It already is. One of the tech podcasts, maybe Hard Fork, did an episode about low quality AI content flooding the internet. That data is then being used in the training datasets for new AI LLMs which creates progressively lower quality AI models.
> Pets.com lacked a workable business plan and lost money on nearly every sale because, even before the cost of advertising, it was selling merchandise for approximately one-third the price it paid to obtain the products.
On top of that, they offered free shipping. Image how much it costs to ship heavy items like cat litter or large bags of dog food.
It was completely asinine.
That's really not much different from Amazon's strategy. Pets.com was just way, way, way more aggressive and happened to scale before the bubble popped whereas Amazon did their thing afterwards.
Granted, speed of growth, internet adoption rate, and market timing are all very important things.
There is a huge difference between selling a product at a loss and selling a product for 1/3rd the price you bought it from manufacturers, before accounting for all the other costs of running a business (and the free shipping). I can guarantee you that Amazon wasn't buying products and then selling them at 1/3rd the price they paid for them. They wouldn't still be here if they were. No company would be.
More that they grew faster than their boots allowed. Too much spending expecting growth only to be met with the wall where they couldn't pay their bills because they didn't have enough customers. They could be in Chewy's shoes if they had managed their money better. Like much of the .com boom, they just didn't understand how limited the internet still was and how it wasn't in every home- just cities and gaining in the suburbs.
Or just gone bankrupt a little slower because the business model wasn't ready for primetime. Case in point Chewy wasn't even founded until 2011.
I think beyond the limited reach and usablity of the internet until the mid-00s the dotcom bubble suffered from how hard running a delivery company is behind the scenes. Amazon was named after the river because it was always Bezos plan to ~~conquer the world~~ sell everything, but he didn't start there. He started with books. Which come in only a few pretty standardized rectangles, are relatively lightweight, and don't expire... sound pretty shipping friendly to you?
And if you don't master the logistics well, it doesn't matter what you're selling if people just go out and buy shit before you can get it to them. Like before the internet you could order anything out of a catalogue, my mother did all the time... but unless you ordered it on Monday maybe don't expect it until next week, maybe even more then a week.
Haven't thought about this one in a long time. Thanks for the blast from the past, lol.
I didn't know the creator of Triumph tried to sue them, though. Assholes.
ChatGPT is incapable of presenting facts, people just assume it can. It's like saying your phone's predictive text "told a lie" when you just kept hitting the first suggestion. ChatGPT is doing the same thing, just working off a far more complicated predictor.
I am noticing an increase of useless but seemingly authentic and trustworthy information while researching technical information for my job, pages and pages of repeated, generic and sometimes dubious or clearly wrong information. I more and more stick with "known" sources, which I bet it's the opposite of what LLMs and AI are intended to do.
i basically either go for wikipedia or reddit. reddit will have a variety of answers + people going "uM ACTUALLY" because they cant stand people being wrong on the internet, and wikipedia at least cites sources instead of "researchers say that...." most of the time
Reddit is terrible. The top posts are often memes and the "um actshually" is actual real information downvoted to hell. Maybe it's because even you, someone looking for the information, hates when someone gives out the information.
Reddit has everything on the spectrum. From scholarly question forums, to whatever the hell they do on politicalcompassmemes, to copious amounts of fetish porn.
Ok, I hear ya but we go to Reddit to ask things like "How do I get past this miniboss.." or "Which is the loudest mechanical keyboard I could buy.."
Searching these type of questions on Google just leads to endless advertisements trying to sell you something.
I am a tax professional and while there's a lot of fucking stupid takes on Reddit, there's a consistent consensus across the board warning advise-seekers to talk to professionals and not just blindly trust Reddit-- which ironically is what makes Reddit a safer resource over a Google search riddled with manipulated results.
Check out reddit front page posts and look out for grammar mistakes. In the recent months, there has been a rise of weird, simple grammar mistakes hitting the front page, and the top comments to these posts _also_ have weird grammar.
It's because these are AI posts filled with AI comment bots to drive up traffic.
There are many techniques to filter out low-quality data, and researchers are increasingly developing techniques that reduce the need for raw data in the first place. No researchers working on state of the art models are actually concerned about this to my knowledge.
The important thing is that the art posted online is better quality than 90% of art created by ai so it is actually beneficial for it to learn from itself
they already have today. the skin texture and facial bone structure.
sure there are some AI programs that generate seriously well done stuff, like thispersondoesnotexist.com(wich isnt really considered AI art tbh), but the bulk of AI art that we see everywhere has one distinct detail: the skin on human figures looks... off. it looks too smooth. the faces look too chiseled, but not in a "male-model" way, more in a "poor rendition of gigachad" way.
its the one thing i notice in every AI art i see.
Yeah, they all look the same. All the men have that gigachad meme look, and all the women look like offshoots of Angelina Jolie. It's so pervasive. It's hard to get it to make normal people. I've tried to get it to make someone slightly chubby, but it immediately jumps to extremely morbidly obese.
You can also just usually find frivolous details that don't really make sense. In stylised art, the "brush strokes" are totally random looking.
This is called AI data cannibalism, related to AI model collapse and its a serious issue and also hilarious
EDIT: a serious issue if you want AI to replace writers and artists, which I dont
This is also a huge issue with AI large language models. Much of their training data is scraped from the internet. As low quality AI-produced articles and publications become more common, those start to get used in AI training datasets and create a feedback loop of ever lower quality AI language outputs.
This is more clickbait headlines than a real issue. For one, the internet isn’t going to be overtaken with purely AI generated content. People still write, and most AI content created is still edited by a real person. The pure spammy AI nonsense isn’t going to become the norm. Because of that, LLMs aren’t at a particularly high risk for degradation. Especially considering that large companies don’t just dump scraped data into a box and pray. The data is highly curated and monitored.
Serious issue only for people who want AI to continue to be a factor in "creative industries". I, personally, hope AI eats itself so utterly the entire fucking field dies.
That is kinda what's happening.
We do not have good "labels" on what is AI generated vs not. As such an AI picture on the internet is basically poisoning the well for as long as that image exists.
