this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2023
192 points (93.6% liked)
Technology
59414 readers
3123 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Why do you think so? AI art can take an image and change it in creative ways, just as humans can.
Only an incredibly small amount of humans ever "trained itself" without relying on previous human data. Anyone who has ever seen any piece of artwork wouldn't qualify.
Art is subjective. I've seen great and interesting AI art, and I've seen boring and uninspired human art.
Really? Do you have an example for someone who is deaf, blind, mute and can't feel touch, who became an artist? Because all of those are inputs all humans have since birth.
I'm talking from a perspective of understanding how machine learning networks work.
They cannot make something new. By nature, they can only mimic.
The randomness they use to combine different pieces of work, is not creativeness. It's brute force. It's doing the math a million times until it looks right.
Humans fundamentally do not work that way. When an engineer sees a design, and thinks "I can improve that" they are doing so because they understand the mechanism.
Modern AIs do not understand anything. They brute force their way to valid output, and in some cases, like with code, science, or an engineering problem, there might be one single best solution, which an AI can find faster than a human.
But art, DOES NOT HAVE a single correct "solution".
AI is supposed to work with human input. AI is a tool for the artist, not a replacement of the artist. The human artist is the one calling the shots, deciding when the final result is good or when it needs improvement.
Absolutely.
Yet a lot of people are sharpening their knives in preparation to cut the artist out of the process.
And the difference in results is clearly different. There are people who replaced artists with Photoshop, there are people who replaced artists with AI, and each new tool with firther empower people to try things on their own. If those results are good enough for them then they probably wouldn't have paid for a good artist anyway.
Explain it to me from a mathematical point of view. How can I know based on the structure of GANs or Transformers that they, by nature, can only mimic? Please explain it mathematically, since you're referring to their nature.
This betrays a lack of understanding on your part. What is the difference between creativeness and brute force? The rate of acceptable navigations in the latent space. Transformers and GANs do not brute force in any capacity. Where do you get the idea that they generate millions of variations until they get it right?
Define understanding for me. AI can, for example, automatically optimise algorithms (it's a fascinating field, finding a more efficient implementation without changing results). This should be impossible if you're correct. Why does it work? Why can they optimise without understanding, and why can't this be used in other areas?
Again, define understanding. They provably build internal models depending on the task you're training. How is that not a form of understanding?
Then it seems great that an AI doesn't always give the same result for the same input, no?
The brute forcing doesn't happen when you generate the art. It happens when you train the model.
You fiddle with the numbers until it produces only results that "look right". That doesn't make it not brute forcing.
Human inspiration and creativity meanwhile is an intuitive process. And we understand why 2+2 is four.
Writing a piece of code that takes two values and sums them, does not mean the code comprehends math.
In the same way, training a model to generate sound or visuals, does not mean it understands the human experience.
As for current models generating different result for the same prompt... no. They don't. They generate variations, but the same prompt won't get you Dalí in one iteration, then Monet in the next.
So it's the same as a human - they also generate art until they get something that "looks right" during training. How is it different when an AI does it?
But you'll have to explain where this brute forcing happens. What are the inputs and outputs of the process? Because the NN doesn't generate all possible outputs until the correct one is found, which is what brute forcing is. Maybe you could argue that GANs are kinda doing this, but it's still a very much directed process, which is entirely different from real brute forcing.
You're using more words without defining them.
But we're not writing code to generate art. We're writing code to train a model to generate art. As I've already mentioned, NNs provably can build an accurate model of whatever you're training - how is this not a form of comprehension?
Please prove you need to understand the human experience to be able to generate meaningful art.
Of course they can, depending on your prompt and temperature.
You are drawing parallels where I don't think there are any, and are asking me to prove things I consider self-evident.
I'm no longer interested in elaborating, and I don't think you'd understand me if I did.
This is what it always comes down to - you have this fuzzy feeling that AI art is not real art, but the deeper you dig, the harder it gets to draw a real distinction. This is because your arguments aren't rooted in actual definitions, so instead of clearly explaining the difference between A and B, you handwave it away due to C, which you also don't explain.
I once held positions similar to yours, but after analysing the topic much much deeper I arrived at my current positions. I can clearly answer all the questions I posed to you. You should consider whether you not being able to means anything regarding your own position.
I am able to answer your questions for myself. I have lost interest in doing so for you.
But can you do so from the ground up, without handwaving towards the next unexplained reason? That's what you've done here so far.
Yes.
