someone's inevitably going to Kramer on with it: generating an AI prompt is in no way similar, if anything it's less effort than creating a proper spec for commissioned work.) My Deforum projects, some of which I've posted, have taken thousands of lines of instructions and 60+ hours of work each. Though if you had any understanding of art history in the 20th century you'd know that that is very explicitly not a criteria we use to judge the merit of art. BrainDance fucked around with this message at 23:46 on May 29, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 23:44
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Just because an audience who has never tried to create an art form lacks understanding of the technical skill it requires does not mean that skill is not being used. Man there's a canyon of irony between those paragraphs holy poo poo
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:
That's not really the same. With art shows they're getting paid once for their creativity and labor, like if a musician could only sell each song they wrote once to a single person. With tangible art that can still work but AI will make that basically irrelevant for digital art, and the market for the people who will only buy art manually created by a person is miniscule compared to people who go to music concerts.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 00:17
|
|
|
There is a huge community of artists who do live work over and over again and for which it is the doing of the art that provides the value. You recognize that, right? I am genuinely curious, do you think it was similarly bad to have allowed the recording industry and it's technology to exist and establish it's massive presence in the music scene? That's a similar situation - a huge amount of skill artists had their careers and livelihoods destroyed due to the advent of sound recording and sound systems and the fact that you no longer needed a musician when you wanted to create music - you could just let the machine do it for you. It seems pretty analogous, and the damage it did to the existing musicians at the time was bath massive and is something we never actually recovered from. Sure, live music still continued as a nice thing for those who wanted a human touch, but human art will continue to exist in the same way. People will still pay a premium for art done by celebrity artists or individuals they are huge fans of (whether those people eschew the machines completely or make heavy use of them). But the mass of basic musician as a stable solid career jobs disappeared and never came back.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:Copying styles is legal. But using one's own material to compete with one is not. Fair use has limits, ones that have are likely to be interpreted more stringently after Warhol. They are using someone's material to create an unauthorized competing product, and I may add the language about 'parasitic competing products' in some EU directives comes to mind too. The caselaw to examine is sampling in the music industry, not like google images, which is advertising for the product, or DVRs. This is using one's own material without permission to directly compete. And again, if this kind of copyright circumvention is legal by machine laundering, the IP system ceases to function entire. It's not like distribution at all. StratGoatCom fucked around with this message at 00:42 on May 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
StratGoatCom posted:But using one's own material to compete with one is not. Fair use has limits, ones that have are likely to be interpreted more stringently after Warhol. That specific "Copying styles is legal" was going up against Tei's response to a bunch of things BESIDES actually using Tei's own material to make the machine copy Tei's style, because they still went "that's just a roundabout way to copy my style and the judge won't look kindly on that." In that case, no, that roundabout way to copy Tei's style would be 100% above the board legal, no matter where any other decision about AI art end up falling.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:(And as someone's inevitably going to Kramer on with it: generating an AI prompt is in no way similar, if anything it's less effort than creating a proper spec for commissioned work.) This isn't helping your credibility. There's other forums that have been linked to in this thread. You can find thousands of pages of discussion of people working on how to get an AI image generator to, say, show the correct number of fingers or produce realistic eyes. If you want to make something for a quick laugh with Dall E then yes it can take a few seconds. If you want to produce something actually good then it takes a great deal of work and study. And yes, the people doing that work are artists.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 00:56
|
|
|
DJs were regularly mocked by both audiences and musicians as being untalented hacks chopping up and regurgitating existing works by those who felt threatened by them. Like my dad, who is a long time live musician. He came around, but I heard that poo poo all the time among him and his colleagues, in pop culture too. It was a pretty pervasive point of view for a while from those of a certain age during the rise of electronica. It's all rather familiar. Not the same, AI is far more complicated, but a lot of the arguments used to invalidate the artistic integrity of those who use it or the works created by it are about as weak and mostly seem motivated by fear. SCheeseman fucked around with this message at 02:03 on May 30, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 01:59
|
|
|
Please gas this shitpile.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 03:49
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 10:14
|
|
|
I'm not gassing the thread. The current conversation is on topic, and it's a hot enough subject that if it doesn't have a dedicated thread, it's going to derail other threads. Discussing copyright and the displacement of human labor is a step up from earlier topics of whether Skynet is about to become self-aware and murder us all.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 11:46
|
|
|
KillHour posted:On the topic of biological intelligence, I just found this video, and it is incredibly fascinating. This is from earlier in the week and I missed it, it's really interesting and what excites me the most about machine learning and AI research. Researchers are finding better ways to break down processes in our brains and replicating them in machines and a bunch of these systems together would be needed for any kind of AI. All of the similarities between neural nets and brains that are emerging really make me think that it's the right direction to be heading in. It's both very impressive that humans might finally be able to model our own intelligence, but humbling to know that there is nothing special about being a human that can't be replicated. I'm also interested in how this could be applied to human brains. If and when we develop more complex or accurate models it would be helpful to see where those systems end up breaking down and that might help us find similar ways that diseases or disorders that target the brain work.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