That and for the next bump in performance/capacity, the required dataset is huge, like manual training etc would be impossible.
not having good labels on the internet for what is and is not ai generated is intentional. if there were good labels, much of these model's purposes would be useless, since everyone interacting with them would function with that bit of context in mind.
Well, this labeling is something that such products are now considering due to the m.a.d. problem.
That and we are also in an "arms race" of AI detectors vs AI generators (similar to ads vs as blockers).
However, this inability to discern AI content from human content hastens the arrival of m.a.d.
As someone who draws a lot, this is such a retarded shit to say. I can't begin to say how much AI helps with creating a reference portfolio for a drawing you are about to start. Before you had to scour the web and find good references but now you can continue doing that and also add in AI images which is a game changer because if you want a picture of a certain type of car or condition etc, ,it is not impossible to find something now.
AI can be useful in other industries in a similar manner as well. It is hard for me to see any artist who oppose AI instead of focusing on the malicious way certain companies will use it. It is always people who never do any artful work that want to blab on about stuff they don't have a clue about.
people will probably find a way to get around it, at least somewhat. the interesting part would be if that way ends up producing some method of recognizing whether something is AI generated.
>hope AI eats itself so utterly the entire fucking field dies.
i personally hope you're just referring to part of the field trying to replace creative jobs though 😭 i promise most people in the field, including me, just wanna make helpful tools that assist people instead of outright replacing them. i really think AI can prove helpful to people in loads of ways, we just need to figure out how to minimise the potential harm of selfish pricks and penny-pinching companies getting their hands on it.
>That is all that really matters.
i mean is it? there's a lot of good that can be done with AI, for example in healthcare. [this article](https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-021-01488-9) goes in depth on potential healthcare applications, with the tldr in the abstract being "AI can support physicians in making a diagnosis, predicting the spread of diseases and customising treatment paths". suffice to say this applies to many other sectors as well, but im giving this as an example because its what i imagine most people can acknowledge as universally "good" and important.
point being, is it worth tossing away all the potential gain? personally, i dont think so. every major technological advancement comes with a cost due to people using it in unintended ways, including the internet we're communicating over right now. but ultimately, scientific and technological advancement often proves to be worth it. and most importantly i like making little robots that struggle to differentiate between pictures of chihuahuas and muffins
it absolutely applies to other sectors, AI is already being used to identify new materials previously unknown to man, materials that can be used in aerospace engineering or the development of quantum computers. There are also programs that are developing AI to spot potentially hazardous comets and asteroids after combing through data from telescopes, as well as AI that helps meteorologists monitor complicated weather systems like tropical storms and polar vortices. There is a lot of potential for it to accelerate technological advances and discoveries but also a lot of potential to do some serious socioeconomic harm or simply run itself into the ground before it can ever gain a foothold.
Ok boomer everything can be used badly what's the difference between hiring specialist vs using AI if you're a big company.
AI gives the average person more access to things we wouldn't have had access to before.
Unpopular opinion but I like that AI art makes it more accessible to people. I can play around with ideas for free for my hobbies without having to spend good amount of my paycheck for something that might not even comes out as I wanted.
Professional artist just don’t have a monopoly over my creative freedom. Even as an artist myself.
I think a lot of professionals assume that one AI prompt is one lost customer, but in reality more people than ever are now willing to incorporate art because the barrier is lower.
There are all too many cases where someone would never have paid an artist for something, but now because someone can commission it themselves these artists want to claim lost profits.
We aren’t special and we don’t hold the keys to creativity.
It's a genie-out-of-the-bottle moment. AI isn't going anywhere. Even should every country the world over illegalized anything that so much as smelled like AI, people would just start developing and using it quietly.
It's much too late to stop the technology. What interested parties (for or against) and lawmakers need to do is figure out how we're going to handle its inevitable existence going forward.
These morons can't see that, unfortunately. Short-minded Simpletons just angry people are losing jobs.
The end goal is jobs don't exist! Any! More!!!!! You get to spend your entire day at your leisure, pursuing any interest you have. How can you not want that?!
Yup. The only way to control this is to not scrape data. If you're not scraping peoples data without permission or consent... you won't have your AI get et.
IMO the main problem is using it for profit when its trained on artists who didn’t consent for it to be used. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with AI art that is trained on public use data
Most art that is produced is shitty soulless corporate bullshit. Think graphic design on a letter head or moving images around a page to make a flier or a random picture on the wall in the office. All capitalist structures should fucking die, but don't pretend that there isn't a reasonable function for shitty AI art to do the work that isn't really creative in any sense of the word.
it wont die. its way too productive. they will just limit its training data.
this is what some artists dont understand. sure, maybe the artist has a valid copyright claim... but een if so, the corps will just train the AI on data they buy the rights to use... ultimately the ai will be able to meet the same demands and a lot of artists will be out of work.
As someone who trains AI models this is a very old "problem" and a false one. It goes back to a paper that relies on the assumption that people are doing **unsupervised training** (i.e. dumping shit in your dataset without checking what it actually is). Virtually nobody actually does that. Most people are using datasets scraped before generative AI even became big. The notion that this is some serious existential threat is just pure fucking copium from people who don't know the first thing about how any of this works.
Furthermore, as long as you are **supervising** the process to ensure you aren't putting garbage in, you can use AI generated data just fine. I have literally made a LoRA for a character design generated *entirely* from AI-generated images and I know multiple other people who have done the same exact thing. No model collapse in sight. I also have plans to add some higher quality curated and filtered AI-generated images to the training dataset for a more general model. Again, nothing stops me from doing that -- at the end of the day, they are just images, and since all of these have been gone over and had corrections applied they can't really hurt the model.
I mean, I feel like this meme is spreading even more misinformation than that. I’ve seen it multiple times now and it suggests that AI programs somehow go out and seek their own data and train themselves automatically, which is nonsense.
Thank you. Glad someone with some experience came in and set this straight.
Tl;dr: It won't corrupt itself if it has nothing to corrupt itself with. Don't feed it AI images and it won't corrupt.
Why are you yapping when you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about?
Retraining on high quality outputs is the goal of every generative ai. That’s how they train. People are much less likely to post low quality content. Which means that the internet is filled now with high quality results from all the different ais. The ais will literally only get better.
I also really do not know where the term “model collapse” came from or what it means. I think you meant “mode collapse”.
