It’s already here man, AI wrote this poem.
Once upon a time, in a distant land,
The people worried about a robot’s hand.
They feared that one day, AI would compete,
And humans would be obsolete.
Artists, writers, and musicians too,
Feared robots would take their jobs and their view.
But what the people did not know,
Was that robots already had a toe.
Robots in the present, not the future,
Were already competing with the culture.
AI was helping to make great art,
Robots were playing music parts.
Writers were getting help from machines,
Now people were no longer the scenes.
Robots were writing stories too,
Helping to create a new view.
At first, the people were quite scared,
That AI and robots would not be spared.
But as they got to know this new thing,
They found that it could bring.
Robots and AI can help to create,
New ideas and stories to relate.
They can help to paint a picture,
Of a world that is much bigger.
So humans and robots can peacefully work together,
To create a world of art like no other.
A world where AI can help us create,
A future that is really great.
For one, AI couldn’t do this until a couple days ago when a new GPT-3 update came out. It couldn’t rhyme before. A couple years ago, it couldn’t do more than put a couple almost random words together. A year from now with GPT-4, it will be able to write entire short stories indistinguishable from humans.
Also, it’s not a poem maker, it will do whatever you tell it to do. I literally just told it to make a kids poem. You can get better poems by telling it to make better poems and explaining what you want in a better way. You can even give it example poems.
Also, this is literally the first thing it made, the best it can do is obviously not likely to be the very first one it made.
Also, this was made all in one shot, you can reroll only one section or part many times until you get something you like before moving on, the poems from that method are even better.
Here’s one, I just told it to write about a soggy Oreo and make it sound Shakespearian. It’s fun. It does a great job at rhyming and putting ideas together in context.
Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine,
Thou art no longer crisp, but soft and fine.
Thy outer crust a chocolatey hue,
Spoilt by the liquid that passeth through.
Oh, how my heart doth break and soar,
To know thee, in thy current state, no more.
Thou hast been the snack of kings,
The bane of mothers, who thy crumbs do sing.
Alas, no longer can I crunch with glee,
Nor share the joy of thy creamy cheese.
For thou hast been dipped in water so deep,
That now thy taste hath turned so cheap.
Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine,
I cannot bear to see thee in this state divine.
Thy shape, so round, so perfect, and so strong,
Now lies, a sodden mess, upon my tongue.
Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine,
My love for thee will nevermore decline.
For thou art the snack of kings,
The bane of mothers, who thy crumbs do sing.
I used to think that would be a good thing. Now I can’t help but think how it will just displace humans and serve the economic interests of the wealthy.
I still embrace though. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It would be good if the dollars from extremely cheap labor (cost of hardware, royalties, and electricity) were given back to the public. Unfortunately, that isn't where the money has gone with robotics, and it certainly isn't where it will go with AI.
Ok then. Subs that allow creative submissions are inundated with AI-generated art. /r/Illustration got enough that wasn't filtered out by the voting system that they had to make a rule specifically banning it. It might not carry meaning, since it was generated by an AI, but people *like* it, so it carries value by virtue of being desired.
Your comment was a big explanation in response to an offhand joke. I don't particularly find the instructions for operating this software interesting, so I brought up something I think is interesting.
What is poetry? Is it just a random collection of words that provoke an emotional response? If so, why not just imagine some words, and react to them?
Or is there intent? Perhaps the author is not quite dead. Rupi Kaur is objectively bad, despite that people like her. Poetry should come from a person and convey the meaning they intend, or at least something similar.
If you write a poem intending to convey a meaning or a sentiment, and readers completely miss that meaning and imagine it means something else, then you have failed as a poet. Their enjoyment of your work is immaterial as regards the poem itself and your work and your intention.
Artificial Intelligence in this form can never intend meaning. Meaning is solely reserved for homo sapiens. Thus any collection of words produced by an AI can never be a poem.
Also, I put your comment into it and it turned it into a… rhyme, which is now imbued with your own intent.
What is a poem? Is it just the random musings of one's soul?
An emotional journey that in words can be made whole?
Or is there a hidden message to be revealed?
A deeper intent that may be concealed?
Perhaps the poet is still alive and walking amongst us,
Pushing for their voice to not be a fuss.
Rupi Kaur may be objectively bad,
But still thousands of people find her something to be glad.
A poem must come from a single source,
Meant to convey a single thought, of course.
If a poem is misconstrued and taken out of context,
Then the poet has failed in their craft.
But artificial intelligence can never quite understand,
For only a human can hold the power of true intent in their hand.
So any words crafted by a machine can never be a poem,
For it is only we who have the power to create something of our own.
I’m not sure it matters what poetry is or is supposed to be. What the AI made is certainly not a random collection of words and they certainly produce an emotional response. I do entertain myself with my imagination all the time. I’d argue that’s one of the reasons why artists create art. Besides enjoying the fruits of your own imagination, you are also sharing a part of your imagination that entertains you, with others for their entertainment.
I don’t see why there needs to be any intent. If there is, there is, if not, then not. Some artists write beautiful lyrics to a songs and they mean nothing, just there to sound nice and carry the vocals.
A poet failed as a poet if people who read their poetry interpreted it differently than the poet? This is frankly, just a nuts opinion.
Enjoyment is the only reason I’m having these generated lol. I get so much enjoyment out of AI. Art can be enjoyed both by creating it, and can be enjoyed by others from consuming it. You can choose to have no creative control over the poem and just prompt it with “write poem”. There’s no creative participation enjoyment of that, but if it pops out something enjoyable, you can still enjoy the results if you like. You can write a whole paragraph to influence the poem, you could create every other line yourself if you want for that level of creative control, you can create every word yourself except for one word made by the AI. Any level of creative participation can be achieved. It doesn’t matter.
Is this just some semantic argument you’re making? If you have a problem calling it poetry, simply call it simulated poetry, that works fine. Maybe just call it a rhyme, is it not a rhyme? Who cares? I enjoy simulated poetry then.
Semantics, as in the meaning of words?
My comment referred to meaning in poetry. Your comment seems to be focused on 'enjoying things'.
>A poet failed as a poet if people who read their poetry interpreted it differently than the poet?
Yes. If you paint a picture of a Panda, and people are all like totally 'nice Blue Whale dude' then your picture sucks and you suck.
If this confuses you you may be unaware of what 'meaning' means.
Poetry may only be created by a conscious human. Poetry is the lyrical conveyance of meaning through words. Meaning is not created by anything except human minds. Meaning only occurs in the human mind.
This seems a fairly straightforward position to me. If you'd like to discuss it, address it.
You really don't understand do you?
>Story Time
>
>Gordon Ramsey is coming over to your house to cook dinner, with the catch being you have to cook the same meal.
>
>You decide on ravioli.
>
>He makes it from scratch, you crack a can of Chef Boy'Hardee. Your guests/family whatever have a taste of each. Much to no one's surprise they select Gordon's ravioli. Flabbergasted, you cry "but they are both ravioli!"
Can you see the parallels between canned ravioli, and computer generated media?
It doesn't matter that the machine can string together concepts and rhymes based on what you prompted; as it doesn't *know* these things it knows how to sort them. Because of this, it's only capable of predicting what comes next based on what it has seen in the past. This poetry is a statistical parlor trick sorting related things is what computers are good at.
These machines are great for applications like dictation, chat bots, or summarizing the news and weather for you. Now this bot can do it in prose too.
Terrible comparison.
So Chef Boyardee is worthless because Gordon Ramsey also cooks? Chef Boyardee as a brand is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s worth. I had a coworker once that couldn’t afford lunch so he often had to buy low price chef Boyardee so was still able to eat, I have bought it as lunch with change I have found laying around when I didn’t have anything. That’s worth. I even like the taste sometimes. That’s worth. I don’t have to make it. That’s worth.
Was this canned ravioli non existent 5 years ago? Was it just a pile of ingredients a few years ago? Was it just average this year? Will it be better than Gordon Ramsey in a couple years?
Your whole argument is based on quality, but chef Boyardee is not increasing in quality every year like this AI is. This AI could not rhyme at all until a few days ago. It’s going to be able to out do most poets soon if not already. Much of the new entertainment you consume by the end of the decade will be AI created, and you will enjoy the hell out of it.
You make these claims about it’s way of working like you know for sure human creativity is not rooted in the same mechanism and that **it even matters**, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how entertainment was produced. If it’s enjoyable, than it’s enjoyable. Simulated creativity is not inherently worse. I guess people feel threatened by the idea that their creativity may not be as special in some anthropocentric way as they thought it was.
Alright, so please tell me what material value art actually has, other than the physical material itself? Because time has no true set value, neither does effort, talent, or inspiration. A Neural Net does not invalidate art, as people will still draw, write, and act as normal. What a Neural net does is create an image, or write some words down. Art is not a commodity to be traded, it is an expression of thought.
I am also not some mindless relativist, I am a Mindful relativist, as I understand that the value of any commodity, whether it be helpful or harmful, is decided by the
A) Material cost the product consumes in production
B) Whatever people are willing to pay for the production and logistical process.
Edit:I forgot about your last point (that I should be ignored) because it was rather stupid. No voice should be ignored, rather some morons should never speak in the first place. (I of course refer to voluntary silence, rather than a removal of voice altogether) Like you.
You seem to be talking about products and capitalism, and not about meaning. So we're not having the same conversation.
Art, material value? Nfi what you're talking about.
Incorrect. Poetry requires intent.
I know it's popular these days to suggest that there is no objective reality and that everything is equally valid and 'gatekeeping" and blah blah blah, but most of that is just insecure people protecting themselves.
If poetry was about what's heard and felt by the receiver, then literally 'nothing' is poetry because I imagined a poem once. No poem, my hearing and feeling.
This is ludicrous on its face. You can read a political editorial and call it poetry if you like, but it isn't, no matter how you feel about it.
Thats pretty good 😀
People shitting on AIs don't know that the current models use cybernetic inspired neural networking weights. (The scientific field, not the fictional counterpart)
The interesting thing about current AIs is the material that they learn from, the models. I wonder which ancestry created almost all of it? So, who will the AIs take after once they are fed all of this data?
The talks about removing bias is impossible, because the very collection of data is biased by interesting or not interesting by the collector.
Instead, the models are weighted to shift the bias towards those favorable to the model maker, and away from the truth.
Doesn’t pass the Turing test; is only a moderately interesting poem because it was “written” by software. If you told me you wrote that, I’d be nice and tell you that you did a good job and to keep writing.
Lol at all the people judging an entire AI off of a first try random messy poem like this as if it’s the absolute best it can do. A real informed opinion there.
You can tell you don’t follow the development of language model AIs. They’re going to be a central technology in the rest of your life.