gurragadon posted:This is from earlier in the week and I missed it, it's really interesting and what excites me the most about machine learning and AI research. Researchers are finding better ways to break down processes in our brains and replicating them in machines and a bunch of these systems together would be needed for any kind of AI. All of the similarities between neural nets and brains that are emerging really make me think that it's the right direction to be heading in. It's both very impressive that humans might finally be able to model our own intelligence, but humbling to know that there is nothing special about being a human that can't be replicated. Most all existing neural networks are also trained by variants of gradient descent, which basically just walks downhill to minimize an objective function. This is slow and takes billions of times more energy than neurons. This isn't to say there hasn't been a lot of fruitful work. Deep learning and brains probably take advantage of similar concepts of universality, criticality, and near-chaos with stuff like the renormalization group and other things from statistical physics. However, these concepts are general and underlie basically all complex systems. I'm skeptical that a strong(er) AI would look anything particularly like a brain. Brains and neurons evolved from specific pressures over time, and have very different constraints from any non-biological system. If you really want to get biologically-inspired, a fruitful and dystopian direction might to just use actual neurons. There's been work with pea-size clumps called organoids that can spontaneously form brain waves, and show a lot of promise (or horror, depending on your perspective). https://www.sciencenews.org/article/clumps-nerve-cells-lab-spontaneously-formed-brain-waves https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/science/articles/10.3389/fsci.2023.1017235
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 17:29
|
|
|
aw frig aw dang it posted:Please gas this shitpile. Don't sign your posts.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 17:59
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I'd be cautious about putting too much biological plausibility to neural networks. Each "neuron" is just an scalar activation function on a sum of incoming connections ("synapses") from the previous layer. A biological neuron, in contrast, is an incredibly complex machine in itself. The same guy did a video on how we used to think that biological neurons worked basically the same as artificial ones but we later learned that wasn't true. Warning - this goes deep in the weeds and over my head https://youtu.be/hmtQPrH-gC4
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:I'd be cautious about putting too much biological plausibility to neural networks. Each "neuron" is just an scalar activation function on a sum of incoming connections ("synapses") from the previous layer. A biological neuron, in contrast, is an incredibly complex machine in itself. Yeah, neural networks definitely are simplified, they just seem to be really good approximators. I guess biological neurons developed under the stress of low energy, while artificial systems have much more energy. It makes me wonder how much more can be brute forced with more energy. Organoid intelligence is an interesting term. I was thinking when reading the first article whether an intelligence created this way would be natural or artificial. They used human stem cells, but there was also human intervention in the process. They kind of sidestep the issue by naming it organoid intelligence even though it is a clever name. If an intelligence was developed from this, it could be called an AI that actually does look a lot like a brain. Or it could be considered not AI at all. I don't really know what to consider it. Biological neurons are so much more efficient it does seem like this might be a better direction of creating intelligence. KillHour posted:The same guy did a video on how we used to think that biological neurons worked basically the same as artificial ones but we later learned that wasn't true. Warning - this goes deep in the weeds and over my head Yeah, that went way over my head. Using inputs was where biological neurons really diverge and perform many more functions than artificial ones can. The conclusion made it seem like neural networks can model the behavior of biological neurons which is pretty cool.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 20:10
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:There is a huge community of artists who do live work over and over again and for which it is the doing of the art that provides the value. You recognize that, right? Are you sure about this? I would expect that the number of professional musicians as a percentage of general population is now higher than pre-phonograph. Not to mention various other music-related jobs. There are now people making a living producing music, DJing, writing about music, managing tours, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 20:47
|
|
|
Has musician *ever* been a "stable solid career job"?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Has musician *ever* been a "stable solid career job"? No. Nor has artist, writer, photographer, designer, editor, etc etc. It's never been easy. We do it anyways because the need to creatively express yourself is inherent to being human.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Has musician *ever* been a "stable solid career job"? No, buts its only recently that we consider that musical SHOULD be a career job rather then for enjoyment.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2023 23:04
|
|
|
karthun posted:No, buts its only recently that we consider that musical SHOULD be a career job rather then for enjoyment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:19 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/heykody/status/1662168390352666624?t=Fa8UUnCg31HHrPGtTZStXQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/heykody/status/1662168475668996096?t=m6aclo4K_QDzvD7a8mHtxA&s=19 https://twitter.com/mrgreen/status/1663107572902027265?t=kmVYbV5VlMVwvvRz107gRw&s=19 I appreciate ai art supporters doing a better job of showing how much it sucks than its detractors ever could
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2023 00:20
|
|