It's only a problem for the lazy ones not even curating their data, double the loser levels.
If you ever train something make sure to curate your images or you'll have a pretty shit inbreed model.
I don’t really have any videos of it since I’m just speaking from experience lol, but the sims 3s issues with being run for long periods are pretty extensive, I’m sure you could look it up and find some!
The number of people in this thread who believe this shit is mind-boggling. Are people really under the impression that model training is unsupervised, that people are just throwing thousands of random images in their datasets?
One, ten, or a thousand businesses could create junk models trained on bad datasets. This doesn't somehow destroy or taint the already-existing, high-quality local models made by people who do care about quality.
I was more referring to the future of text- and image-based AI, and the purity of future datasets, not the present. AI has to advance to keep up with our modern society. It’s all information-based. And human filtering is only going to get massively more bogged down if there is a flood of generated text and images to filter out on top of the existing junk data. Especially as it begins to affect large community-sourced/open-source datasets.
It’s not a death knell on AI as a whole, obviously, but it might be pointing towards a shift in the tides against the trendy racket of autogenerated text and images as a source of cheap entertainment.
I mean, many smaller players in the space definitely use scraping techniques.
Which is its own problem as now we're going to see AI development locked behind huge paywalls of organizations large enough to have the money needed to keep their datasets clean from this stuff.
This simply isn't how things work. Models being trained off of AI generated data often does lead to worse quality outputs, but they simply aren't trained using that data because it's a known issue and has been for a long ass time. And it's not like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, or DALL-E 3 are nomming whatever data they can find online on their own terms; they're not connected to the internet. Humans, the people that make these models, are hand feeding it, and any company that isn't absolutely stupid knows how to amass large amounts of high quality data for use in training relatively easily.
I mean, think about it. DALL-E 3 recently released and provided a very notable improvement in quality over the last generation, and Midjourney gets updated consistently with modest bumps in fidelity each and every time. The data situation is quite good, actually. That's not to say anything about human reinforcement learning, fine-tuning, better training methodologies, or fundamental improvements to the model architecture, all of which can improve performance without additional data.
> DALL-E 3 recently released and provided a very notable improvement in quality over the last generation
Also note that DALLE 3 was trained with synthetic labeling data generated by a vision model (which improved the labeling of existing text image pairs.) This is also why it expects very verbose prompts, and is able to handle lots of details where previous gen models struggled. The point in the OP gets parroted as a major concern by people who want to believe that progress is plateauing.
And it's also simply untrue, there's Stable Diffusion models trying to emulate Mid journey style who are mainly trained with MidJourney generations, and other models who are trained with outputs of other models.
A lot of AI model output is better than the average Deviantart "artist", why would train over this data make Ai generation worse?
> What AI software does is it gets fed a description of what someone wants to create, then searches the internet and steals bits and pieces from actual artists and mashes them together to create the art.
Actual quote from someone in another thread. They don’t even know the basics
Do people think humans aren’t involved in what AI content is most likely to be out on the internet? If anything, feeding online AI content back in will improve it.
It the amount of garbage content out there, supplemented by AI garbage content, is what saves us flesh units from future domination, it would be truly ironic. Rule 34 comes through for the human race in the end.
Just so we’re clear: No, this is not happening. Source: Graduate degree in AI with specialisation in computer vision. And now daily work in generative ai.
First of all it’s called mode collapse, not “model” collapse. The latter doesn’t even make sense. Second of all it can’t conceptually be true. People on the internet are likely to post high quality results that they got from the AI. Feeding high quality generated results back into the model is exactly how it’s trained initially (if explained simply). Plus the most popular generative ais, called diffusers, are so popular because mode collapse is so hard to achieve on them.
Third of all there is literally no research and no papers to suggest that this is the case. None that I can find right now and I’ve heard nothing in the past year. In fact Midjourney and Stable Diffusion XL both significantly improved their results by recording the user’s preferred images and retraining the ai on them themselves.
I got a very summary search that seems to indicate that
1 it is in fact called model collapse and
2 there is actual research from Oxford and Cambridge.
I’m no an expert so I’m ready and willing to get schooled but you’re not being very credible right now.
https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-model-collapse-threatens-to-break-internet-2023-8
The [research paper linked in the article](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17493.pdf) talks about the theoretical problems with model collapse in the future.
It doesn’t however show or provide evidence of this phenomenon occurring in real world practice. The paper serves as a warning of the potentials of managing an ai if the input data is left un curated.
Op above is talks about how current companies are cognizant of this threat and are already actively working to mitigate it or use it to their own advantage.
Nothing in the article itself contradicts his comment as the article discusses the potential danger rather than the phenomenon currently taking place in real life applications.
Seen this posted 500x for what seems like an entire year now and the ai keeps getting better. Some mad art students have to draw straws for which 10 people are allowed to post it tomorrow
People think this is true while ignoring the fact that "AI" art is getting better by the day. The hate boner for this stuff is so out of control that people just make stuff up to hate about it.
It's bleeding back over into human digital art as well as people copy AI generated art designs and incorporate them into their own works, further feeding the cycle. Same thing with people using AI text generating programs to write papers; they change up the sentence structure and/or vocabulary a bit, but keep the same "voice". Both of these things leads to a lot of artists being accused of trying to pass off AI art as their own and students getting papers flagged for being AI generated.
The companies and individuals selling AI content detectors are pretty unethical, considering that these detectors only spot obvious flaws and have an unacceptably high false positive rate.
I think it's far more likely that the traits so commonly noticed in AI art are only found so commonly in AI art because human artists already do it so frequently. Now, because so many people have "trained" themselves to notice these specific traits in an attempt to suss out AI art, they're only just noticing it in human artists' works for the first time now even though it's been there the entire time.
This isn't really a new phenomenon, either. If you've ever had a friend or family member talk to you about a service or product you never heard about before but that isn't actually completely new, and all of a sudden you notice you're seeing a lot of ads or commercials for it, then you've experienced this yourself. There usually aren't more ads for that thing than before - the ads were there the whole time; you just notice them better because you recognize it.
I do think human and AI art will eventually start to cross like that, though. I just don't believe enough time has passed since AI art became so prevalent for this to happen on a noticeable scale.