I once held a view similar to the one you present now. I would consider my current opinion further advanced, like you do yours.
You ask for elaboration and verbal definitions, I've been concise because I do not wish to spend time on this.
It is clear we cannot proceed further without me doing so. I have decided I won't.
Bummer. You could have been the first to bring actual argument for your position :)
Not today. I have too much else to do.
And it's not like my being concise makes my argument absent.
The issue isn't you being concise, it's throwing around words that don't have a clear definition, and expecting your definition to be broadly shared. You keep referring to understanding, and yet objective evidence towards understanding is only met with "but it's not creative".
Are you suggesting there is valid evidence modern ML models are capable of understanding?
I don't see how that could be true for any definition of the word.
As I've shared 3 times already: Yes, there is valid evidence that modern ML models are capable of understanding. Why do I have to repeat it a fourth time?
Then explain to me how it isn't true given the evidence:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382
I don't see how an emergent nonlinear internal representation of the board state is anything besides "understanding" it.
Cool. But this is still stuff that has a "right" answer. Math. Math in the form of game rules, but still math.
I have seen no evidence that MLs can comprehend the abstract. To know, or more accurately, model, the human experience. It's not even clear, that given a conscious entity, it is possible to communicate about being human to something non-human.
I am amazed, but not surprised, that you can explain a "system" to an LLM. However, doing the same for a concept, or human emotion, is not something I think is possible.
What are you talking about? You wanted evidence that NNs can understand stuff, I showed you evidence.
Yes, and math can represent whatever you want. It can represent language, it can represent physics, it can even represent a human brain. Don't assume we are more than incredibly complicated machines. If you want to argue "it's just math", then show me that anything isn't just math.
See? And that's the handwaving. You're talking about "the human experience" as if that's a thing with an actual definition. Why is "the human experience" relevant to whether NNs can understand things?
And the next handwave - what is a concept? How is "the board in Othello" not a concept?
Modern MLs are nowhere near complex enough to model reality to the extent required for genuine artistic expression.
That you need me to say this using an essay instead of a sentence, is your problem, not mine.
You'd have to bring up actual evidence for this. Easiest would be to start by defining "genuine artistic expression". But I have a feeling you'll just resort to the next handwave...
Thank you for confirming that your position doesn't make any sense.
Rude. Thanks for confirming my choice on minimizing the effort I spend on you, I guess.
I’ve tried to explain this to a lot of people on here and they just don’t seem to get it. Art fundamentally relies on human experience for meaning. AI does not replicate that.
Seems like people on this platform are very engineering focused, and many aren’t artists themselves and see it as a pure commodity instead of a reflection of the artist.
artist here. nobody is thinking about AI as a tool being used.. by artists.
the pareidolia aspect of diffusion specifically does a great job of mimicking the way artists conceptualize an image. it's not 1 to 1, but to say the models are stealing from the data they were trained on is definitely as silly as claiming an artist was stealing every time they admired or incorporated aspects of other people's art into their own.
i'm also all for opensource and publicly available models. if independent artists lose that tool, they will be competing with large corps who can buy all the data they need, and hold exclusive proprietary models while independent artists get nothing.
ultimately this tech is leading to a holo-deck style of creation, where you can define you vision through direction and language rather than through hands that you've already destroyed practicing linework for decades. or through hunting down the right place for a photograph. or having a beach not wash your sandcastle away with the tide.
there are many aspects to art and creation. A.I. is one more avenue, and it's a good one. as long as we don't make it impossible to use without subscribing to the landlords of art tools.
I absolutely approve of AI tools as a way for artists to empower themselves. Because there is human input.
The "best" AI art I've seen is the type posted by people who were already drawing before, and are using it as a tool to realise their vision. But that's the crux of the issue, in these pieces a human conceived the them, the tools used to realize them, don't matter.
But a lot of people are presenting AI as a something that replaces the whole person of an artist. Not a new brush for them to wield in creatively intelligent ways.
Why does that "fix it" for you? Earlier you stated that AI cannot create anything new by its very nature. Why does the status of the output change if an artist uses it? Why is it art when an artist does it, but not if a non-artist does it?
I'm not talking about "artists" who fiddle with prompts until they got something pretty and then treat the result as a finished piece.
I'm talking about people generate a nose, a hand, a set of abs, a piece of clothing, a texture for a set of clothing, and then combine these with their "traditional" digital art skills.
They are using the AI like a brush, not a printer.
And why is only that "art"? Why is it not art when I use in-painting to generate individual parts of the image? Where is the magical border where it turns from not-art to art?
