[HN Gopher] AI doppelganger experiment - Part 1: The training
___________________________________________________________________
AI doppelganger experiment - Part 1: The training
Author : julienposture
Score : 206 points
Date : 2024-05-19 16:19 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (julienposture.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (julienposture.substack.com)
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| No, two artists are the same.
|
| As an artist, if I'm not constantly pushing the boundaries of how
| I'm expressing myself via media then I'm just telling the
| audience the same thing over and over. Im not actually changing
| as an artist, I'm simply producing the thing regularly that is
| expected of me.
|
| This is 99% of professional art you find your style and then you
| do that over and over for money so that you can survive in a way
| that you like.
|
| If you did this with a Thomas Kincaid, it would be trivially easy
| because Thomas Kincaid has built his entire portfolio around a
| very specific type of art that does a very, very specific type of
| thing.
|
| Similar for Kahinde Wiley
|
| On the flipside you're not going to be able to reproduce
| something from Duchamp or Picasso - their styles changed because
| they as individuals in the world changed, and they had to change
| their approach in demonstrating how they interact with the world.
|
| I totally can understand the perspective from professional
| artists who have developed a style and capability to produce
| something that they feel comfortable with and live on that
|
| we could sit here and debate about the aim of Art or otherwise,
| but the reality is, if the core of what you do is reproducible
| because you have focused on commoditizing your medium or
| expression type (such that it is so recognizable immediately by
| any human - eg Kincaid) Then you should not be surprised if your
| limited vocabulary is fairly easy to replace
|
| The art masters cannot be replaced, you cannot predict what
| they're going to do next because they change the rules entirely.
| This is how we know a great artist from a mediocre artist.
| ecjhdnc2025 wrote:
| > The art masters cannot be replaced, you cannot predict what
| they're going to do next because they change the rules
| entirely. This is how we know a great artist from a mediocre
| artist.
|
| I agree that in principle the best working artists are those
| who know how to create, modulate and discard artistic languages
| over time -- creating and abandoning rules for sequences of
| work -- but AI systems can clearly be unethically trained to
| mimic art in those styles, and there are many living artists
| (or estates of recently departed artists, supporting their
| families) whose incomes are defined by some periods of their
| lives where they worked a particular set of rules in a way that
| became definitive.
|
| So it's not enough to say that great artists won't be affected
| because they change the rules all the time. Most of them will
| still be ruined by this, because as soon as there's enough work
| in the new style it can be stolen.
| jsheard wrote:
| > because as soon as there's enough work in the new style it
| can be stolen.
|
| This is where the oft-cited comparison to previous advances
| like the camera breaks down - AI has an ongoing parasitic
| relationship with the mediums it is displacing. The camera
| doesn't need a thousand photorealistic paintings of a new
| subject to be made before it can capture that subject going
| forward. AI is an unprecedented situation, as far as I can
| tell, where a new artistic medium greatly de-values prior
| ones while also being reliant on those other mediums
| continuing to be used at scale in order to avoid stagnating.
| ganzuul wrote:
| This week I completed a sculpture which I intentionally
| made to be non-photographable by choosing lighting and
| materials which showed off high reflectivity and high
| chroma so that screens would not be able to reproduce it.
| To the human senses it is something that really steals your
| attention, perhaps because we have becomes so used to the
| constraints of our reproduction technology and this is not
| that. The Prussian blue pigment sucks you into the astral
| realm and the gold is hypermodern reference to the Apollo
| program. It started a lot of conversations.
|
| The work is a critique of photography, prints and screens
| and all of postmodernism. It also is also a warning about
| being satisfied with mediocrity.
| astrange wrote:
| I always find it philosophically entertaining when I see
| a material in real life that can't be photographed with a
| phone like this. (Of course that includes gold foil,
| mirrors, blue LED concert lights, the sun, the moon...
| so, pretty common.)
|
| But try making one that can't be videoed or 3D scanned
| with Polycam.
| ecjhdnc2025 wrote:
| I agree wholeheartedly.
|
| As a photographer I am shocked to see other photographers
| who are AI proponents making the comparison to the
| beginning of the photography era. (Though it's usually the
| very bad photographers or those who haven't _actually done
| any reading_ about the impact of photography on art who
| make this point)
|
| Art's one hope to avoid this parasitism is to move back
| into the realms of the purely physical, I think (and as a
| photographer that includes me).