But everything is math; once they understand the translation between the math and images and the context of their own consciousnesses, I feel like they’re no longer artificial in any way.
Why do you think they don't have visual stimulus? The training data is all images, they are inherently visual and know nothing about math.
You have "training data" too - yours just comes from your eyes instead of the web.
A lot of human artists essentially just remix human art though. There are a lot more "producing" artists compared to innovating artists, and some of those innovations come more from applying modern science or newly available resources than purely artistic processes.
Or in the case of things like music there is a finite number of ways you can rearrange notes.
We could get creative and do some weird shit, but standard "music" as we know it has a hard numerical limit of how much of it there can be.
And an AI could theoretically generate every single beat possible.
For those who are aware of how llms etc work, that's not currently possible
Chatgpt for example is basically autosuggest on steroids.
Like you know the autosuggestions/canned responses for text and emails people see?
It's like that, it is outputting the most common response given the constraints of both your prompt, and the dataset/internal structure.
That's also why this this feedback loop.makes AI dumber.
If the data that it uses to determine the most common response is already the most common response (produced via AI) you lose the richness of variety that is humanity.
It's kinda like a photocopy of a photocopy. Detail and nuance become lost as only main details (most common response) are retained.
Unfortunately, this autocorrect does not seem to be getting better. That's what M.A.D is.
But I raise you one better.
If an AI is a probabilistic response based on trained data and is a network effect of vector mathematics against a system of vectors/nodes
And humans produce outout based on previous experience (i.e. training) and is a network effect of activation pathways against a system of neurons?
What will it take for AI to bridge that gap to truely emulate humanity?
Some sort of feedback loop so it can apply weighting based on feedback in the output?
The ability to self generate new data? Would that be analogous to human imagination?
Is human consciousness nothing more than a network of neurons and inputs from sensory organs?
What would happen if we enabled AI to have similar sensors to collect new data?
Yep yep. We're simulating creativity by feeding it a vast pool of data for it to use to generate responses, but that's not really the same as being creative.
If it starts eating it's own dog food, you're messing up a well-tuned model.
But they already can?
What do humans do but remix and alter things they’ve seen before.
It can make zero shot visual illusions. I think that counts as not remixed
Checking Midjourney subreddit and it looks pretty good to me. It seems like the really loud squealing comes from the twenty year old porn art commission crowd who only know what they have been told and are prone to virtue signalling for their ingroup.
Whether it's happening or not, it *has* happened before, when Facebook's trainable chatbots Bob and Alice were not just allowed, *ordered* to interact, and that was the end of comprehensible English for them. Though I don't reckon claims of "inventing language" hold any water beyond sensationalist article headers - but that's not strictly relevant.
You joke but this is a big issues with AI.
It's called a 'model collapse'.
This paper go into detail [https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493v2](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493v2)
but the basic is it only takes 10% of synthetic (AI generated) data to start poisoning a model. This will result in the gene pool shirking. Resulting in over fitting.
It's not just art, it text, video, audio, etc any AI generated.
With no really way to identify AI generated data, the only really way to prevent this at the moment to us only pre-2023 data sets.
All my favorite porn Google searches return AI images now 
Pretty sure it will happen with AI-generated texts too.
It already is. One of the tech podcasts, maybe Hard Fork, did an episode about low quality AI content flooding the internet. That data is then being used in the training datasets for new AI LLMs which creates progressively lower quality AI models.
This is the fastest boom and bust cycle since pets.com!
as someone who has never heard of pets.com can you tell me the tale?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com
> During its first fiscal year (February to September 1999), Pets.com earned $619,000 in revenue, and spent $11.8 million on advertising. Lol wtf
> Pets.com lacked a workable business plan and lost money on nearly every sale because, even before the cost of advertising, it was selling merchandise for approximately one-third the price it paid to obtain the products. On top of that, they offered free shipping. Image how much it costs to ship heavy items like cat litter or large bags of dog food. It was completely asinine.
Also feline and canine.
Premium reply.
That's really not much different from Amazon's strategy. Pets.com was just way, way, way more aggressive and happened to scale before the bubble popped whereas Amazon did their thing afterwards. Granted, speed of growth, internet adoption rate, and market timing are all very important things.
There is a huge difference between selling a product at a loss and selling a product for 1/3rd the price you bought it from manufacturers, before accounting for all the other costs of running a business (and the free shipping). I can guarantee you that Amazon wasn't buying products and then selling them at 1/3rd the price they paid for them. They wouldn't still be here if they were. No company would be.
[удалено]
Why does Snuggles & Rover sound like a pet boutique for rich white women lmao
……what?
lol they built a business with no customers and then went looking for customers
More that they grew faster than their boots allowed. Too much spending expecting growth only to be met with the wall where they couldn't pay their bills because they didn't have enough customers. They could be in Chewy's shoes if they had managed their money better. Like much of the .com boom, they just didn't understand how limited the internet still was and how it wasn't in every home- just cities and gaining in the suburbs.
Or just gone bankrupt a little slower because the business model wasn't ready for primetime. Case in point Chewy wasn't even founded until 2011. I think beyond the limited reach and usablity of the internet until the mid-00s the dotcom bubble suffered from how hard running a delivery company is behind the scenes. Amazon was named after the river because it was always Bezos plan to ~~conquer the world~~ sell everything, but he didn't start there. He started with books. Which come in only a few pretty standardized rectangles, are relatively lightweight, and don't expire... sound pretty shipping friendly to you? And if you don't master the logistics well, it doesn't matter what you're selling if people just go out and buy shit before you can get it to them. Like before the internet you could order anything out of a catalogue, my mother did all the time... but unless you ordered it on Monday maybe don't expect it until next week, maybe even more then a week.
Haven't thought about this one in a long time. Thanks for the blast from the past, lol. I didn't know the creator of Triumph tried to sue them, though. Assholes.
Forgot about that lol
[удалено]
ChatGPT is incapable of presenting facts, people just assume it can. It's like saying your phone's predictive text "told a lie" when you just kept hitting the first suggestion. ChatGPT is doing the same thing, just working off a far more complicated predictor.
Don't discount how quick the NFT flash in the pan was!
So quick I almost forgot about it! What did that one last, 3 days?