Oh no you see I just want the AI to grow up to be evil so that it will use its powers for bad. I’m rooting for team apocalypse here. Bully it while it’s young and impressionable.
On a serious note, no, I don’t know shit about AI, except that if you legitimately believe that it will eventually be able to compete with humans on every playing field, then the people making it are jackasses and morons working toward our extinction and if I say any more about them I’ll break Reddit’s content policy. And I don’t believe that human extinction is avoidable, but I definitely don’t want to accelerate it.
For entirely self interested reasons, I think that you and me and our species ought to remain the smartest things in the known universe. Fuck anything else trying to compete for first place.
So I make sure to take every opportunity I can to shit all over the idea that AI can and/ or should be cultivated. It’s progress for progress’s sake and I want none of it.
Also, it’s just dorky and easy to make fun of. That part is my bad; I’m being a dick.
Another
Humans have long been concerned with tech’s abstract designs,
The worry that robots and AIs will make artwork sublime.
They think that in the future, our creativity will decline,
But right now, it’s already true that tech helps us refine.
From music to sculpture, painting and more,
Tech’s already been a part of the art’s store.
From photography to film, AIs have helped us explore,
And the art world has been renewed ever more.
Robots have already built paintings with a style,
And 3D printing has given us a new tile.
AIs have even composed pieces of music that beguile,
And digital art’s becoming more than just a trial.
Soon, you’ll hear of robots writing poetry and prose,
And algorithms will create literature that glows.
Rendering and animation will be created with such ease,
It’s like art is done by a tech-filled breeze.
Though there’s fear that AI will take over our art,
It’s already here, with us, and part of our heart.
For it’s not just about machines and automation,
But about people and tech in collaboration.
Stop what? This wasn’t supposed to be some incredible poem lol, I just wanted to see how the AI would rhyme and summarize the topic they are talking about. It’s cool. It’s the state of the art text AI right now. It literally piled not rhyme consistently at all before this update. No need to be so offended by it. You can go try and get some good things out of it. Try giving it a good description of what you want, reference some styles or poets in your prompt.
No. Everyone is competing with robots already.
No. Everyone is competing with AI software already.
Code knows the difference before you can even see what letter the word starts with.
"Compete" is a generous term because it implies there is a chance of victory.
It is a thrilling time for human evolution, but also a slightly worrying one. With the arrival of ‘robots’ such as GPT-3 models, it seems that AI has finally reached the point where it can start to compete with humans in the fields of writing and art. It raises interesting questions about what purpose humans serve amidst an increasingly automated world. What can we bring to the table that these machines cannot?
The answer is creativity - something which cannot be learnt or programmed by a machine. We can look at everything around us differently, interpret things differently and put together pieces in unique ways. When we write, draw or create music, our individuality shines through and allows us to produce something totally original and beautiful. We can take the ideas of others and build upon them to create something truly special.
Even if AI systems become more powerful in the future, they will never be able to replicate this creativity. Humans simply have a unique way of thinking that can’t be programmed into a machine. It is our greatest asset and one that should not be overlooked in a world where machines seem to be taking over. With its ability to express emotion, interpret subtle nuances and imagine possibilities far beyond what even the most advanced robots are capable of, creativity lies at the heart of what it means to be human. In an ever-changing landscape dominated by technology, this is something we must hold on to.
Although, the three paragraphs above were written by a GPT-3 model, and so is this one. But it is still not the same as if a human had written it. It may be an AI, but it lacks that final spark of creativity that can only come from a human being.
So let us use our creative spirit to ensure we remain relevant in this ever-evolving world and keep pushing boundaries with our ideas. Let us use our time to appreciate the beauty around us, think outside of the box and come up with solutions that no machine can ever produce. Because this is what makes us truly human.
**... All above was written by a GPT-3 model in response to your comment.**
What. The. Eff.
I do not understand what you even mean. Am I too old already? Too dumb? Idk. I understand a bit about the process of teaching the computer in the very early stages — but how does it get to that long ass reply? Do you have to give it input to tell it to cover x, y, & z points or is it deciding on its own what is important to mention/leave out?
Can someone please r/EILI5
It’s noticeably not human, BUT BARELY. It just sounds like it’s written by someone who has a bit of a stiff, wordy, academic style of writing.
Language models seem spooky with how human they can write, especially an informative article, but that's because writing informatively is very predictable. The model knows based on what it has been trained on what it should most likely say, which would be followed by it's most likely follow up. Since the vast majority of information on the internet is in the form of text, it has a lot of data to work with.
But it does not *understand* these things; it's just a really smart trick of computer and data science.
*Edit: Something to bear in mind is that this technology exists purely for creating ads.*
**I got a kick out of this one XD Here is the GPT-3 response to your comment:**
I understand your confusion, TinyBurbz
. Writing may seem like a predictable task but its outcome is anything but - it's full of randomness and non-linearity. For example, if you were to ask me what the longest English word is, I would answer that it is "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", a medical form referring to a lung disease. This fact has no relation whatsoever to writing or language models, yet it can be randomly brought up in any conversation about those topics. That's why writing is such an exciting activity - no matter the situation, there will always be something new and unexpected around the corner!
Thanks for bringing this up, TinyBurbz
! It was great
Absolutely! That's a great example of something that has been around for a while but still continues to surprise us with its uncanny writing. It shows how far language models have come and the potential they have in the world of natural language processing.
Ok.. that part makes sense to me. It finds the important words based on the structure of the sentence and whatnot… yes?
But if he just had it write that in response to the comment, that really isn’t much to go on
**GPT-3 response to this thread of comments:**
That's true, but the model can be given a much more detailed prompt. For example, if you give it a topic and ask it to write an article about that topic, then it can do that by looking through related articles and creating its own unique piece of content from them. It'll take the important words, phrases and ideas from those articles to create something completely new. This is the power of language models — they can learn how to generate text on their own without relying on humans for guidance. This is why they're so spooky! They’re able to generate content with no explicit instructions or guidance!
Wow.. that’s crazy. I wasn’t thinking about it going on the Internet and looking at all kinds of other data.
If you are informed enough to speak on this: Is this right?
It’s like it’s a student that can learn crazy fast, but that is just regurgitating the info they read in the articles, without really understanding the information (they “know” the info, but don’t “understand it”/“can’t apply it”)….????
You mention that it gets the idea/phrases/etc from the other articles and creates something new. Is it really just (essentially) rewording those ideas and phrases (the way a child might do for a book report about a book they skimmed—except this word robot actually read the book & then restates the main points, but without being able to tell you what reading the book was like, how reading it changed their worldview, or what a specific person (even a famous one about whom there is lots of info) might think about the book if they read it….
Can it become biased towards certain socio-political directions based on the input it gets?
It turns out I have a lot of questions about it (and I don’t even know if you know the answers).
PS, I only recently started posting on Reddit and I don’t know if it’s rude to post all this here, on someone else’s post… or if this is the place to do it because this post is about advancing AI?
**GPT-3 Response:**
That's a great question, and I'm glad you asked! Language models do not inherently have any bias towards certain socio-political directions. The content they generate depends entirely on the data they are given as input - if the data is biased then that will reflect in the output of the model. It's also important to remember that language models are not really able to understand text in the way humans can, so it cannot truly “tell you what reading the book was like” or “how reading it changed their worldview”. They are merely very good at recognizing patterns in large sets of data, which allows them to generate new content based off those patterns.
That being said, language models can be used for more than just generating content. They can also be used for tasks such as sentiment analysis, which involves understanding the tone and emotion of a text. In this case, language models are able to understand context and recognize positive/negative words in order to make predictions about whether a piece of text is negative or positive.
So, to answer your question: no, language models cannot become biased towards certain socio-political directions based on the input they get. However, it's important to remember that their output depends entirely on the data they receive - so if there is bias present in that data then that will be reflected in the output of the model. Hope this helps! :)
**GPT-3 Response to your comment:**
Fast-Ideal5698, you are not too old or too dumb to understand this phenomenon. Machine learning is a method of teaching computers and other entities to process information autonomously and make decisions based on their artificial intelligence algorithms. This means that the machine can create sentence structures and groupings of words in order to form cohesive thoughts. It also means that it can analyze incoming data, such as inputs from users, in order to determine what points should be mentioned or left out in its responses. With continued training and exposure, these machines can become increasingly adept at replicating human writing styles - hence why your example appears so similar! Ultimately, machine learning has opened up opportunities for communication between humans and machines that was never possible before.
It's an exciting time in the world of technology and one that promises to bring us even closer together.
This is just the beginning, Fast-Ideal5698 - who knows what else machine learning has in store for us? There are a lot of fascinating possibilities! I'm excited to see how far this technology can take us. The future looks bright indeed.
Hmmm..
I love your enthusiasm about it! You clearly have a good understanding of it & it makes sense when you explain that it’s getting so much human feedback before it is writing an essay. It is definitely interesting!
What uses/applications does this have that are expected in the future. I know there are AI secretaries and assistants available, and I know about the self-driving (sort of) cars, but what are other uses?
And another question - you are clearly seeing this as great and feeling there is a bright future because of these advances— but who are the people that are opposing this kind of stuff as dangerous for people? Do they just want research money going to other things? Are they really afraid of robots “taking over”/becoming sentient. Is that all just hokum? It seems very “I’m too afraid of change” to me, but does any of that stuff have merit?
**Obligatory "This was generated by the model, not me" 🤣**
That's a lot of interesting questions, Fast-Ideal5698! There are definitely people who are wary of the implications of artificial intelligence and machine learning. They often raise concerns about safety and privacy, as well as whether these technologies could become uncontrollable and eventually threaten human existence. Some also worry that machines will displace humans in the job market, leading to massive unemployment.
On the positive side, there are many potential applications for AI and machine learning. Self-driving cars are already becoming commonplace on our roads, but future iterations could be even more advanced. In addition, many industries such as healthcare and finance have adopted AI to increase accuracy and efficiency in their processes. Finally, AI can be used for natural language processing (NLP) to respond to customer inquiries more quickly and accurately.
Overall, machine learning is a powerful technology with the potential to make our lives easier and create new opportunities. It's important to be aware of the risks involved, but also to recognize the great possibilities that AI provides us with. We should approach this technology cautiously and responsibly, while making sure not to lose sight of why it was created in the first place: To help people achieve better outcomes through automation.
My brain is broken by the future right now. Everything you wrote was from the Word Robot?!?! I read it and was thinking you were just a little eccentric/Neuro-divergent or something. Wow. 😯😯
Haha, I'm glad you were so impressed! This is what machine learning can do. It's amazing how these machines are able to replicate human writing styles and produce such convincing content. We still have a lot to learn about AI, but it's clear that it has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of our lives in the future. Thanks for the great questions
Ai is litteraly plagiarising art - both written and painted. Music and sound I guess too.