| Eisenstein wrote:
| The fact is that it _is_ much like that, because no one
| then knew what was going to happen and it _seemed to
| them_ like an existential threat. The mechanism of how it
| works or its relationship with our previous technology is
| irrelevant. The comparison is about _everyone freaking
| out because no one knows how this is going to play out_.
|
| But history has shown time and again that carving out a
| niche in art by using technology is always fleeting and
| any security you think you had was illusory. Just looking
| at Hollywood, you have: (a) transition to sound (b)
| emergence of televisions (c) transition to color (d)
| effects revolution (e) digital replacing practical
| effects (f) digital replacing film
|
| Each one of those transitions obsoleted a generation of
| specialists with niches, yet Hollywood and the people it
| employs are still doing just fine.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Which is precisely the point
|
| The majority of people complaining are complaining that
| their "specialness" is being commodified
|
| What actually happened was they commodified themselves
| and their work, in order to gat paid and maintain their
| position in the world as an "artist"
|
| They are now pretending that that what they were doing
| had more value than it actually does simply because it
| takes skill and craft and they define themselves by it
|
| Guess what, making metal fenders by hand takes a shit
| load of skill and craft, same with exterior plaster
| artists same with molding and crowning artistry - 100% of
| those kinds of workers were replaced perfectly by
| Machines.
|
| You cannot replace demand for art qua art - because you
| are selling a moment in time of an artist expressing a
| fully felt emotional release. You can't buy that because
| it cannot be created via money. It is a unique and
| temporal experience that can only be done by one person
| at one time in the world.
|
| you can however, replace demand for art in service to
| commerce and it is a function of capitalism that that
| will be replaced because by function, it is in service of
| promoting a commercial behavior, not the expression of an
| artist in communicating themselves
| Zambyte wrote:
| Do we want art to be highly valued? Doesn't that make it
| out of reach for the masses? I think making art more
| approachable is a good thing. I probably would not have
| gotten into visual art if I could not use a camera, and had
| to paint or even dance. The camera de-valued painting by
| saturating the visual art ecosystem. Image generation does
| the same once again.
|
| Consider: generative art technologies (as all good
| technologies) raise the skill floor, without lowering the
| skill ceiling.
| BadHumans wrote:
| At a certain point, art sells because of the artist not the
| art. Picasso's sell because they are Picasso's. An artist
| starts by creating a style that separates them from the pack
| but eventually turn into a brand that sells because they
| artwork is from that artist. For people that successfully are
| able to turn into a brand, great, but I feel new artist are
| going to be heavily kneecapped by AI.
| zephyrthenoble wrote:
| You are presenting opinion as objective fact for a subjective
| medium, which is surprising to hear from an artist.
|
| This argument, and this article, are not about the "great
| masters" but about amateur and professional artists who find
| their efforts easily reproduced and outproduced by AI. These
| people are not protected by "This is a REAL Picasso" and some
| of them could lose their financial security because of it.
|
| The article indicates that style can be copied in as few as 20
| to 30 images. Could you imagine being an artist who is
| attempting to gain notoriety, publishing low quality pngs of 20
| of their works for their Etsy store, and then someone trains a
| LoRa on that and profits off of your images? Hundreds of hours
| of time in an attempt to start your art career, to have it
| duplicated in seconds by computer. You have no time to grow as
| an artist, because your required contribution to the data set
| has already been made.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| My takeaway is that as with many of the artists, they are
| reacting to the philosophical no mans land that cheap
| computer reproduction is putting them into...From TFA:
|
| >As I'm contemplating this Cronenberg-like transformation of
| the image, I can't help to be struck by the triviality of my
| own work. There's something confronting in facing a
| computational doppelganger, something akin to the uncanny
| valley. I'm surprised at how much this affects me, even
| though my whole schtick is to be reflexive and critical about
| style, what surprises me the most is that even though the
| output if "objectively" a failure1, I see myself in it. But
| maybe what I see in the generation, what I find actually
| disturbing, is the part of my work that has already been
| objectified and commodified, the parts of my style I spent
| years making digestible for clients, consistent for social
| media, and reproducible for easy production.
|
| This feeling is not present in artists who are not commercial
| artists or otherwise produce VOLUMES of similar work -
| because it is functionally impossible
|
| Why?