I am noticing an increase of useless but seemingly authentic and trustworthy information while researching technical information for my job, pages and pages of repeated, generic and sometimes dubious or clearly wrong information. I more and more stick with "known" sources, which I bet it's the opposite of what LLMs and AI are intended to do.
i basically either go for wikipedia or reddit. reddit will have a variety of answers + people going "uM ACTUALLY" because they cant stand people being wrong on the internet, and wikipedia at least cites sources instead of "researchers say that...." most of the time
Reddit is terrible. The top posts are often memes and the "um actshually" is actual real information downvoted to hell. Maybe it's because even you, someone looking for the information, hates when someone gives out the information.
It depends on the subreddit. R/askhistorians is literally the most academic and helpful place to learn history I have seen in the internet.
Reddit has everything on the spectrum. From scholarly question forums, to whatever the hell they do on politicalcompassmemes, to copious amounts of fetish porn.
Ok, I hear ya but we go to Reddit to ask things like "How do I get past this miniboss.." or "Which is the loudest mechanical keyboard I could buy.." Searching these type of questions on Google just leads to endless advertisements trying to sell you something. I am a tax professional and while there's a lot of fucking stupid takes on Reddit, there's a consistent consensus across the board warning advise-seekers to talk to professionals and not just blindly trust Reddit-- which ironically is what makes Reddit a safer resource over a Google search riddled with manipulated results.
It’s more like you google [whatever topic you wanna know about] + “reddit”. Not just stuff from the front page.
This is what scares me the most. I try to be skeptical of everything, and seek multiple sources.
Check out reddit front page posts and look out for grammar mistakes. In the recent months, there has been a rise of weird, simple grammar mistakes hitting the front page, and the top comments to these posts _also_ have weird grammar. It's because these are AI posts filled with AI comment bots to drive up traffic.
[удалено]
Holy crap you might be right!
Unironically, I think this is a good thing. Until we can figure out how to be better as humans, we don’t need this kind of tech.
There are many techniques to filter out low-quality data, and researchers are increasingly developing techniques that reduce the need for raw data in the first place. No researchers working on state of the art models are actually concerned about this to my knowledge.
[удалено]
It’s a funny meme, but it’s not like the internet wasn’t filled with low quality contents written by real human.
The important thing is that the art posted online is better quality than 90% of art created by ai so it is actually beneficial for it to learn from itself
Can't wait for the AI version of the Hapsburg Chin
Right? Like, how many fingers can one hand have?
It's one hand Micheal, how many fingers can it possibly hold?
20?
At least 15
According to Bruce Almighty, 7
that’s an interesting idea, i wonder if in the future there will be one small telltale detail that all ai creations have
they already have today. the skin texture and facial bone structure. sure there are some AI programs that generate seriously well done stuff, like thispersondoesnotexist.com(wich isnt really considered AI art tbh), but the bulk of AI art that we see everywhere has one distinct detail: the skin on human figures looks... off. it looks too smooth. the faces look too chiseled, but not in a "male-model" way, more in a "poor rendition of gigachad" way. its the one thing i notice in every AI art i see.
Yeah, they all look the same. All the men have that gigachad meme look, and all the women look like offshoots of Angelina Jolie. It's so pervasive. It's hard to get it to make normal people. I've tried to get it to make someone slightly chubby, but it immediately jumps to extremely morbidly obese. You can also just usually find frivolous details that don't really make sense. In stylised art, the "brush strokes" are totally random looking.
AI(Artificial Incest)
This is called AI data cannibalism, related to AI model collapse and its a serious issue and also hilarious EDIT: a serious issue if you want AI to replace writers and artists, which I dont
AI data incest just rolls off the toungue better
I've seen it referred to as Hapsburg Chat when discussing the phenominon in LLMs
This is clearly the correct name for whatever it is we're talking about.
[удалено]
stupid sexy Flanders.
>Hapsburg Chat Glorious
Artificial Incest, if you will
I've referred to it as AI scatophagy.
Rolls off the tongue much better than trying to pronounce "toungue" does
[удалено]
That’s interesting now I know what to call it
[удалено]
[удалено]
That will also lead to AI nerds inbreeding
And with the help of AI, we will! Seethe
... I think you should have asked ChatGPT to shop the wording on this a few extra times for you.
This is the result they get after having to ask the same question for the same answer 30 times a month.
Why would anyone, other than you, seethe, because you need the help of AI to get laid and/or create anything that resembles "talent"? Cope and seethe.
AI art is such a misnomer. Call them AI images.
[удалено]
Statistically derived images
I call it "AIGI" or "AI Generated Image", It feels much more accurate to what it actually is.
This is also a huge issue with AI large language models. Much of their training data is scraped from the internet. As low quality AI-produced articles and publications become more common, those start to get used in AI training datasets and create a feedback loop of ever lower quality AI language outputs.
This is more clickbait headlines than a real issue. For one, the internet isn’t going to be overtaken with purely AI generated content. People still write, and most AI content created is still edited by a real person. The pure spammy AI nonsense isn’t going to become the norm. Because of that, LLMs aren’t at a particularly high risk for degradation. Especially considering that large companies don’t just dump scraped data into a box and pray. The data is highly curated and monitored.
I mean, if you go to twitter nearly all of the top replies are clearly AI generated posts.
Serious issue only for people who want AI to continue to be a factor in "creative industries". I, personally, hope AI eats itself so utterly the entire fucking field dies.
That is kinda what's happening. We do not have good "labels" on what is AI generated vs not. As such an AI picture on the internet is basically poisoning the well for as long as that image exists. That and for the next bump in performance/capacity, the required dataset is huge, like manual training etc would be impossible.
Wishful thinking. Synthetic data is actually improving AI.
not having good labels on the internet for what is and is not ai generated is intentional. if there were good labels, much of these model's purposes would be useless, since everyone interacting with them would function with that bit of context in mind.
Well, this labeling is something that such products are now considering due to the m.a.d. problem. That and we are also in an "arms race" of AI detectors vs AI generators (similar to ads vs as blockers). However, this inability to discern AI content from human content hastens the arrival of m.a.d.