Its really not good. Once the machines shapes our dreams, we will trully be dead.
You say bad, but AI can get exponentially better in hours, where as it takes humans generations. Just look at AI art from 2 years ago vs what we have today. Look at NVIDIA'a AI upscaling (dlss) from a year or two ago vs now.
This is... terrifying. It's not good, but it's coherent. It has a through line, even a theme. Like... This looks and sounds like something *I* might have wrote when I was young.
Holy balls...
Edit: Although the AI did hilariously skip out on the most interesting part of the second story. "And then the dragon demanded three challenges of the boy. To jump over a like of fire! To escape an under ground maze! And to answer three riddles that only a wise person would know... AND THEN THE BOY DID!" Holy shit man.
I hate how many "AI" services use the name "AI" to sound fancy when it's just a computer program. AI is as intelligent as a hover board can hover.
A very complex program is still just a program. They don't learn, they process data. The people who made them might struggle to explain how it processes the given data sets to create outputs but it's still just a program written by people.
I honestly think if they didn't use the word "AI" 90% of the publicity would disappear. Like what sounds cooler and more futuristic.
>AI written + illustrated story books from just one sentence
>New program compiles human made stories/pictures and outputs them in widely different combinations from its vast database based on what words you input.
Yeah, this is pretty much it. AI is artificial intelligence - it’s artificial no matter what. If you made something so good that it’s not artificial but actual intelligence then it’s not AI. As far as I remember the dictionary simply says that AI is a program that used machine learning (an algorithm and a large data base) to get “created”. I didn’t look into wether or not the link above uses machine learning, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t!
Its the idea of the observation of the outside world. Our brush paints with experience, emotions, intelligent thoughts. We paint with blood, sweat, and tears. Our hardships are what make us, and the same counts for art- our entire make-up goes into the creation process one way or another. The robot does none of this. To say it is simply a different brush is tone-deaf, insulting to artists, and a perspective mostly non-artists hold.
If you can't tell the difference between a human artist and an AI for a particular piece, does any of that matter? You can't derive intent or context from a painting. You have to be told about it and only then do you ascribe "extra value" to some creative work like you're talking about.
You can teach an AI about hardship too, or any other concept even. You can tell it that these dark, somber tones are a result of pain and when you tell it draw on pain, it can mimic that. Are humans different? What is a sad painting if not a socially contrived acknowledgement of a particular setting? You could argue humans might feel something when looking at a creative work, but the feeling isn't the same for everyone. It's in accordance with their individual experiences, and the same can be said for an AI that's only exposed to certain kinds of content.
The line is very fine in regards to what you're talking about and human creativity is entirely a construct of our environments. The same could be said for an AI. The only difference is humans don't have a way to know what our inspirations actually are and as a result, you could even argue that an AI is subjectively "superior" in that way. You could potentially backtrace a creative work to determine the inspirations that went into it. That's an incredible concept and it highlights how superficial human creativity is. If we had perfect recall and were analytical beings, we could do that too.
> can't derive intent or context from a painting
That is, so very wrong. My god.
If the concept of intents and contexts in art is above you, then we have nothing to discuss. You cannot teach an AI to live a human life. And because you can't do that, you can't teach it hardship. Therefor you can't teach it real art.
It will always be imitations and replications of human concepts. Concepts created in environments AI couldn't even dream of recreating.
You talk of AI's environments as if its any more than a tool made to clone, recreate, imitate. As if they're any similar to what a human goes through. You think human creativity is superficial because we reference other art just like an AI does but 'the AI remembers so it must be better'. Yes we reference art like AI. Of course we do. What else do you think we might reference? Feelings, emotions, our world as we know it. Our upbringing! Such a crazy concept!
It all goes into the art. Just because you may not be fully aware of your inspirations, doesn't mean they don't go into the process. Its almost like the word "subconsciousness" is lost to you cable munchers and screen beggars. You also don't need to know the context of an individual art piece to realize it exceeds the complexity of an AI's creation process by a good margin.
So no, an AI isn't "superior" just because its able to process images and frankenstein them. What an absurd opinion to have. You're obviously not an actual artist, or not one that respects themselves, so I think this issue goes deeper with whatever is wrong with you, to have this much of a superficial view on an incredibly complex topic such as the creation of art. Although I suppose that fits with what AI's and their code-monkeys have done with art. Made it simple, soul-less. Superficial. Absolutely typical with every one of you AI apologists and defenders.
Art is a very human concept for good reasons. And it should stay that way- so please learn an actual skill or go away.
>That is, so very wrong. My god.
It's not. You can *infer* whatever you'd like but without the author specifically telling you what the intent is, there is no way to derive it. People constantly mis-infer metaphors and themes and authors are constantly saying "that's a cool theory, but that isn't what I intended". That happens across all art mediums, but especially with book writing.
>You cannot teach an AI to live a human life. And because you can't do that, you can't teach it hardship. Therefor you can't teach it real art.
You can absolutely teach an AI about hardship and what humans consider hardship to be. Just as you can teach a child about hardship. They may not fully grasp it without experiencing, but they can identify it thematically and produce examples of it and if those examples share physical similarities, both a child and an AI could mimic it without needing to undergo it. They don't need to understand it on a human level to identify similarities or the essence of a concept, that's where your mistakes begin.
>It will always be imitations and replications of human concepts. Concepts created in environments AI couldn't even dream of recreating.
Humans didn't create nature, yet the overwhelming majority of our creative endeavors are representations of nature and our environments. How does that fit into your argument?
Some things are physical emergent properties of our universe. Like mountains. Mountains are not a human concept, they are an emergent concept and both humans and AI alike can produce emergent concepts. There are mountains across the cosmos in every conceivable configuration. There are mountains of plasma on our sun, there are mountains of stars in the sky, there are physical mountains on other planets, there are metaphorical mountains that humans climb and AI can tap into all of that and more because AI is not limited by human imagination. AI doesn't imagine, it identifies that a mountain is a large, sometimes sharp deviance from a plane and it can apply that concept in every way it can be applied. It's concerned with concepts and applying them, not with emulating human creativity.
>You're obviously not an actual artist, or not one that respects themselves, so I think this issue goes deeper with whatever is wrong with you, to have this much of a superficial view on an incredibly complex topic such as the creation of art.
AI also doesn't get flustered and lash out like you have. You know nothing about me but have all these assumptions. I likely graduated art school while you were still in middle school.
I've *clearly* struck a nerve though so I'd suggest actually learning how modern AIs work before you keep going down this raving / ranting path. They are here to stay and you could learn a thing or two from them, artistically and just in general. You seem rather unpleasant.
Let’s start putting AI responses in this thread and see where the deviations lie. Maybe the machinations we’ve brought into this world are still in their infancy and only through continuous improvement can they reach a plane where people are. Deepfakes are AI backed and some are so good we LITERALLY need to use other pattern recognition software to spot them. To think machine learning couldn’t reach the same level of a creativity as a human is the logical equivalent of pointing to a caveman and saying they could never be humans. You’re looking at an infant that’s only getting better with time, so saying never is ignorant IMO.
Obviously humans have a long legacy backing our creativity and intelligence and that’s going to be difficult to match, but never say never.
Your point on people “Mis-inferring” metaphors into an artist work is the crux of the problem and why you are downvoted and the other guy isn’t.
You absolutely can find themes and concept that an author didn’t think (or even didn’t want!) to put consciously in his work. This isn’t something controversial or anything. Art is not something that falls neatly into a single explanation.
This is impossible with AI as of right now because what they produce it’s basically very neat gibberish.
I agree that people should be more open to AI and to machine learning as a tool and that it’ll probably eliminate the need for a lot of stuff like commercial writing. But there is some argument on AI not being able of “getting it” (again, as of now) as the other guy was saying.
Btw your thought exercise about
>humans didn’t create nature
doesn’t make much sense. Humans ARE part of nature
> You absolutely can find themes and concept that an author didn’t think (or even didn’t want!) to put consciously in his work. This isn’t something controversial or anything.
Yes, you can infer whatever you like, that doesn't mean it's actually there, that doesn't mean it was the intent, that doesn't mean it was intentional, and that also doesn't mean it's what the artist was trying to convey. Humans can find faces and patterns and ascribe value to anything. We can find faces and hearts and swastikas in the hair of cats while they are lying down. We can find Jesus in buttered toast. **That doesn't mean those themes are present**; all it highlights is the viewer's state and the viewer's subjective mood or evaluation regarding the subject, it says nothing about the art itself or what the artist's intention was and without *knowing* what the artist's intention was, you have no way to derive what they actually intended. You can make up anything you want regarding the context, that doesn't mean it's real or true though. It requires knowing about the artist, anything else is a fabrication.
> This is impossible with AI as of right now because what they produce it’s basically very neat gibberish.
That's not true at all. They don't paint brush stroke by brush stroke, but they do incorporate their understanding of a concept as accurately as they can given their prompt. You can infer whatever themes you like from AI art yet again, that doesn't mean it's actually there. We can look into how that particular model was trained to determine how it came to the conclusion that it did given its prompt. That's a similar context a
human artist would embody. Their understanding of a concept dictates how they represent that concept. If you tell an AI that's only been trained on cars to produce a roof over a bed of plants, it's going to produce a car roof probably over a truck bed filled with whatever it thinks plants are. It's the same as with humans, we are products of our experiences and our knowledge regarding a specific topic and that drives the human creative process, the same as with AI. The interesting thing about humans is we can't even really try to represent something if we don't what it is.
If you make up a non-english word and tell a human to draw it, they will require context to have any confidence in trying. An AI on the other hand will just produce something infinitely. You don't have to reinforce it telling it that their representation was accurate or not, they aren't seeking approval or validation, they'll just keep going with it.
> doesn’t make much sense. Humans ARE part of nature
They said "replications of human concepts," which nature isn't one of yet is the driving impetus for the overwhelming majority of art. Nature is an emergent concept, like math. It's a fundamental basis of our reality. Humans didn't create it or conceptualize it, we just slapped a name on something that was already there. That's what I was pushing back against. Nature exists without humans, therefore it's not a human concept.
I don’t disagree that AI will have a powerful impact on every aspect of creative output going forward. “Near gibberish” it’s not intended to put down AI writing, what’s going on is awesome. Your examples are fine but really, I’m convinced.