|
| Again, as with picasso et al... they are performing the work
| of an artist. Namely it is a lifetime oeuvre - not a single
| period - that defines an artist.
|
| This is my point, and you can disagree, most commercial
| artists are not producing art, they are designing propaganda
| for corporations. It takes artistic skill, but it's not what
| I would consider relevant for the author
|
| The author sits at the intersection of capitalism and art -
| that you can produce designs for money repeatedly and so
| predictably as to be identically imitated is proof enough for
| me
|
| Nobody can reproduce or copy my art because it's PHYSICAL and
| hanging on my (and many others' including our own jacquesm)
| wall. They can try, but forgeries are very hard to do.
| astrange wrote:
| > This is my point, and you can disagree, most commercial
| artists are not producing art, they are designing
| propaganda for corporations.
|
| Tbf I think the artists most threatened are the ones doing
| fetish or furry commissions for individual clients paying
| $100-$300.
|
| Corporations need to be able to make revisions to a style
| or have artists advise them on where to make changes. AI
| isn't good at that. (Getting better though.)
| HiroshiSan wrote:
| Goodluck replicating and replacing a leyendecker or a Gibson or
| a Rockwell. Getting to that level of technical proficiency is
| more than just settling into a style.
| freetinker wrote:
| I'm no artist, but I'm not sure I agree. As an example, Cubism
| (Picasso) or stuff by Pollack (arguably another 'great') seems
| quite distinct and therefore reproducible - at least visually
| if not physically (paint texture, etc.).
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| what if ai is the next great master
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| Then I believe that's quite the feat of engineering and we
| should all rejoice in the birth of AGI
| voiceblue wrote:
| Related: "Invasive Diffusion: How one unwilling illustrator found
| herself turned into an AI model" [0].
|
| It's astonishingly simple to train both LoRAs and Embeddings
| nowadays -- if you combine it with tech like ControlNet, you can
| more or less have direct control over the illustration as well
| (see this example I converted to Hollie Megert's style with
| barely any effort [1] using the model from [0]) -- but FWIW I was
| playing with the WhatsApp AI stickers recently and human-made
| illustrations still have a "je ne sais quoi" that sets them
| apart, vaguely reminiscent of "realistic" animation vs. "squash
| and stretch". I would not be worried as an _artist_ *, but I
| would be worried if I am making assets for corporations in
| Corporate Memphis [2].
|
| [0] https://waxy.org/2022/11/invasive-diffusion-how-one-
| unwillin...
|
| [1] https://i.imgur.com/ZwtKug5.jpeg
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Memphis
|
| * In fact, I think I'd be excited, it can be a great tool, and
| people who lack artistic sensibility might find it almost as hard
| to use as to make art themselves. However, I do think there needs
| to be some kind of protection from having your 'style'
| commoditized without consent, _using unauthorized images of your
| own art_.
| deprecative wrote:
| That last part is the issue. Once the material is released
| publicly there is zero way to prevent it from being used for
| training. I like the idea of these things but they're
| predicated on theft and exploitation.
| jsheard wrote:
| There are active countermeasures in the form of
| Glaze/Nightshade, but I don't know how effective those turned
| out to be in practice.
| ccgreg wrote:
| I wonder if Glaze/Nightshade makes it difficult for
| software to describe the image for a blind person?
| GaggiX wrote:
| Not really, because Nightshade should have made image
| labeling more difficult, but if you try it, you'll see
| that it doesn't do anything; multimodal models are too
| powerful nowadays to be fooled by small adversarial noise
| generated using CLIP LPIPS (small enough not to be too
| noticeable to us).
|
| And Glaze does not try to interfere with labeling.
| astrange wrote:
| They don't work, and nothing in the category can ever truly
| work.
|
| Models and adversarial data are equally powerful - you can
| find an adversarial example for any current model, but you
| can also train a model that can handle any existing
| adversarial data.
|
| Any image is a good example of /something/ - at worst it's
| only an example of itself and irrelevant for any other
| class. Don't know if there's a name for this principle but
| it's kind of like a Church-Turing thesis for data.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > However, I do think there needs to be some kind of protection
| from having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using
| unauthorized images of your own art.
|
| 1) Hire artist to copy the style for 10 images
|
| 2) Train model on those
|
| problem solved.
|
| If you choose "using your images specifically" to steal your
| style as the hill you want to die on, then you're going to find
| it's a very useless line of defense.
| voiceblue wrote:
| That's common enough that there's a name for it [0].
| "Stealing the style" is not so much a problem as
| commoditization, which may find some measure of defense in
| terms of trademark ( _not_ copyright). In this case, for
| example, the model is named _hollieMengert_v1_ , and we are
| referring to the style as "Hollie Mengert's art style".