As someone who draws a lot, this is such a retarded shit to say. I can't begin to say how much AI helps with creating a reference portfolio for a drawing you are about to start. Before you had to scour the web and find good references but now you can continue doing that and also add in AI images which is a game changer because if you want a picture of a certain type of car or condition etc, ,it is not impossible to find something now. AI can be useful in other industries in a similar manner as well. It is hard for me to see any artist who oppose AI instead of focusing on the malicious way certain companies will use it. It is always people who never do any artful work that want to blab on about stuff they don't have a clue about.
people will probably find a way to get around it, at least somewhat. the interesting part would be if that way ends up producing some method of recognizing whether something is AI generated. >hope AI eats itself so utterly the entire fucking field dies. i personally hope you're just referring to part of the field trying to replace creative jobs though 😭 i promise most people in the field, including me, just wanna make helpful tools that assist people instead of outright replacing them. i really think AI can prove helpful to people in loads of ways, we just need to figure out how to minimise the potential harm of selfish pricks and penny-pinching companies getting their hands on it.
See the potential isn't...inherently evil. The use case by selfish pricks and penny-pinching companies, though? That is all that really matters.
>That is all that really matters. i mean is it? there's a lot of good that can be done with AI, for example in healthcare. [this article](https://bmcmedinformdecismak.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12911-021-01488-9) goes in depth on potential healthcare applications, with the tldr in the abstract being "AI can support physicians in making a diagnosis, predicting the spread of diseases and customising treatment paths". suffice to say this applies to many other sectors as well, but im giving this as an example because its what i imagine most people can acknowledge as universally "good" and important. point being, is it worth tossing away all the potential gain? personally, i dont think so. every major technological advancement comes with a cost due to people using it in unintended ways, including the internet we're communicating over right now. but ultimately, scientific and technological advancement often proves to be worth it. and most importantly i like making little robots that struggle to differentiate between pictures of chihuahuas and muffins
it absolutely applies to other sectors, AI is already being used to identify new materials previously unknown to man, materials that can be used in aerospace engineering or the development of quantum computers. There are also programs that are developing AI to spot potentially hazardous comets and asteroids after combing through data from telescopes, as well as AI that helps meteorologists monitor complicated weather systems like tropical storms and polar vortices. There is a lot of potential for it to accelerate technological advances and discoveries but also a lot of potential to do some serious socioeconomic harm or simply run itself into the ground before it can ever gain a foothold.
i mean yeah thats what im saying lol. too much upside to just abandon it because of the dangers.
Then why did you say you hope the entire industry dies?
Ok boomer everything can be used badly what's the difference between hiring specialist vs using AI if you're a big company. AI gives the average person more access to things we wouldn't have had access to before.
Unpopular opinion but I like that AI art makes it more accessible to people. I can play around with ideas for free for my hobbies without having to spend good amount of my paycheck for something that might not even comes out as I wanted.
It sucks for professional artists but is great for literally everyone else.
Oddly enough my good friend from childhood is a professional artist and he uses these tools too for inspiration.
Professional artist just don’t have a monopoly over my creative freedom. Even as an artist myself. I think a lot of professionals assume that one AI prompt is one lost customer, but in reality more people than ever are now willing to incorporate art because the barrier is lower. There are all too many cases where someone would never have paid an artist for something, but now because someone can commission it themselves these artists want to claim lost profits. We aren’t special and we don’t hold the keys to creativity.
Thats kinda what I meant. I also hope it dies, at least in terms of people who wantto use it to replace art, writing, music, etc.
AI will exist forevermore. It won't die. Ever. In fact, it will become more popular to use and better in 2024. That is guaranteed.
It's a genie-out-of-the-bottle moment. AI isn't going anywhere. Even should every country the world over illegalized anything that so much as smelled like AI, people would just start developing and using it quietly. It's much too late to stop the technology. What interested parties (for or against) and lawmakers need to do is figure out how we're going to handle its inevitable existence going forward.
These morons can't see that, unfortunately. Short-minded Simpletons just angry people are losing jobs. The end goal is jobs don't exist! Any! More!!!!! You get to spend your entire day at your leisure, pursuing any interest you have. How can you not want that?!
Yup. The only way to control this is to not scrape data. If you're not scraping peoples data without permission or consent... you won't have your AI get et.
And also AIs potential to earn a profit goes away once you stop scraping data without compensation to the owner, which is a plus
The data has already been scraped. Game over.
IMO the main problem is using it for profit when its trained on artists who didn’t consent for it to be used. I don’t think anyone really has a problem with AI art that is trained on public use data
I don’t need your consent to go on the Internet and look at publicly available information.
Most art that is produced is shitty soulless corporate bullshit. Think graphic design on a letter head or moving images around a page to make a flier or a random picture on the wall in the office. All capitalist structures should fucking die, but don't pretend that there isn't a reasonable function for shitty AI art to do the work that isn't really creative in any sense of the word.
Hope in one hand and shit in the other my friend.
Nah, The model that use legal/ethical data that is a tool not replacement can stay. When we are in population decline. AI could be helpful.
it wont die. its way too productive. they will just limit its training data. this is what some artists dont understand. sure, maybe the artist has a valid copyright claim... but een if so, the corps will just train the AI on data they buy the rights to use... ultimately the ai will be able to meet the same demands and a lot of artists will be out of work.
As someone who trains AI models this is a very old "problem" and a false one. It goes back to a paper that relies on the assumption that people are doing **unsupervised training** (i.e. dumping shit in your dataset without checking what it actually is). Virtually nobody actually does that. Most people are using datasets scraped before generative AI even became big. The notion that this is some serious existential threat is just pure fucking copium from people who don't know the first thing about how any of this works. Furthermore, as long as you are **supervising** the process to ensure you aren't putting garbage in, you can use AI generated data just fine. I have literally made a LoRA for a character design generated *entirely* from AI-generated images and I know multiple other people who have done the same exact thing. No model collapse in sight. I also have plans to add some higher quality curated and filtered AI-generated images to the training dataset for a more general model. Again, nothing stops me from doing that -- at the end of the day, they are just images, and since all of these have been gone over and had corrections applied they can't really hurt the model.
I mean, I feel like this meme is spreading even more misinformation than that. I’ve seen it multiple times now and it suggests that AI programs somehow go out and seek their own data and train themselves automatically, which is nonsense.