The magical border is whether it originated in a human mind. What tools were used to get it out and into world don't matter.
A lot of AI content out there right now, isn't the result of that process. The AI generated something the artist liked, rather than the artist bending the AI into realising what they could already see in their mind.
So if I enter a prompt and click "generate" it clearly originated in my mind, and it's art.
No.
Interesting that you don't explain why, as it satisfies your earlier statement.
I often see the sentiment that AI art is only valid when it is created by people who were already drawing before. It's a pernicious notion I don't agree with at all. I think this is the birth of a new and exciting form of expression that can and should be explored by anyone, regardless of any experience or skill level.
Generative art allows more people to communicate with others in ways they couldn't before, and to inspire and be inspired by others. The stuff people post online isn't just a matter of pressing a button and getting a random result. It requires creativity, curiosity, experimentation, and refinement. It also requires learning how to use new skills they may not have had to effectively use new tools that are rapidly evolving and improving to express themselves. Generative art is not a passive process, but an active one, where human artists get a chance to create something unique and meaningful.
I believe that generative art, warts and all, is a vital new form of art that is shaking things up, challenging preconceptions, and getting people angry - just like art should. And if you see someone post some malformed monstrosity somewhere, cut them some slack, they're just learning.
No bodies, no social circles. No joy. No suffering.
This is where art comes from. AI can make 'something new' out of inputs. The same way a toaster can make toast when you feed it bread. But neither the toaster nor the AI create art.
Because neither one can connect with or communicate what it's like to be a human being. And neither is being shaped socially by other human beings.
I don't need to know the background of a piece of art to know it's art. I've seen AI generated pieces that touch me, and I've seen "real art" that I do not consider art. How can this be if you're right?
The obvious answer is that art isn't defined by who created it or how it was created, but instead it's defined by the interpretation of whoever views it. An artist using generative AI to make something great is no less art than if they used a brush and canvas, and a non-artist doing the same doesn't suddenly make it "not art".
My point was within the context of the argument saying that it's okay for copyrighted art to be fed to an ai without the artists permission because ai learns like people do and is essentially doing what people do to each other.
But AI don't participate in culture and they're not embodied entities. So they don't have the relational capacity to get art, as I understand it. And therefore they don't learn art in the same way people do, because they're not touched by art the way people are.
It's fine for ai to be used to make art. But to feed ai copyrighted art so the style can be mimicked, automated, and profited from.. that feels a lot more like theft to me then if I went to the art museum and tried to ape a Picasso.
AI don't participate in culture, but the people who make them do, and fair use protects their right to reverse engineering, indexing, and other forms of analysis that create new knowledge about works or bodies of works. These models consist only of original analysis of the training data in comparison with one another, which were selected by their creators based on their learned experiences and preferences.
These are tools made by humans for humans to use, we are in control of the input and the output. Every time you see generative AI output, it's because someone out there made the decision to share. Restricting these models is restricting the rights of the people that use and train them. Mega-corporations will have their own models, no matter the price. What we say and do here will only affect our ability to catch up and stay competitive.
I recommend reading this article by Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the EFF if you haven't already. The EFF is a digital rights group who most recently won a historic case: border guards now need a warrant to search your phone. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Alright, the article convinced me of the legal argument.
Morally and ethically I think my main issue is knowing that for profit corporations will be putting many of my flesh and blood favorite artists out of work without any sort of compensation.
Really we just need UBI. I think the issue is less about plagiarism and more about livelihood for most people worried about it.
Capitalism trained us to see anything we do as a way to amass wealth. As more things approach post-scarcity, it's going to drive more people to enforce artificial scarcity to keep prices up, like jewelers do with diamonds.
It's not all downsides. There are plenty of free and open source generative models that anyone can use. Ordinary people have new ways to express themselves creatively, learn new things, and entertain themselves, and improve their lives. We're already connecting with each other in ways we couldn’t before, and inspiring one another to get out and start creating.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=q1TjszE0vDc
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
I'll read the links.
Personally, I don't have an issue with people copyrighting things they use an AI to make. I'll let you know if my opinion changes on fair use of already copyrighted work being used to make (commercial) AI.
It's so wierd to see artistic expression reduced to an engineering problem.
Yeah, you can generate images and sounds, but claiming that's art is like claiming a thousand monkeys could write the works of Shakespeare. Yes, its possible, but what enables it is randomness. Not creativity.
And in that process, you created a lot more of something else, aside from the works of Shakespeare.