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| There is absolutely not defense unless "hollie mengert's
| style" is trademarked; and even then the protection extends
| only to that name, not the artistic style itself.
|
| Clean room design has nothing to do with this. It is
| perfectly acceptable to overtly copy a style.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Just because you hired artists to copy someone else's work
| doesn't mean your model isn't the result of copyright
| infringement, indeed it makes it somewhat more obvious imo.
|
| Maybe that would be Fair Use, but things like purpose, weak
| transformation (in the hired artists copies), competition
| against the original, and business motive would all suggest
| it relies on non-Fair Use copying.
|
| I don't know why you think something that involves direct
| copying shouldn't be a 'hill to die on' for a copyright
| infringement claim?
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Not copy the work. Copy the style. Because style is not
| copyrightable.
|
| What I'm saying is that if you believe that your personal
| style is your valuable asset and choose to protect it by
| saying people can't train on your images; you ought to be
| aware that it's trivially easy to build a model that
| replicates your style and does not require your images.
| burnished wrote:
| Hiring someone for work is not trivial, though it is
| practical.
| astrange wrote:
| Style is largely in the eye of the beholder; SD1.5 was used
| to make a lot of images that looked like Greg Rutkowski, and
| people presumably believed they looked like his style, but he
| wasn't in the training set and it was a coincidence.
|
| Of course this is mostly only possible if you limit yourself
| to looking at digital art. A JPEG of a gigantic abstract art
| oil painting is pretty different from the real thing.
| vunderba wrote:
| Corporate Memphis seems to have that very "flat almost clip-
| art" style to it.
|
| Generative art is ideal for this type of stock art use case
| where 90% is simply good enough for the vast majority of
| situations.
|
| I feel like the gig economy (things like Fiverr) are
| unfortunately going to get absolutely crushed by generative art
| systems since most of their customers aren't that particular
| and are likely fine with anything that DALL-E / SD can pump
| out.
| jsheard wrote:
| > I feel like the gig economy (things like Fiverr)
|
| Predictably this is already happening, it doesn't take much
| browsing in categories such as tattoo design to spot the
| hallmarks of AI generated artwork. To add insult to injury
| they often pretend they aren't using AI, so they can up-
| charge for more intricate artwork that _would_ take more
| effort if they weren 't really just adding more synonyms for
| "detailed" to their Midjourney prompt.
|
| Fiverr does have a dedicated category for AI art, but they
| don't seem to be making any effort whatsoever to keep AI art
| out of every other category, so it's pointless.
| asabla wrote:
| > it doesn't take much browsing in categories such as
| tattoo design to spot the hallmarks of AI generated artwork
|
| Which is kind of interesting. My first tattoo has its roots
| from it. Where I used ChatGPT together with DALL-e to
| express the concept I wanted on my body, and not a direct
| translation of it.
|
| Worked out pretty well, got a lot easier to discuss how and
| what things would work and how to apply them.
| grugagag wrote:
| Soon enough generative art will be everywhere and the style
| uniformized so when some brands will want to differentiate
| themselves they will hire people again. They could charge
| more for the service, whoever survives the generative AI
| squeeze...
| krisoft wrote:
| > and the style uniformized
|
| Why would the style be uniformized? It is neither
| observed to be happening with generative art, nor is it
| desired.
| grugagag wrote:
| Can you tell when art is AI generated? I already can and
| that is what I am talking about. In time this will become
| more and more clear to the the market and in cases where
| it matters they will hire a human.
| bongodongobob wrote:
| No you can't. Some of it? Of course. All? You definitely
| can't.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| > categories such as tattoo design
|
| It's wild that this is a thing when the tattoo artists job
| is literally to create the artwork for you
| MOARDONGZPLZ wrote:
| Isn't it their job to put it on you? My understanding is
| many people bring in designs. That's the easy part that
| is so replaceable, whereas needling someone's skin is not
| strictly ai replaceable quite yet.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| It depends on the person buying the work I guess, but
| most tattoo artists that I know wouldn't be overly happy
| with being given an image and asked to just tattoo it.
|
| They're artists after all, not artisans.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Has GenAI _really_ been good enough in stock art use cases,
| or are they given temporal leniency? I feel they're mentioned
| too often for that to be the case.
| lz400 wrote:
| This comment thread could be from 3 years ago. What you're
| predicting I think has for the most part already happened.
| Everyone I know who used to commission Fiverr stuff has
| switched to AI.
| LettuceSand12 wrote:
| Where can I learn these techniques?