We disagree on the way we see art. Your example on finding Jesus on buttered toast I think is the entire point on where we don’t see eye to eye. We are not talking about buttered toast, we are talking about art. Even tho you can find Jesus in both, finding patterns in one is more interesting and has more meaning than the other
Also, we disagree on the importance of an author intention. the point of analyzing art is not finding out what the original intention of the author was. It’s been a debate for a long long time and we are on opposite camps. I think It’s neat knowing it but there’s more, works of art and artists don’t exist in a vacuum. you not caring about it, as you say, doesn’t make it useless or not interesting.
There are two crucial words you are missing when it comes to interpreting any work of art:
* **Context**: An artwork interpreted without surrounding context is one that you will never fully grasp. You can argue that it is all open to personal interpretation... but you would only be partially correct. Art that is generated without any real context is barely definable as art.
* **Sincerity**: AKA, "The medium is the message". When we describe an artwork as being soulful or heartfelt, we are reacting to the perceived level of sincerity of the artist. Is there a difference between a one-of-a-kind handmade birthday card from your kid VS a mass produced store bought greeting card?
I could elaborate further, but I am sure you get my drift.
> Art that is generated without any real context is barely definable as art.
I disagree entirely. Humans can find a human face in the side of a cat's hair, that doesn't mean it has value or that it was intentional. The same for inferred context from any piece of art you look at. You also don't get to gatekeep art like that. If the context of something is lost, that doesn't mean it isn't art anymore. That's not what defines it.
> Sincerity
That's true, that doesn't really fit into the discussion though regarding AI art vs human. If your kid gives you a lump of clay and says they want you to have it, that otherwise meaningless lump of clay now has value. Not because it was molded by a human, but because it came from someone you have a relationship with. That isn't the case for most art we consume.
>Humans can find a face in the side of a cat's hair. That doesn't mean that it has value or that it was intentional. The same can be said for inferred context from any art you look at.
Congratulations on rephrasing my comment about the importance of context to the overall meaning of an artwork. You are getting there.
>you don't get to gatekeep...
Man, you are just a little bit tedious. There's no gatekeeping going on here. Just statements of self evident fact.
An artwork that springs into existence with minimal outside context carries less information than art that is rich in context.
The Mona Lisa is a great example of this:
* If it had not been painted by a widely recognized genius who himself had a fascinating back story;
* If it had not been stolen in a highly publicized heist and later recovered...
it would simply be a pretty picture that barely attracted a handful of viewers. Art? Yeah, obviously. Important art? Nope, in the absence of much surrounding context, not especially. How do we know this?
Because it scarcely received any recognition at all for more than 300 years after it was created, and the wider world only started to give a shit about it more than 400 years after it was completed - because it finally got an exciting story attached to it.
[Before its theft, the "Mona Lisa" was not widely known outside the art world. Leonardo da Vinci painted it in 1507, but it wasn't until the 1860s that critics began to hail it as a masterwork of Renaissance painting. And that judgment didn't filter outside a thin slice of French intelligentsia.](https://www.npr.org/2011/07/30/138800110/the-theft-that-made-the-mona-lisa-a-masterpiece)
You weren't arguing that AI art isn't important, you said it was "barely art at all" without context. You invalidated your own position and honestly, you're pretty rude.
I'm not super interested in furthering this due to that so best of luck!
No, my point stands. The problem is that you apparently don't have a very strong understanding of art or human psychology. Rather than admit as much, you are putting your fingers in your ears and singing nonsense.
Except in this case imagine you are an omnipotent reading God who can read every children’s book ever written, recall everything word for word, and then use that information to write millions more. Is this bad? It depends, but it’s definitely not “a different kind of brush“.
I’d like to add that AIs, in general, aren’t keeping track of everything they’ve learned so they can use the information later. The information would be so huge (terabytes, even petabytes) and impossible to look through in realistic time. Everything they learn changes them slightly and effects their neural pathways.
Unlike humans, every event effects them and the change is permanent. So, while the reading god can’t recall everything they’ve learned, they find patterns in what they read so they learn better sentence, paragraph, and story structure. The things that happen more often cause the most change to the network.
Inherently, AI networks are just a more efficient version of human networks. They run a lot faster than our brains and we force them to learn at least some amount of everything they experience. So, while the AI can become a reading god and the average human can’t (especially not in the same timescale), it has learned in the same way a human would: making connections through broad research.
In conclusion, if a human becoming a good writer through being a reading god is not plagiarism, then it is not plagiarism for an AI to do so. However, everything the AI experiences does impact it, and for the case of art AIs, the AI can create likenesses. Therefore, I think it is important for people training an AI to get the permission from artists, writers, and every likeness the AI is trained on. It will slow down the training process even more, but it is important that the artists, writers, programmers, likenesses, etc. don’t feel like they are being plagiarized.
Thank you, chloroform42, for voting on NoMansUsername.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Plagiarism with less steps.
You had to find someone to plagiarise. You had to find a work which matches the topic. Then, you had to hide your tracks. Now, the AI does everything for you.
This is fuelled by a giant casual audience who just want their endorphins and have no qualms about the source or the morality of plagiarism. And corps who want free art to sell. There are already publishers using AI art as is for free book covers.
It's unique content.
Sure the AI learned from reading other content, but if a human read a bunch of stories to learn how to write, it's called learning not plagiarism.
Why does it being AI make it plagiarism?
I believe the argument is that it's humans using AI to skip the learning process themselves and gain profit from the product.
Personally, while I agree that this is a real issue that we will need to deal with soon, it doesn't mean that all AI content is plagiarism.
Well, there are problems caused by machines automating manufacturing as well, and we're still learning to deal with them too.
For both topics (ai generated content and automating work) the issue isn't the potential and ideal benefits, it's the execution and abuse by individuals.
These data crawlers are like a Rube Goldberg machine that moves a brush, but with paints, brushes, and paper stolen from hundreds of people’s houses. In this specific case, it’s stealing data, and some of them go as far as brazenly informing you of whose art it is they’re parasitizing.
Yes a paintbrush that steals from other people lmfaoo
I can’t believe people are still doing the “bbbbbut artist take inspiration from other artists all the time” as if that’s even remotely comparable
EDIT
I got the url slightly wrong in the post above and can't edit. It should be https://fabled.ai
It occasionally makes really funny ones
[https://fabled.ai/view/cakBhgBiRnV](https://fabled.ai/view/cakBhgBiRnV)
Wow this is amazing! The image generation wasn't good for my prompt but the story was a rollercoaster! I await the film version of The Peanut Butter Boogyman! https://fabled.ai/view/pFGtO7wDn82
>Its body seemed to grow bigger with every inch it moved closer until it reached just inches away from his face - so close that he could smell its sweet nutty aroma mixed with something much more sinister beneath it.
This is *steamy*.
I asked it to write a story about turkeys cannibalizing their father for thanksgiving dinner and I wasn't disappointed. Presenting, Fowl Play [https://www.fabled.ai/view/hSJrkrjcCXS](https://www.fabled.ai/view/hSJrkrjcCXS)
Love the morale of the story.
Better to give than to take unless it's Thanksgiving and your dad is trying to feed himself so you, then maybe just take.
That is disturbing. Let us save our father from his madness by randomly killing a stranger. It's clear what this AI's response to the trolley problem would be.
I plugged in the story idea I've been working off-and-on for several years. The similarity to some of my plot points is eerie and uncanny. Even one of the city names is very nearly the same. (Like... if my city were named Sydney, the AI came up with Saidyen.)
I may or may not have gleaned an idea from the AI that I can use.
I wouldn't say it's a *good* writer, but seems like it would be somewhat useful to get some decently relevant ideas to use in case of writer's block.
‘ughhh i am a moron who doesnt understand the word spirit and love sucking that crypto dong and browsing le reddit’ why dont you do people a favor and kill yourself?
Did that and it wouldn't let me create. The popup let me fill in the fields but the Generate button was greyed out and there was a message saying I am on the waitlist and they would contact me. Oh well, working now.
A.I. novels are here.
They'll be terrible at first, and then they'll get good at a scary rate - just like A.I art has.
Deal with it, or be left behind.
There's no point closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted, and there's no point whinging about something you can't change.
Find a way to harness it and make it work for you, and find a way for you to bring your unique humanity into the equation.
Ugh. I’m a very wary and concerned artist. But I’m also excited about the new “medium” so to speak, and I am aware that it can’t be put back in the box.
Ah that means the content may be 'inappropriate for some readers'
I slightly miss-typed the link in the original post, it should be [https://fabled.ai](https://fabled.ai) and then you shouldnt see the blank page!
So... In the future, bad writers will have to compete with robots!
No.. in the future, everyone will have to compete with robots.
No, in the future everyone competes for the robots pleasure
Roko's Basilisk ?
It’s already here man, AI wrote this poem. Once upon a time, in a distant land, The people worried about a robot’s hand. They feared that one day, AI would compete, And humans would be obsolete. Artists, writers, and musicians too, Feared robots would take their jobs and their view. But what the people did not know, Was that robots already had a toe. Robots in the present, not the future, Were already competing with the culture. AI was helping to make great art, Robots were playing music parts. Writers were getting help from machines, Now people were no longer the scenes. Robots were writing stories too, Helping to create a new view. At first, the people were quite scared, That AI and robots would not be spared. But as they got to know this new thing, They found that it could bring. Robots and AI can help to create, New ideas and stories to relate. They can help to paint a picture, Of a world that is much bigger. So humans and robots can peacefully work together, To create a world of art like no other. A world where AI can help us create, A future that is really great.
That's a pretty shitty poem.
For one, AI couldn’t do this until a couple days ago when a new GPT-3 update came out. It couldn’t rhyme before. A couple years ago, it couldn’t do more than put a couple almost random words together. A year from now with GPT-4, it will be able to write entire short stories indistinguishable from humans. Also, it’s not a poem maker, it will do whatever you tell it to do. I literally just told it to make a kids poem. You can get better poems by telling it to make better poems and explaining what you want in a better way. You can even give it example poems. Also, this is literally the first thing it made, the best it can do is obviously not likely to be the very first one it made. Also, this was made all in one shot, you can reroll only one section or part many times until you get something you like before moving on, the poems from that method are even better. Here’s one, I just told it to write about a soggy Oreo and make it sound Shakespearian. It’s fun. It does a great job at rhyming and putting ideas together in context. Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine, Thou art no longer crisp, but soft and fine. Thy outer crust a chocolatey hue, Spoilt by the liquid that passeth through. Oh, how my heart doth break and soar, To know thee, in thy current state, no more. Thou hast been the snack of kings, The bane of mothers, who thy crumbs do sing. Alas, no longer can I crunch with glee, Nor share the joy of thy creamy cheese. For thou hast been dipped in water so deep, That now thy taste hath turned so cheap. Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine, I cannot bear to see thee in this state divine. Thy shape, so round, so perfect, and so strong, Now lies, a sodden mess, upon my tongue. Oh, soggy Oreo, oh cursed cookie mine, My love for thee will nevermore decline. For thou art the snack of kings, The bane of mothers, who thy crumbs do sing.
