Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Sashinii t1_iwal94k wrote

"AI generating visual art, composing songs and even writing poetry and movie scripts is driving some of that anxiety, raising ethical and copyright concerns among artists and even lawyers. AI art isn't created in a vacuum. It works by absorbing and reconstructing existing art created by humans. As machine-made art improves, will those humans -- actual graphic designers, illustrators, composers and photographers -- find themselves edged out of work?"

It's like people won't be happy until the amount of AI misinformation surpasses the amount of vaccine misinfomation. For crying out loud, these aren't good faith arguments. No art has ever been created in a vacuum and almost everything that exists is just a rearrangement of atoms.

47

Akimbo333 t1_iwam7a7 wrote

Right! The Lion King is derivative of Hamlet!!!

20

TinyBurbz t1_iwe9ygp wrote

>The Lion King is derivative of Hamlet!!!

Actually, its nearly a shot for shot remake of a Japanese animation called Kimba the White Lion.

3

Tip_Odde t1_iwcc1gt wrote

Not to mention artistic talent is made by countless hours of practice, something mostly requiring rich parents to do.

5

Ihateseatbelts t1_iwdtp9l wrote

People really need to chill with this argument. Without heavy qualification, it's just as misinformed as the mainstream perception if how AI art works. We aren't all trust fund babies - nowhere fucking near, lol. Is this a US thing?

3

Tip_Odde t1_iwe8hhy wrote

Its the truth. The only reason I get to work in a creative field is because my parents provided a safe home for me as a kid to express that creativity. Not saying you are as privileged as I am at all, there are always exceptions. But thats also only one piece of it, I had countless hours to grow those talents because I only had to work part time. I didnt have to work at all in college and afterwards I was able to move to a different state to pursue my art because I knew that if all else failed, I could move home.

2

cutoffs89 t1_iwctc7f wrote

I don't think it's about Copyright. Artists are pissed because they're being told to put down their paint brushes and learn to become boring "Prompt Engineers"

5

UnemployedCat t1_iwb3pye wrote

Ok, no art is not created in a vacuum but that's not the problem here.
Humans need to process the art through their senses, to the brain, then, eventually learn and apply their skills to re-create something new.
It usually takes time to become a good artist and even more so to really be original.

AI is a great technological feat but it's as good as the input fed into it.
Machine driven creation is possibly going to replace artists because of the speed of execution and the amount of works that can be created.
This only benefits capitalism at large not the individual creator.
That's where a lot of the AI community fails to really question the motives and implications behind it.
There aren't enough hours in a day to watch, play, read, listen to all the available content and people want more ?? If you want quantity over quality that's up to you I guess.

−5

kmtrp t1_iwbfsst wrote

>Ok, no art is not created in a vacuum but that's not the problem here.Humans need to process the art through their senses, to the brain, then, eventually learn and apply their skills to re-create something new.It usually takes time to become a good artist and even more so to really be original.

AI works similarly, except it doesn't take much real-world time to train and produce. We like to think very highly of ourselves, we are so original, we are so creative and complex... but this AI revolution is proving that we are not that awesome.

​

>AI is a great technological feat but it's as good as the input fed into it.

No. The output is greater than the sum of its parts. Same thing with LLM. It's something called emergence, and we don't know how it happens.

AI is not going to replace only artists, but every job we can do with a computer.

​

>That's where a lot of the AI community fails to really question the motives and implications behind it.

The AI community is most aware of these changes and what the implications are going to be. The clue is in the name "singularity". That's why we often talk about UBI and other solutions because we know they're coming, and they're coming faster than the world knows. We have daily discussions about it and have tried to warn everyone about it, but those who don't understand how exponential growth works frequently accuse us of daydreaming. You should spend more time here reading than writing.

5

UnemployedCat t1_iwcpscu wrote

Your reply really encapsulate the technocratic mindset of some people in the AI community.
It's quite ironic that without humanity there would not be any AI to speak of. Nor would there be any artworks to "copy" from.
We're not special but that does not make the AI superior or better.
No one in the Ai community here will have anything to say about UBI or whatever. We should discuss about AI but I refuse to adhere to the naive mindset that we have anything to say about how it's going to develop.
Corporations/private interests will decide. Not you or me.

1

kmtrp t1_iwg2kwg wrote

Check out huggingface.

Corporations have toys from big engineering muscle, but the beauty about this moment is the huge amount of private toys opensourced and toys made open from the beggining. Eventually, we will all have toys. Even the bad guys which is the real menace, not skynet.