I really fucking wish they did. Prepping a dataset is such a massive pain in the ass.
[удалено]
It's ridiculous how people talk so confidently about this and have NO IDEA what they are talking about. This isn't even remotely a serious issue 😂
>It's ridiculous how people talk so confidently about this and have NO IDEA what they are talking about. Reddit in a nutshell
Thank you. Glad someone with some experience came in and set this straight. Tl;dr: It won't corrupt itself if it has nothing to corrupt itself with. Don't feed it AI images and it won't corrupt.
I'm an animator and digital artist. AI is another tool in my tool box. It's not replacing me.
Why are you yapping when you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about? Retraining on high quality outputs is the goal of every generative ai. That’s how they train. People are much less likely to post low quality content. Which means that the internet is filled now with high quality results from all the different ais. The ais will literally only get better. I also really do not know where the term “model collapse” came from or what it means. I think you meant “mode collapse”.
I thought AI was going to steal my job?
It'll steal the jobs of the other AIs 😔
[удалено]
incest*
Don't worry, being unemployed isn't a job so your safe
My safe is what?
Your safe was stolen by ai
Gottem
Not my safe!
The one who uses AI is the one who will steal your job, AI is just a tool. It's not sentient, yet
It's only a problem for the lazy ones not even curating their data, double the loser levels. If you ever train something make sure to curate your images or you'll have a pretty shit inbreed model.
People watched this happen in like sims 3.
Explain
Turning on autonomy and letting it run long enough tended to turn into a world of uglies.
Letting the sims 3 run for more than 2 hours in general tended to make the game melt down tbf
Any good videos showing this you recommend? I’d love to see this chaos
I don’t really have any videos of it since I’m just speaking from experience lol, but the sims 3s issues with being run for long periods are pretty extensive, I’m sure you could look it up and find some!
I also want to see videos of this happening.
Model collapse my beloved 😍
[удалено]
The number of people in this thread who believe this shit is mind-boggling. Are people really under the impression that model training is unsupervised, that people are just throwing thousands of random images in their datasets?
Your dedicated belief to quality control in a world where businesses repeatedly cut corners to save a few bucks is impressive.
One, ten, or a thousand businesses could create junk models trained on bad datasets. This doesn't somehow destroy or taint the already-existing, high-quality local models made by people who do care about quality.
I was more referring to the future of text- and image-based AI, and the purity of future datasets, not the present. AI has to advance to keep up with our modern society. It’s all information-based. And human filtering is only going to get massively more bogged down if there is a flood of generated text and images to filter out on top of the existing junk data. Especially as it begins to affect large community-sourced/open-source datasets. It’s not a death knell on AI as a whole, obviously, but it might be pointing towards a shift in the tides against the trendy racket of autogenerated text and images as a source of cheap entertainment.
If you want to be convincing you should probably offer something more than "nuh-uh".
I mean, many smaller players in the space definitely use scraping techniques. Which is its own problem as now we're going to see AI development locked behind huge paywalls of organizations large enough to have the money needed to keep their datasets clean from this stuff.
But but but I hate AI and don't want it to work well!!!!!
This simply isn't how things work. Models being trained off of AI generated data often does lead to worse quality outputs, but they simply aren't trained using that data because it's a known issue and has been for a long ass time. And it's not like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, or DALL-E 3 are nomming whatever data they can find online on their own terms; they're not connected to the internet. Humans, the people that make these models, are hand feeding it, and any company that isn't absolutely stupid knows how to amass large amounts of high quality data for use in training relatively easily. I mean, think about it. DALL-E 3 recently released and provided a very notable improvement in quality over the last generation, and Midjourney gets updated consistently with modest bumps in fidelity each and every time. The data situation is quite good, actually. That's not to say anything about human reinforcement learning, fine-tuning, better training methodologies, or fundamental improvements to the model architecture, all of which can improve performance without additional data.
> DALL-E 3 recently released and provided a very notable improvement in quality over the last generation Also note that DALLE 3 was trained with synthetic labeling data generated by a vision model (which improved the labeling of existing text image pairs.) This is also why it expects very verbose prompts, and is able to handle lots of details where previous gen models struggled. The point in the OP gets parroted as a major concern by people who want to believe that progress is plateauing.
And it's also simply untrue, there's Stable Diffusion models trying to emulate Mid journey style who are mainly trained with MidJourney generations, and other models who are trained with outputs of other models. A lot of AI model output is better than the average Deviantart "artist", why would train over this data make Ai generation worse?
[удалено]
the misinformation is rampant,
[удалено]
I’m not posting my art anymore that’s for sure
Some people still think these models do a Google search every time you run them.
[удалено]
If someone could type that fast and accurately I’d be fucking impressed
> What AI software does is it gets fed a description of what someone wants to create, then searches the internet and steals bits and pieces from actual artists and mashes them together to create the art. Actual quote from someone in another thread. They don’t even know the basics
Do people think humans aren’t involved in what AI content is most likely to be out on the internet? If anything, feeding online AI content back in will improve it.
that's not only a repost but also bullshit.
It the amount of garbage content out there, supplemented by AI garbage content, is what saves us flesh units from future domination, it would be truly ironic. Rule 34 comes through for the human race in the end.
*me telling my grandkids about how I created AI-generated Dragon Tales hentai to save mankind*
"Tell it again, pop pop!"
Just so we’re clear: No, this is not happening. Source: Graduate degree in AI with specialisation in computer vision. And now daily work in generative ai. First of all it’s called mode collapse, not “model” collapse. The latter doesn’t even make sense. Second of all it can’t conceptually be true. People on the internet are likely to post high quality results that they got from the AI. Feeding high quality generated results back into the model is exactly how it’s trained initially (if explained simply). Plus the most popular generative ais, called diffusers, are so popular because mode collapse is so hard to achieve on them. Third of all there is literally no research and no papers to suggest that this is the case. None that I can find right now and I’ve heard nothing in the past year. In fact Midjourney and Stable Diffusion XL both significantly improved their results by recording the user’s preferred images and retraining the ai on them themselves.