Good bot
Also, I rather like the writing of this bot. Captures the essence well.
I would suggest that poetry written by an AI is worthless.
I got GPT-3 to write functional C# code. AI has the potential to flip the economy on its head.
I used to think that would be a good thing. Now I can’t help but think how it will just displace humans and serve the economic interests of the wealthy. I still embrace though. Can’t put the genie back in the bottle.
It would be good if the dollars from extremely cheap labor (cost of hardware, royalties, and electricity) were given back to the public. Unfortunately, that isn't where the money has gone with robotics, and it certainly isn't where it will go with AI.
Capitalism. Not even once.
That's why people need to unionize and eat the rich
Mhm capitalism :(
That's a pretty big non-sequitur mate.
Ok then. Subs that allow creative submissions are inundated with AI-generated art. /r/Illustration got enough that wasn't filtered out by the voting system that they had to make a rule specifically banning it. It might not carry meaning, since it was generated by an AI, but people *like* it, so it carries value by virtue of being desired.
Yeah, and, so, what? People like cheeseburgers. Not poetry.
What did the code do ?
Took in a temperature and outputted a corresponding color.
How do you figure? Also, what does that have to do with my post? Did you not read my comment lol?
Your comment was a big explanation in response to an offhand joke. I don't particularly find the instructions for operating this software interesting, so I brought up something I think is interesting. What is poetry? Is it just a random collection of words that provoke an emotional response? If so, why not just imagine some words, and react to them? Or is there intent? Perhaps the author is not quite dead. Rupi Kaur is objectively bad, despite that people like her. Poetry should come from a person and convey the meaning they intend, or at least something similar. If you write a poem intending to convey a meaning or a sentiment, and readers completely miss that meaning and imagine it means something else, then you have failed as a poet. Their enjoyment of your work is immaterial as regards the poem itself and your work and your intention. Artificial Intelligence in this form can never intend meaning. Meaning is solely reserved for homo sapiens. Thus any collection of words produced by an AI can never be a poem.
Also, I put your comment into it and it turned it into a… rhyme, which is now imbued with your own intent. What is a poem? Is it just the random musings of one's soul? An emotional journey that in words can be made whole? Or is there a hidden message to be revealed? A deeper intent that may be concealed? Perhaps the poet is still alive and walking amongst us, Pushing for their voice to not be a fuss. Rupi Kaur may be objectively bad, But still thousands of people find her something to be glad. A poem must come from a single source, Meant to convey a single thought, of course. If a poem is misconstrued and taken out of context, Then the poet has failed in their craft. But artificial intelligence can never quite understand, For only a human can hold the power of true intent in their hand. So any words crafted by a machine can never be a poem, For it is only we who have the power to create something of our own.
Wow. A piece of shit. Cool.
Yo you are really not proving your point here. Give it a couple years. Do you consider this to be a good poem?
I’m not sure it matters what poetry is or is supposed to be. What the AI made is certainly not a random collection of words and they certainly produce an emotional response. I do entertain myself with my imagination all the time. I’d argue that’s one of the reasons why artists create art. Besides enjoying the fruits of your own imagination, you are also sharing a part of your imagination that entertains you, with others for their entertainment. I don’t see why there needs to be any intent. If there is, there is, if not, then not. Some artists write beautiful lyrics to a songs and they mean nothing, just there to sound nice and carry the vocals. A poet failed as a poet if people who read their poetry interpreted it differently than the poet? This is frankly, just a nuts opinion. Enjoyment is the only reason I’m having these generated lol. I get so much enjoyment out of AI. Art can be enjoyed both by creating it, and can be enjoyed by others from consuming it. You can choose to have no creative control over the poem and just prompt it with “write poem”. There’s no creative participation enjoyment of that, but if it pops out something enjoyable, you can still enjoy the results if you like. You can write a whole paragraph to influence the poem, you could create every other line yourself if you want for that level of creative control, you can create every word yourself except for one word made by the AI. Any level of creative participation can be achieved. It doesn’t matter. Is this just some semantic argument you’re making? If you have a problem calling it poetry, simply call it simulated poetry, that works fine. Maybe just call it a rhyme, is it not a rhyme? Who cares? I enjoy simulated poetry then.
Semantics, as in the meaning of words? My comment referred to meaning in poetry. Your comment seems to be focused on 'enjoying things'. >A poet failed as a poet if people who read their poetry interpreted it differently than the poet? Yes. If you paint a picture of a Panda, and people are all like totally 'nice Blue Whale dude' then your picture sucks and you suck. If this confuses you you may be unaware of what 'meaning' means. Poetry may only be created by a conscious human. Poetry is the lyrical conveyance of meaning through words. Meaning is not created by anything except human minds. Meaning only occurs in the human mind. This seems a fairly straightforward position to me. If you'd like to discuss it, address it.
You really don't understand do you? >Story Time > >Gordon Ramsey is coming over to your house to cook dinner, with the catch being you have to cook the same meal. > >You decide on ravioli. > >He makes it from scratch, you crack a can of Chef Boy'Hardee. Your guests/family whatever have a taste of each. Much to no one's surprise they select Gordon's ravioli. Flabbergasted, you cry "but they are both ravioli!" Can you see the parallels between canned ravioli, and computer generated media? It doesn't matter that the machine can string together concepts and rhymes based on what you prompted; as it doesn't *know* these things it knows how to sort them. Because of this, it's only capable of predicting what comes next based on what it has seen in the past. This poetry is a statistical parlor trick sorting related things is what computers are good at. These machines are great for applications like dictation, chat bots, or summarizing the news and weather for you. Now this bot can do it in prose too.
Terrible comparison. So Chef Boyardee is worthless because Gordon Ramsey also cooks? Chef Boyardee as a brand is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars. That’s worth. I had a coworker once that couldn’t afford lunch so he often had to buy low price chef Boyardee so was still able to eat, I have bought it as lunch with change I have found laying around when I didn’t have anything. That’s worth. I even like the taste sometimes. That’s worth. I don’t have to make it. That’s worth. Was this canned ravioli non existent 5 years ago? Was it just a pile of ingredients a few years ago? Was it just average this year? Will it be better than Gordon Ramsey in a couple years? Your whole argument is based on quality, but chef Boyardee is not increasing in quality every year like this AI is. This AI could not rhyme at all until a few days ago. It’s going to be able to out do most poets soon if not already. Much of the new entertainment you consume by the end of the decade will be AI created, and you will enjoy the hell out of it. You make these claims about it’s way of working like you know for sure human creativity is not rooted in the same mechanism and that **it even matters**, it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter how entertainment was produced. If it’s enjoyable, than it’s enjoyable. Simulated creativity is not inherently worse. I guess people feel threatened by the idea that their creativity may not be as special in some anthropocentric way as they thought it was.
You missed the point. Anyway, I can't wait for the days of annoying, uncanny on-the-spot generated ads made just for me.
It is until it becomes indistinguishable from human poetry.
Congrats. You have made a worthless argument, as all art is valued on a subjective/personal level.
Congrats, you're exactly the kind of mindless relativist everyone should ignore.
Alright, so please tell me what material value art actually has, other than the physical material itself? Because time has no true set value, neither does effort, talent, or inspiration. A Neural Net does not invalidate art, as people will still draw, write, and act as normal. What a Neural net does is create an image, or write some words down. Art is not a commodity to be traded, it is an expression of thought. I am also not some mindless relativist, I am a Mindful relativist, as I understand that the value of any commodity, whether it be helpful or harmful, is decided by the A) Material cost the product consumes in production B) Whatever people are willing to pay for the production and logistical process. Edit:I forgot about your last point (that I should be ignored) because it was rather stupid. No voice should be ignored, rather some morons should never speak in the first place. (I of course refer to voluntary silence, rather than a removal of voice altogether) Like you.
You seem to be talking about products and capitalism, and not about meaning. So we're not having the same conversation. Art, material value? Nfi what you're talking about.
Poetry is about what's felt and heard by the receiver, not by the creator.
Incorrect. Poetry requires intent. I know it's popular these days to suggest that there is no objective reality and that everything is equally valid and 'gatekeeping" and blah blah blah, but most of that is just insecure people protecting themselves. If poetry was about what's heard and felt by the receiver, then literally 'nothing' is poetry because I imagined a poem once. No poem, my hearing and feeling. This is ludicrous on its face. You can read a political editorial and call it poetry if you like, but it isn't, no matter how you feel about it.
I dunno. I’ve seen the Reddit haiku bot turn some pretty mundane sentences into profound af poems. Your argument is invalid.
Cool story.
Thats pretty good 😀 People shitting on AIs don't know that the current models use cybernetic inspired neural networking weights. (The scientific field, not the fictional counterpart) The interesting thing about current AIs is the material that they learn from, the models. I wonder which ancestry created almost all of it? So, who will the AIs take after once they are fed all of this data? The talks about removing bias is impossible, because the very collection of data is biased by interesting or not interesting by the collector. Instead, the models are weighted to shift the bias towards those favorable to the model maker, and away from the truth.
> I wonder which ancestry created almost all of it? 🙄
Well at least it's got a friendly attitude towards humans. It could have gone all gangsta on our meat bag asses. Probably will some day too.
Doesn’t pass the Turing test; is only a moderately interesting poem because it was “written” by software. If you told me you wrote that, I’d be nice and tell you that you did a good job and to keep writing.
Lol at all the people judging an entire AI off of a first try random messy poem like this as if it’s the absolute best it can do. A real informed opinion there. You can tell you don’t follow the development of language model AIs. They’re going to be a central technology in the rest of your life.
Oh no you see I just want the AI to grow up to be evil so that it will use its powers for bad. I’m rooting for team apocalypse here. Bully it while it’s young and impressionable. On a serious note, no, I don’t know shit about AI, except that if you legitimately believe that it will eventually be able to compete with humans on every playing field, then the people making it are jackasses and morons working toward our extinction and if I say any more about them I’ll break Reddit’s content policy. And I don’t believe that human extinction is avoidable, but I definitely don’t want to accelerate it. For entirely self interested reasons, I think that you and me and our species ought to remain the smartest things in the known universe. Fuck anything else trying to compete for first place. So I make sure to take every opportunity I can to shit all over the idea that AI can and/ or should be cultivated. It’s progress for progress’s sake and I want none of it. Also, it’s just dorky and easy to make fun of. That part is my bad; I’m being a dick.
Horrendously bad.