1

Mandamelon t1_iwanuab wrote

what misinformation? and how is implying the most ultra-reductive position possible ["everything is just a rearrangement of atoms and therefore nothing can ever be considered too derivative"] not bad faith on your behalf?

−8

Sashinii t1_iwaorh9 wrote

AI creates novel art, but many people falsely claim that it copies pre-existing art.

14

DerivingDelusions t1_iwar2ny wrote

It technically generalizes a data distribution. So I guess it more so copies style. The works themselves are original.

−1

Sashinii t1_iwarl2e wrote

The works are indeed original, but I think "learns" is more accurate than "copies".

13

Mandamelon t1_iwas367 wrote

but the works that any model produces are derived from existing art in a sense, yes? even if 'copy' is too strong a word let's not pretend that it's a totally distinct and novel thing. concerns about human artists being displaced are not unfounded

−5

Sashinii t1_iwasrga wrote

AI art and human art are equally as original.

Literally all jobs are going to become obsolete in the 2020's or the 2030's; AGI will accelerate progress in molecular nanotechnology research, leading to the creation of the nanofactory, which will enable post-scarcity.

10

red75prime t1_iwb4g33 wrote

If you have 1 kW universal nanofactory, the minimum estimate of the amount of time to produce, say, a sturdy steel shovel (or a pound of rice for that matter) is around an hour (one erased bit per atom at Landauer limit at room temperature and no other energy expenditure). The more realistic time is probably around 1000-10000 hours or a month to a year. Diamondoid shovel will be lighter (and can be built faster), but there still are limits on how light it can be (and you can't make lightweight diamondoid food). Rice that costs 1 - 10 megawatt-hours per pound is hardly sustainable.

Universal nanofactories are quite energy hungry due to amount of computations and operations required to place individual atoms.

See part 8.2 of http://crnano.r30.net/Nanofactory.pdf for example.

So I think that universal nanofactories will supplement instead of replacing traditional manufacture methods.

Specialized nanofactories can be more efficient (e.g. biological processes), so a nanofactory that churns out rice at reasonable energy cost (less than megawatt-hour per pound) is realizable, but not so versatile, apparently.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but it seems you need access to a megawatt-class power source (that's around 140x140meters or 460x460feet of solar panels) to enjoy a universal nanofactory which is not painfully slow.

Atomic "lego block" factories will probably be a suitable compromise: higher speed, less prone to abuse (building toxins and poisons, for example).

0

Rumianti6 t1_iwreiv5 wrote

You can't run from this, I will educate you. AI-generated imagery as it stands is a flat collage of input. Human artists also reproduce what is put into them. At this point I'd say they are the same, initially, but humans do it three-dimensionally. AI does it flat.

The human neural network is comparatively more detailed than AI as it stands currently, and human art reflects a three-dimensional trajectory through references of sociocultural, psychological, and spatial properties. It reflects a distinct form, and this is originality.

AI-generated art is inferior not because it is "merely" from an AI: they are qualitatively the same as us: but because it is one-dimensional replications of collages of actual originality.

I just dislike humans being elevated qua humans without dissecting that matter.

The truth is that AI art is no where near human art.

0

sumane12 t1_iwb1tiy wrote

But if an artist ever looks at a different artists work, he is being influenced by that work in much the same way an AI would be, the argument here is to say only art created by an artist blind from birth (who's also never heard, felt or taken in any data in anyway about someone else's art, or had any positive or negative feedback) could be considered original art

6

DerivingDelusions t1_iwek2vb wrote

Yes, the artist and the AI create original works. However, there is a difference in how ai vs humans can be inspired.

The difference between an artist and a neural network is that an artist can take inspiration and make it their own by incorporating their own ideas. A neural network actively tries to generalize work in order to reduce a cost function. The universal approximation theorem also tells us that neural networks approximate continuous functions, meaning they are following a predetermined pattern. In this case, inspiration for neural comes from generalizing other works (matching the distribution), which creates original works, but does not allow for the AI to incorporate its own unique ideas (since it’s mathematically not designed to)

1

sumane12 t1_iwg7h7z wrote

And if you can prove humans do not generalise from other work, or patterns found in nature or elsewhere, then you deserve a Nobel prize.

Ultimately our pattern recognition is the same in function as any AI (although may be programmed differently). We cannot extrapolate truly inspirational ideas, we are only able to merge key features of different patterns in a novel way. True inspiration is a fallacy.

1