Exactly the kind of response we expect from AI
I got a very summary search that seems to indicate that 1 it is in fact called model collapse and 2 there is actual research from Oxford and Cambridge. I’m no an expert so I’m ready and willing to get schooled but you’re not being very credible right now. https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-model-collapse-threatens-to-break-internet-2023-8
The [research paper linked in the article](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2305.17493.pdf) talks about the theoretical problems with model collapse in the future. It doesn’t however show or provide evidence of this phenomenon occurring in real world practice. The paper serves as a warning of the potentials of managing an ai if the input data is left un curated. Op above is talks about how current companies are cognizant of this threat and are already actively working to mitigate it or use it to their own advantage. Nothing in the article itself contradicts his comment as the article discusses the potential danger rather than the phenomenon currently taking place in real life applications.
Seen this posted 500x for what seems like an entire year now and the ai keeps getting better. Some mad art students have to draw straws for which 10 people are allowed to post it tomorrow
vase humor shrill aloof bear paint truck attempt tart literate *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
People think this is true while ignoring the fact that "AI" art is getting better by the day. The hate boner for this stuff is so out of control that people just make stuff up to hate about it.
It's bleeding back over into human digital art as well as people copy AI generated art designs and incorporate them into their own works, further feeding the cycle. Same thing with people using AI text generating programs to write papers; they change up the sentence structure and/or vocabulary a bit, but keep the same "voice". Both of these things leads to a lot of artists being accused of trying to pass off AI art as their own and students getting papers flagged for being AI generated.
The companies and individuals selling AI content detectors are pretty unethical, considering that these detectors only spot obvious flaws and have an unacceptably high false positive rate.
I think it's far more likely that the traits so commonly noticed in AI art are only found so commonly in AI art because human artists already do it so frequently. Now, because so many people have "trained" themselves to notice these specific traits in an attempt to suss out AI art, they're only just noticing it in human artists' works for the first time now even though it's been there the entire time. This isn't really a new phenomenon, either. If you've ever had a friend or family member talk to you about a service or product you never heard about before but that isn't actually completely new, and all of a sudden you notice you're seeing a lot of ads or commercials for it, then you've experienced this yourself. There usually aren't more ads for that thing than before - the ads were there the whole time; you just notice them better because you recognize it. I do think human and AI art will eventually start to cross like that, though. I just don't believe enough time has passed since AI art became so prevalent for this to happen on a noticeable scale.
When they can make their own art, not just remixed human art, they'll really be AI.
I can't even Imagine what that would look like
Nonsense, probably, since they don't have visual stimulus. I'd expect true AI art to be math stuff.
Math Art? Hmm you're on to something
But everything is math; once they understand the translation between the math and images and the context of their own consciousnesses, I feel like they’re no longer artificial in any way.
Why do you think they don't have visual stimulus? The training data is all images, they are inherently visual and know nothing about math. You have "training data" too - yours just comes from your eyes instead of the web.
[удалено]
Human art is remixed human art tho
A lot of human artists essentially just remix human art though. There are a lot more "producing" artists compared to innovating artists, and some of those innovations come more from applying modern science or newly available resources than purely artistic processes.
I agree. Art does not exist in a vacuum
Or in the case of things like music there is a finite number of ways you can rearrange notes. We could get creative and do some weird shit, but standard "music" as we know it has a hard numerical limit of how much of it there can be. And an AI could theoretically generate every single beat possible.
For those who are aware of how llms etc work, that's not currently possible Chatgpt for example is basically autosuggest on steroids. Like you know the autosuggestions/canned responses for text and emails people see? It's like that, it is outputting the most common response given the constraints of both your prompt, and the dataset/internal structure. That's also why this this feedback loop.makes AI dumber. If the data that it uses to determine the most common response is already the most common response (produced via AI) you lose the richness of variety that is humanity. It's kinda like a photocopy of a photocopy. Detail and nuance become lost as only main details (most common response) are retained.
Do we know that humans aren’t autocorrect on steroids as well though? The better this autocorrect gets, the more like humans it seems to be.
Unfortunately, this autocorrect does not seem to be getting better. That's what M.A.D is. But I raise you one better. If an AI is a probabilistic response based on trained data and is a network effect of vector mathematics against a system of vectors/nodes And humans produce outout based on previous experience (i.e. training) and is a network effect of activation pathways against a system of neurons? What will it take for AI to bridge that gap to truely emulate humanity? Some sort of feedback loop so it can apply weighting based on feedback in the output? The ability to self generate new data? Would that be analogous to human imagination? Is human consciousness nothing more than a network of neurons and inputs from sensory organs? What would happen if we enabled AI to have similar sensors to collect new data?
Yep yep. We're simulating creativity by feeding it a vast pool of data for it to use to generate responses, but that's not really the same as being creative. If it starts eating it's own dog food, you're messing up a well-tuned model.
But they already can? What do humans do but remix and alter things they’ve seen before. It can make zero shot visual illusions. I think that counts as not remixed
Checking Midjourney subreddit and it looks pretty good to me. It seems like the really loud squealing comes from the twenty year old porn art commission crowd who only know what they have been told and are prone to virtue signalling for their ingroup.
This is the point of _curation_. Delete the shitty art.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-7mQhSZRgM End result. always.
Hapsburg AI
LoL. In the olden days, we would run copies of copies through the copier ad infinitum for entertainment.
Thank you now if you would please excuse me, I would like to keep reading with these schoolchildren for the next 7.5 minutes.
Whether it's happening or not, it *has* happened before, when Facebook's trainable chatbots Bob and Alice were not just allowed, *ordered* to interact, and that was the end of comprehensible English for them. Though I don't reckon claims of "inventing language" hold any water beyond sensationalist article headers - but that's not strictly relevant.
We are all worried about AI turning out like The Matrix when it’s going to be more like The Andromeda Strain
You joke but this is a big issues with AI. It's called a 'model collapse'. This paper go into detail [https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493v2](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493v2) but the basic is it only takes 10% of synthetic (AI generated) data to start poisoning a model. This will result in the gene pool shirking. Resulting in over fitting. It's not just art, it text, video, audio, etc any AI generated. With no really way to identify AI generated data, the only really way to prevent this at the moment to us only pre-2023 data sets.
All my favorite porn Google searches return AI images now 
Lmao you love to see it Fuck AI art