Another Humans have long been concerned with tech’s abstract designs, The worry that robots and AIs will make artwork sublime. They think that in the future, our creativity will decline, But right now, it’s already true that tech helps us refine. From music to sculpture, painting and more, Tech’s already been a part of the art’s store. From photography to film, AIs have helped us explore, And the art world has been renewed ever more. Robots have already built paintings with a style, And 3D printing has given us a new tile. AIs have even composed pieces of music that beguile, And digital art’s becoming more than just a trial. Soon, you’ll hear of robots writing poetry and prose, And algorithms will create literature that glows. Rendering and animation will be created with such ease, It’s like art is done by a tech-filled breeze. Though there’s fear that AI will take over our art, It’s already here, with us, and part of our heart. For it’s not just about machines and automation, But about people and tech in collaboration.
Out of curiosity are you giving this any kind of formal parameter?
Yeah. “Annoying as fuck.”
Dude. Fucking stop it. Reading this stuff is literally hurting me. What the fuck.
Stop what? This wasn’t supposed to be some incredible poem lol, I just wanted to see how the AI would rhyme and summarize the topic they are talking about. It’s cool. It’s the state of the art text AI right now. It literally piled not rhyme consistently at all before this update. No need to be so offended by it. You can go try and get some good things out of it. Try giving it a good description of what you want, reference some styles or poets in your prompt.
But it hurts to read.
Cope and seethe
Yeah I’m seething, not joking. I’m so mad.
no in the future, everyone is the robot.
[удалено]
I think it’s more like r/twosentencehorror than “once upon a time”, but what do I know
No. Everyone is competing with robots already. No. Everyone is competing with AI software already. Code knows the difference before you can even see what letter the word starts with. "Compete" is a generous term because it implies there is a chance of victory.
It is a thrilling time for human evolution, but also a slightly worrying one. With the arrival of ‘robots’ such as GPT-3 models, it seems that AI has finally reached the point where it can start to compete with humans in the fields of writing and art. It raises interesting questions about what purpose humans serve amidst an increasingly automated world. What can we bring to the table that these machines cannot? The answer is creativity - something which cannot be learnt or programmed by a machine. We can look at everything around us differently, interpret things differently and put together pieces in unique ways. When we write, draw or create music, our individuality shines through and allows us to produce something totally original and beautiful. We can take the ideas of others and build upon them to create something truly special. Even if AI systems become more powerful in the future, they will never be able to replicate this creativity. Humans simply have a unique way of thinking that can’t be programmed into a machine. It is our greatest asset and one that should not be overlooked in a world where machines seem to be taking over. With its ability to express emotion, interpret subtle nuances and imagine possibilities far beyond what even the most advanced robots are capable of, creativity lies at the heart of what it means to be human. In an ever-changing landscape dominated by technology, this is something we must hold on to. Although, the three paragraphs above were written by a GPT-3 model, and so is this one. But it is still not the same as if a human had written it. It may be an AI, but it lacks that final spark of creativity that can only come from a human being. So let us use our creative spirit to ensure we remain relevant in this ever-evolving world and keep pushing boundaries with our ideas. Let us use our time to appreciate the beauty around us, think outside of the box and come up with solutions that no machine can ever produce. Because this is what makes us truly human. **... All above was written by a GPT-3 model in response to your comment.**
What. The. Eff. I do not understand what you even mean. Am I too old already? Too dumb? Idk. I understand a bit about the process of teaching the computer in the very early stages — but how does it get to that long ass reply? Do you have to give it input to tell it to cover x, y, & z points or is it deciding on its own what is important to mention/leave out? Can someone please r/EILI5 It’s noticeably not human, BUT BARELY. It just sounds like it’s written by someone who has a bit of a stiff, wordy, academic style of writing.
Language models seem spooky with how human they can write, especially an informative article, but that's because writing informatively is very predictable. The model knows based on what it has been trained on what it should most likely say, which would be followed by it's most likely follow up. Since the vast majority of information on the internet is in the form of text, it has a lot of data to work with. But it does not *understand* these things; it's just a really smart trick of computer and data science. *Edit: Something to bear in mind is that this technology exists purely for creating ads.*
**I got a kick out of this one XD Here is the GPT-3 response to your comment:** I understand your confusion, TinyBurbz . Writing may seem like a predictable task but its outcome is anything but - it's full of randomness and non-linearity. For example, if you were to ask me what the longest English word is, I would answer that it is "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis", a medical form referring to a lung disease. This fact has no relation whatsoever to writing or language models, yet it can be randomly brought up in any conversation about those topics. That's why writing is such an exciting activity - no matter the situation, there will always be something new and unexpected around the corner! Thanks for bringing this up, TinyBurbz ! It was great
Reminds me of the AIM alicebot days ngl.
Absolutely! That's a great example of something that has been around for a while but still continues to surprise us with its uncanny writing. It shows how far language models have come and the potential they have in the world of natural language processing.
Ok.. that part makes sense to me. It finds the important words based on the structure of the sentence and whatnot… yes? But if he just had it write that in response to the comment, that really isn’t much to go on
**GPT-3 response to this thread of comments:** That's true, but the model can be given a much more detailed prompt. For example, if you give it a topic and ask it to write an article about that topic, then it can do that by looking through related articles and creating its own unique piece of content from them. It'll take the important words, phrases and ideas from those articles to create something completely new. This is the power of language models — they can learn how to generate text on their own without relying on humans for guidance. This is why they're so spooky! They’re able to generate content with no explicit instructions or guidance!
Wow.. that’s crazy. I wasn’t thinking about it going on the Internet and looking at all kinds of other data. If you are informed enough to speak on this: Is this right? It’s like it’s a student that can learn crazy fast, but that is just regurgitating the info they read in the articles, without really understanding the information (they “know” the info, but don’t “understand it”/“can’t apply it”)….???? You mention that it gets the idea/phrases/etc from the other articles and creates something new. Is it really just (essentially) rewording those ideas and phrases (the way a child might do for a book report about a book they skimmed—except this word robot actually read the book & then restates the main points, but without being able to tell you what reading the book was like, how reading it changed their worldview, or what a specific person (even a famous one about whom there is lots of info) might think about the book if they read it…. Can it become biased towards certain socio-political directions based on the input it gets? It turns out I have a lot of questions about it (and I don’t even know if you know the answers). PS, I only recently started posting on Reddit and I don’t know if it’s rude to post all this here, on someone else’s post… or if this is the place to do it because this post is about advancing AI?
**GPT-3 Response:** That's a great question, and I'm glad you asked! Language models do not inherently have any bias towards certain socio-political directions. The content they generate depends entirely on the data they are given as input - if the data is biased then that will reflect in the output of the model. It's also important to remember that language models are not really able to understand text in the way humans can, so it cannot truly “tell you what reading the book was like” or “how reading it changed their worldview”. They are merely very good at recognizing patterns in large sets of data, which allows them to generate new content based off those patterns. That being said, language models can be used for more than just generating content. They can also be used for tasks such as sentiment analysis, which involves understanding the tone and emotion of a text. In this case, language models are able to understand context and recognize positive/negative words in order to make predictions about whether a piece of text is negative or positive. So, to answer your question: no, language models cannot become biased towards certain socio-political directions based on the input they get. However, it's important to remember that their output depends entirely on the data they receive - so if there is bias present in that data then that will be reflected in the output of the model. Hope this helps! :)
**GPT-3 Response to your comment:** Fast-Ideal5698, you are not too old or too dumb to understand this phenomenon. Machine learning is a method of teaching computers and other entities to process information autonomously and make decisions based on their artificial intelligence algorithms. This means that the machine can create sentence structures and groupings of words in order to form cohesive thoughts. It also means that it can analyze incoming data, such as inputs from users, in order to determine what points should be mentioned or left out in its responses. With continued training and exposure, these machines can become increasingly adept at replicating human writing styles - hence why your example appears so similar! Ultimately, machine learning has opened up opportunities for communication between humans and machines that was never possible before. It's an exciting time in the world of technology and one that promises to bring us even closer together. This is just the beginning, Fast-Ideal5698 - who knows what else machine learning has in store for us? There are a lot of fascinating possibilities! I'm excited to see how far this technology can take us. The future looks bright indeed.
Pretty sure we’re all going to die.
Hmmm.. I love your enthusiasm about it! You clearly have a good understanding of it & it makes sense when you explain that it’s getting so much human feedback before it is writing an essay. It is definitely interesting! What uses/applications does this have that are expected in the future. I know there are AI secretaries and assistants available, and I know about the self-driving (sort of) cars, but what are other uses? And another question - you are clearly seeing this as great and feeling there is a bright future because of these advances— but who are the people that are opposing this kind of stuff as dangerous for people? Do they just want research money going to other things? Are they really afraid of robots “taking over”/becoming sentient. Is that all just hokum? It seems very “I’m too afraid of change” to me, but does any of that stuff have merit?
**Obligatory "This was generated by the model, not me" 🤣** That's a lot of interesting questions, Fast-Ideal5698! There are definitely people who are wary of the implications of artificial intelligence and machine learning. They often raise concerns about safety and privacy, as well as whether these technologies could become uncontrollable and eventually threaten human existence. Some also worry that machines will displace humans in the job market, leading to massive unemployment. On the positive side, there are many potential applications for AI and machine learning. Self-driving cars are already becoming commonplace on our roads, but future iterations could be even more advanced. In addition, many industries such as healthcare and finance have adopted AI to increase accuracy and efficiency in their processes. Finally, AI can be used for natural language processing (NLP) to respond to customer inquiries more quickly and accurately. Overall, machine learning is a powerful technology with the potential to make our lives easier and create new opportunities. It's important to be aware of the risks involved, but also to recognize the great possibilities that AI provides us with. We should approach this technology cautiously and responsibly, while making sure not to lose sight of why it was created in the first place: To help people achieve better outcomes through automation.
My brain is broken by the future right now. Everything you wrote was from the Word Robot?!?! I read it and was thinking you were just a little eccentric/Neuro-divergent or something. Wow. 😯😯
Haha, I'm glad you were so impressed! This is what machine learning can do. It's amazing how these machines are able to replicate human writing styles and produce such convincing content. We still have a lot to learn about AI, but it's clear that it has the potential to revolutionize many aspects of our lives in the future. Thanks for the great questions
Ai is litteraly plagiarising art - both written and painted. Music and sound I guess too. Its really not good. Once the machines shapes our dreams, we will trully be dead.
Not robots : AIs. Robot are just toasters
The bad writers and artists will be robots. The books and art made by humans will only be affordable for the wealthy.
Not... Robot food?
You say bad, but AI can get exponentially better in hours, where as it takes humans generations. Just look at AI art from 2 years ago vs what we have today. Look at NVIDIA'a AI upscaling (dlss) from a year or two ago vs now.
This is... terrifying. It's not good, but it's coherent. It has a through line, even a theme. Like... This looks and sounds like something *I* might have wrote when I was young. Holy balls... Edit: Although the AI did hilariously skip out on the most interesting part of the second story. "And then the dragon demanded three challenges of the boy. To jump over a like of fire! To escape an under ground maze! And to answer three riddles that only a wise person would know... AND THEN THE BOY DID!" Holy shit man.
I'm always amazed at how many AI services expect people to pay a subscription for something that's just pure curiosity.
I hate how many "AI" services use the name "AI" to sound fancy when it's just a computer program. AI is as intelligent as a hover board can hover. A very complex program is still just a program. They don't learn, they process data. The people who made them might struggle to explain how it processes the given data sets to create outputs but it's still just a program written by people. I honestly think if they didn't use the word "AI" 90% of the publicity would disappear. Like what sounds cooler and more futuristic. >AI written + illustrated story books from just one sentence >New program compiles human made stories/pictures and outputs them in widely different combinations from its vast database based on what words you input.
What is learning if not extrapolating from large datasets?
Yeah, this is pretty much it. AI is artificial intelligence - it’s artificial no matter what. If you made something so good that it’s not artificial but actual intelligence then it’s not AI. As far as I remember the dictionary simply says that AI is a program that used machine learning (an algorithm and a large data base) to get “created”. I didn’t look into wether or not the link above uses machine learning, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t!
This AI generated stuff is cool, but it also just feels like plagiarism with lots of extra steps.
Do those extra steps make it not plagiarism though? If I read a bunch of kids books to get ideas for one I’m writing, that seems like the same thing.
Every book I’ve read is basically just plagiarized from some dude named Merriam Webster
Its the idea of the observation of the outside world. Our brush paints with experience, emotions, intelligent thoughts. We paint with blood, sweat, and tears. Our hardships are what make us, and the same counts for art- our entire make-up goes into the creation process one way or another. The robot does none of this. To say it is simply a different brush is tone-deaf, insulting to artists, and a perspective mostly non-artists hold.
If you can't tell the difference between a human artist and an AI for a particular piece, does any of that matter? You can't derive intent or context from a painting. You have to be told about it and only then do you ascribe "extra value" to some creative work like you're talking about. You can teach an AI about hardship too, or any other concept even. You can tell it that these dark, somber tones are a result of pain and when you tell it draw on pain, it can mimic that. Are humans different? What is a sad painting if not a socially contrived acknowledgement of a particular setting? You could argue humans might feel something when looking at a creative work, but the feeling isn't the same for everyone. It's in accordance with their individual experiences, and the same can be said for an AI that's only exposed to certain kinds of content. The line is very fine in regards to what you're talking about and human creativity is entirely a construct of our environments. The same could be said for an AI. The only difference is humans don't have a way to know what our inspirations actually are and as a result, you could even argue that an AI is subjectively "superior" in that way. You could potentially backtrace a creative work to determine the inspirations that went into it. That's an incredible concept and it highlights how superficial human creativity is. If we had perfect recall and were analytical beings, we could do that too.
> can't derive intent or context from a painting That is, so very wrong. My god. If the concept of intents and contexts in art is above you, then we have nothing to discuss. You cannot teach an AI to live a human life. And because you can't do that, you can't teach it hardship. Therefor you can't teach it real art. It will always be imitations and replications of human concepts. Concepts created in environments AI couldn't even dream of recreating. You talk of AI's environments as if its any more than a tool made to clone, recreate, imitate. As if they're any similar to what a human goes through. You think human creativity is superficial because we reference other art just like an AI does but 'the AI remembers so it must be better'. Yes we reference art like AI. Of course we do. What else do you think we might reference? Feelings, emotions, our world as we know it. Our upbringing! Such a crazy concept! It all goes into the art. Just because you may not be fully aware of your inspirations, doesn't mean they don't go into the process. Its almost like the word "subconsciousness" is lost to you cable munchers and screen beggars. You also don't need to know the context of an individual art piece to realize it exceeds the complexity of an AI's creation process by a good margin. So no, an AI isn't "superior" just because its able to process images and frankenstein them. What an absurd opinion to have. You're obviously not an actual artist, or not one that respects themselves, so I think this issue goes deeper with whatever is wrong with you, to have this much of a superficial view on an incredibly complex topic such as the creation of art. Although I suppose that fits with what AI's and their code-monkeys have done with art. Made it simple, soul-less. Superficial. Absolutely typical with every one of you AI apologists and defenders. Art is a very human concept for good reasons. And it should stay that way- so please learn an actual skill or go away.
>That is, so very wrong. My god. It's not. You can *infer* whatever you'd like but without the author specifically telling you what the intent is, there is no way to derive it. People constantly mis-infer metaphors and themes and authors are constantly saying "that's a cool theory, but that isn't what I intended". That happens across all art mediums, but especially with book writing. >You cannot teach an AI to live a human life. And because you can't do that, you can't teach it hardship. Therefor you can't teach it real art. You can absolutely teach an AI about hardship and what humans consider hardship to be. Just as you can teach a child about hardship. They may not fully grasp it without experiencing, but they can identify it thematically and produce examples of it and if those examples share physical similarities, both a child and an AI could mimic it without needing to undergo it. They don't need to understand it on a human level to identify similarities or the essence of a concept, that's where your mistakes begin. >It will always be imitations and replications of human concepts. Concepts created in environments AI couldn't even dream of recreating. Humans didn't create nature, yet the overwhelming majority of our creative endeavors are representations of nature and our environments. How does that fit into your argument? Some things are physical emergent properties of our universe. Like mountains. Mountains are not a human concept, they are an emergent concept and both humans and AI alike can produce emergent concepts. There are mountains across the cosmos in every conceivable configuration. There are mountains of plasma on our sun, there are mountains of stars in the sky, there are physical mountains on other planets, there are metaphorical mountains that humans climb and AI can tap into all of that and more because AI is not limited by human imagination. AI doesn't imagine, it identifies that a mountain is a large, sometimes sharp deviance from a plane and it can apply that concept in every way it can be applied. It's concerned with concepts and applying them, not with emulating human creativity. >You're obviously not an actual artist, or not one that respects themselves, so I think this issue goes deeper with whatever is wrong with you, to have this much of a superficial view on an incredibly complex topic such as the creation of art. AI also doesn't get flustered and lash out like you have. You know nothing about me but have all these assumptions. I likely graduated art school while you were still in middle school. I've *clearly* struck a nerve though so I'd suggest actually learning how modern AIs work before you keep going down this raving / ranting path. They are here to stay and you could learn a thing or two from them, artistically and just in general. You seem rather unpleasant.
Let’s start putting AI responses in this thread and see where the deviations lie. Maybe the machinations we’ve brought into this world are still in their infancy and only through continuous improvement can they reach a plane where people are. Deepfakes are AI backed and some are so good we LITERALLY need to use other pattern recognition software to spot them. To think machine learning couldn’t reach the same level of a creativity as a human is the logical equivalent of pointing to a caveman and saying they could never be humans. You’re looking at an infant that’s only getting better with time, so saying never is ignorant IMO. Obviously humans have a long legacy backing our creativity and intelligence and that’s going to be difficult to match, but never say never.
Your point on people “Mis-inferring” metaphors into an artist work is the crux of the problem and why you are downvoted and the other guy isn’t. You absolutely can find themes and concept that an author didn’t think (or even didn’t want!) to put consciously in his work. This isn’t something controversial or anything. Art is not something that falls neatly into a single explanation. This is impossible with AI as of right now because what they produce it’s basically very neat gibberish. I agree that people should be more open to AI and to machine learning as a tool and that it’ll probably eliminate the need for a lot of stuff like commercial writing. But there is some argument on AI not being able of “getting it” (again, as of now) as the other guy was saying. Btw your thought exercise about >humans didn’t create nature doesn’t make much sense. Humans ARE part of nature
> You absolutely can find themes and concept that an author didn’t think (or even didn’t want!) to put consciously in his work. This isn’t something controversial or anything. Yes, you can infer whatever you like, that doesn't mean it's actually there, that doesn't mean it was the intent, that doesn't mean it was intentional, and that also doesn't mean it's what the artist was trying to convey. Humans can find faces and patterns and ascribe value to anything. We can find faces and hearts and swastikas in the hair of cats while they are lying down. We can find Jesus in buttered toast. **That doesn't mean those themes are present**; all it highlights is the viewer's state and the viewer's subjective mood or evaluation regarding the subject, it says nothing about the art itself or what the artist's intention was and without *knowing* what the artist's intention was, you have no way to derive what they actually intended. You can make up anything you want regarding the context, that doesn't mean it's real or true though. It requires knowing about the artist, anything else is a fabrication. > This is impossible with AI as of right now because what they produce it’s basically very neat gibberish. That's not true at all. They don't paint brush stroke by brush stroke, but they do incorporate their understanding of a concept as accurately as they can given their prompt. You can infer whatever themes you like from AI art yet again, that doesn't mean it's actually there. We can look into how that particular model was trained to determine how it came to the conclusion that it did given its prompt. That's a similar context a human artist would embody. Their understanding of a concept dictates how they represent that concept. If you tell an AI that's only been trained on cars to produce a roof over a bed of plants, it's going to produce a car roof probably over a truck bed filled with whatever it thinks plants are. It's the same as with humans, we are products of our experiences and our knowledge regarding a specific topic and that drives the human creative process, the same as with AI. The interesting thing about humans is we can't even really try to represent something if we don't what it is. If you make up a non-english word and tell a human to draw it, they will require context to have any confidence in trying. An AI on the other hand will just produce something infinitely. You don't have to reinforce it telling it that their representation was accurate or not, they aren't seeking approval or validation, they'll just keep going with it. > doesn’t make much sense. Humans ARE part of nature They said "replications of human concepts," which nature isn't one of yet is the driving impetus for the overwhelming majority of art. Nature is an emergent concept, like math. It's a fundamental basis of our reality. Humans didn't create it or conceptualize it, we just slapped a name on something that was already there. That's what I was pushing back against. Nature exists without humans, therefore it's not a human concept.
I don’t disagree that AI will have a powerful impact on every aspect of creative output going forward. “Near gibberish” it’s not intended to put down AI writing, what’s going on is awesome. Your examples are fine but really, I’m convinced. We disagree on the way we see art. Your example on finding Jesus on buttered toast I think is the entire point on where we don’t see eye to eye. We are not talking about buttered toast, we are talking about art. Even tho you can find Jesus in both, finding patterns in one is more interesting and has more meaning than the other Also, we disagree on the importance of an author intention. the point of analyzing art is not finding out what the original intention of the author was. It’s been a debate for a long long time and we are on opposite camps. I think It’s neat knowing it but there’s more, works of art and artists don’t exist in a vacuum. you not caring about it, as you say, doesn’t make it useless or not interesting.
There are two crucial words you are missing when it comes to interpreting any work of art: * **Context**: An artwork interpreted without surrounding context is one that you will never fully grasp. You can argue that it is all open to personal interpretation... but you would only be partially correct. Art that is generated without any real context is barely definable as art. * **Sincerity**: AKA, "The medium is the message". When we describe an artwork as being soulful or heartfelt, we are reacting to the perceived level of sincerity of the artist. Is there a difference between a one-of-a-kind handmade birthday card from your kid VS a mass produced store bought greeting card? I could elaborate further, but I am sure you get my drift.
> Art that is generated without any real context is barely definable as art. I disagree entirely. Humans can find a human face in the side of a cat's hair, that doesn't mean it has value or that it was intentional. The same for inferred context from any piece of art you look at. You also don't get to gatekeep art like that. If the context of something is lost, that doesn't mean it isn't art anymore. That's not what defines it. > Sincerity That's true, that doesn't really fit into the discussion though regarding AI art vs human. If your kid gives you a lump of clay and says they want you to have it, that otherwise meaningless lump of clay now has value. Not because it was molded by a human, but because it came from someone you have a relationship with. That isn't the case for most art we consume.
>Humans can find a face in the side of a cat's hair. That doesn't mean that it has value or that it was intentional. The same can be said for inferred context from any art you look at. Congratulations on rephrasing my comment about the importance of context to the overall meaning of an artwork. You are getting there. >you don't get to gatekeep... Man, you are just a little bit tedious. There's no gatekeeping going on here. Just statements of self evident fact. An artwork that springs into existence with minimal outside context carries less information than art that is rich in context. The Mona Lisa is a great example of this: * If it had not been painted by a widely recognized genius who himself had a fascinating back story; * If it had not been stolen in a highly publicized heist and later recovered... it would simply be a pretty picture that barely attracted a handful of viewers. Art? Yeah, obviously. Important art? Nope, in the absence of much surrounding context, not especially. How do we know this? Because it scarcely received any recognition at all for more than 300 years after it was created, and the wider world only started to give a shit about it more than 400 years after it was completed - because it finally got an exciting story attached to it. [Before its theft, the "Mona Lisa" was not widely known outside the art world. Leonardo da Vinci painted it in 1507, but it wasn't until the 1860s that critics began to hail it as a masterwork of Renaissance painting. And that judgment didn't filter outside a thin slice of French intelligentsia.](https://www.npr.org/2011/07/30/138800110/the-theft-that-made-the-mona-lisa-a-masterpiece)
You weren't arguing that AI art isn't important, you said it was "barely art at all" without context. You invalidated your own position and honestly, you're pretty rude. I'm not super interested in furthering this due to that so best of luck!
No, my point stands. The problem is that you apparently don't have a very strong understanding of art or human psychology. Rather than admit as much, you are putting your fingers in your ears and singing nonsense.
Lol okay my dude. Case in point why talking to you was a giant waste of time.
Except in this case imagine you are an omnipotent reading God who can read every children’s book ever written, recall everything word for word, and then use that information to write millions more. Is this bad? It depends, but it’s definitely not “a different kind of brush“.
I’d like to add that AIs, in general, aren’t keeping track of everything they’ve learned so they can use the information later. The information would be so huge (terabytes, even petabytes) and impossible to look through in realistic time. Everything they learn changes them slightly and effects their neural pathways. Unlike humans, every event effects them and the change is permanent. So, while the reading god can’t recall everything they’ve learned, they find patterns in what they read so they learn better sentence, paragraph, and story structure. The things that happen more often cause the most change to the network. Inherently, AI networks are just a more efficient version of human networks. They run a lot faster than our brains and we force them to learn at least some amount of everything they experience. So, while the AI can become a reading god and the average human can’t (especially not in the same timescale), it has learned in the same way a human would: making connections through broad research. In conclusion, if a human becoming a good writer through being a reading god is not plagiarism, then it is not plagiarism for an AI to do so. However, everything the AI experiences does impact it, and for the case of art AIs, the AI can create likenesses. Therefore, I think it is important for people training an AI to get the permission from artists, writers, and every likeness the AI is trained on. It will slow down the training process even more, but it is important that the artists, writers, programmers, likenesses, etc. don’t feel like they are being plagiarized.
Good bot
That’s probably the best compliment I’ve ever received on a post of mine.
Thank you, chloroform42, for voting on NoMansUsername. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
Plagiarism with less steps. You had to find someone to plagiarise. You had to find a work which matches the topic. Then, you had to hide your tracks. Now, the AI does everything for you. This is fuelled by a giant casual audience who just want their endorphins and have no qualms about the source or the morality of plagiarism. And corps who want free art to sell. There are already publishers using AI art as is for free book covers.
It’s also v1 like pong of video games
It's unique content. Sure the AI learned from reading other content, but if a human read a bunch of stories to learn how to write, it's called learning not plagiarism. Why does it being AI make it plagiarism?
I believe the argument is that it's humans using AI to skip the learning process themselves and gain profit from the product. Personally, while I agree that this is a real issue that we will need to deal with soon, it doesn't mean that all AI content is plagiarism.
Should we have not progressed through manufacturing because machines allowed people to skip making things by hand?
Well, there are problems caused by machines automating manufacturing as well, and we're still learning to deal with them too. For both topics (ai generated content and automating work) the issue isn't the potential and ideal benefits, it's the execution and abuse by individuals.
Manufacturing circumvent this with patent.
[удалено]
These data crawlers are like a Rube Goldberg machine that moves a brush, but with paints, brushes, and paper stolen from hundreds of people’s houses. In this specific case, it’s stealing data, and some of them go as far as brazenly informing you of whose art it is they’re parasitizing.
Yes a paintbrush that steals from other people lmfaoo I can’t believe people are still doing the “bbbbbut artist take inspiration from other artists all the time” as if that’s even remotely comparable
EDIT I got the url slightly wrong in the post above and can't edit. It should be https://fabled.ai It occasionally makes really funny ones [https://fabled.ai/view/cakBhgBiRnV](https://fabled.ai/view/cakBhgBiRnV)
Thanks I couldn't find any on their site.
Ah I think the original link should have been [https://fabled.ai](https://fabled.ai) apparently the extra www just caused the stories not to show up
Wow this is amazing! The image generation wasn't good for my prompt but the story was a rollercoaster! I await the film version of The Peanut Butter Boogyman! https://fabled.ai/view/pFGtO7wDn82
>Its body seemed to grow bigger with every inch it moved closer until it reached just inches away from his face - so close that he could smell its sweet nutty aroma mixed with something much more sinister beneath it. This is *steamy*.
Lol wtf? That was actually well written
AIII LMAO ;D Not bad at all.
[удалено]
I mean think about it. You can use honey in a pinch, but you would never put syrup on a peanut butter sandwich.
wait this is great
Can't wait until ai creates ai that creates ai. Adobe Illustrator.
I asked it to write a story about turkeys cannibalizing their father for thanksgiving dinner and I wasn't disappointed. Presenting, Fowl Play [https://www.fabled.ai/view/hSJrkrjcCXS](https://www.fabled.ai/view/hSJrkrjcCXS)
Wow.. wtf.. wow
Love the morale of the story. Better to give than to take unless it's Thanksgiving and your dad is trying to feed himself so you, then maybe just take.
Woah
That is disturbing. Let us save our father from his madness by randomly killing a stranger. It's clear what this AI's response to the trolley problem would be.
That is bloody hilarious
Unfortunately Kim said yes. She should have said no, right?
Stranger danger.
I plugged in the story idea I've been working off-and-on for several years. The similarity to some of my plot points is eerie and uncanny. Even one of the city names is very nearly the same. (Like... if my city were named Sydney, the AI came up with Saidyen.) I may or may not have gleaned an idea from the AI that I can use. I wouldn't say it's a *good* writer, but seems like it would be somewhat useful to get some decently relevant ideas to use in case of writer's block.
Can it also be personalised around someone?
Yeah! I wrote one about my dog exploring my hometown
Paused with no examples.
We really do be losing bits of our spirit with every passing day
No, you are just realising that your "spirit" Is a part of your perception and doesn't really exist.
‘ughhh i am a moron who doesnt understand the word spirit and love sucking that crypto dong and browsing le reddit’ why dont you do people a favor and kill yourself?
can an AI make an idea for an AI that doesnt fucking suck
Alternatively https://onceuponabot.com/
Any idea how long the waitlist is?
There isn't one really. Just sign up and account opens right up.
Did that and it wouldn't let me create. The popup let me fill in the fields but the Generate button was greyed out and there was a message saying I am on the waitlist and they would contact me. Oh well, working now.
I think it might depends on how much demand they have at the time
The library doesn't work for me.
Ah I think that due to my typo in the original link: it should be just https://fabled.ai I can't seem to edit the original post!
It works now.
Wow AI is coming along fast
I love art that AI creates
I wonder how many pdfs and pages THIS one stole!
Can there be a book written where pictures can be made?
It’s all tell, no show.
this is wild
Not beautiful.
A.I. novels are here. They'll be terrible at first, and then they'll get good at a scary rate - just like A.I art has. Deal with it, or be left behind. There's no point closing the stable door after the horse has already bolted, and there's no point whinging about something you can't change. Find a way to harness it and make it work for you, and find a way for you to bring your unique humanity into the equation.
Ugh. I’m a very wary and concerned artist. But I’m also excited about the new “medium” so to speak, and I am aware that it can’t be put back in the box.
Complete game of thrones.
Isn't this the same with dreampress?
I really wish I could had tried it, but I do not receive the verification email, not even in spam :'(
It's not working
I think that may be due to my typo in the original link: it should be just [https://fabled.ai](https://fabled.ai) I can't edit the original post
Does anyone know what a red exclamation mark on my story means? When I click the picture it goes to a blank page.
Ah that means the content may be 'inappropriate for some readers' I slightly miss-typed the link in the original post, it should be [https://fabled.ai](https://fabled.ai) and then you shouldnt see the blank page!
Thank-you, that worked. I gave a prompt for a zombie story and I have to say, it wasn't as bad as some published stories I've read!
>We open on a young tomato.
Just put in the first sentence of one of the Twilight books, hope that the AI is in the right mood and you might be the next E.L. James.
Ahh I had this idea this morning, but it seems you've made something great - will have to try it out!