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Stablediffusion subreddit
| krisoft wrote:
| > I do think there needs to be some kind of protection from
| having your 'style' commoditized without consent, using
| unauthorized images of your own art
|
| I worry any attempt at that will strangle all creative
| endevours. Copying others style is not a new thing. It is the
| stuff culture is made of.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Can we just talk about the fact that the most popular fine-
| tuned model for SDXL is called _PonyDiffusion_?
|
| The circumstances of its creation, and the whole entire world
| of like, booru websites that you have to explain to boomers in
| suits with VP titles who are trying to invest in this space is
| just surreal.
|
| It's like a reverse of when they were raising their kids and
| giving us "the talk" as children. Now we have to give them "the
| talk" about what the word "doujinshi" means... for science!
| gedy wrote:
| The challenge I see is that (in the US at least), "style" is not
| copyrightable in the arts. IMHO this is a good thing because
| artists learn and copy from one another, and if it were
| copyrightable that would lead to no end of lawsuits between media
| companies.
|
| So my concern is trying to apply copyright to training AI models
| can easily slippery slope into more draconian copyright rules for
| human artists.
| nicklecompte wrote:
| I don't think there is a slippery slope in the foreseeable
| future, unless you buy into sci-fi views of AI being like a
| human. We need to update the laws around copyright in response
| to these machines. It's similar to why copyright laws exist in
| the first place: the concept was developed in response to the
| printing press.
|
| At some point there will be a real _I, Robot_ problem about an
| AI artist that actually understands what its drawing and doesn
| 't depend on interpolated plagiarism of inhuman amounts of
| data. But we aren't even close to that yet.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| Style is hard to objectify. It's a lot easier to determine
| whether a 3D model depicts Super Mario than whether it's in
| the "modern Nintendo" style.
|
| Style is also very broad. It's even harder to determine
| whether an 8-bit NES sprite is in the "old Nintendo" style,
| because 8-bit sprites don't have much flexibility to
| distinguish themselves.
|
| _Broadness:_ imagine if whoever first came up with the "low-
| poly 3D" or "flat material" or "voxel" aesthetics could
| copyright them and prevent anyone else from selling anything
| in those styles. What defines a style as narrow enough that
| it can be copyrighted? And what if that definition changes,
| e.g. if a a specific voxel style gets copyrighted, then
| someone else discovers a brand new way to render voxels super
| efficiently in only that style?
|
| _Objectivity and similarity:_ an artist can make a concrete
| object or character which is very similar to a copyrighted
| one but also clearly distinct. This is very important,
| because if "similar" objects could violate copyright, where
| is the line when something is dissimilar enough? Ultimately
| it would be very far for small artists, who can't afford to
| risk lawsuits; vast swaths of clearly _not_ similar
| characters and objects would be blocked off from them,
| because in the eyes of the law and without good
| representation, they're no longer "clearly" not similar. In
| fact, it may be hard for an artist to even come up with an
| object or character that doesn't risk a copyright lawsuit,
| since there are more copyrights that anyone could fully know.
| (At least to my knowledge, with copyrightable characters and
| objects this hasn't been a frequent issue; but if it is,
| copyrightable style will make it worse, so for the sake of
| the argument...)
|
| Copyrighting style is basically copyrighting the "similar"
| works. There's a fine enough line between whether a character
| or object is "similar to" or "the same as" another (again to
| the best of my knowledge). But there's no fine line with
| style. If one tries to define a style with objective criteria
| like making their "style" a specific stroke thickness and
| color scheme, generative AI users will just create art which
| falls right outside of this criteria. If one tries to use an
| AI classifier (ironically) to deduce whether something is
| "the same" or "similar but distinct", it will be foiled by
| AI-adversarial manipulation and its effectiveness will be
| endlessly disputed in court. And if one defines their style
| with very subjective judgements, that leads to the issue
| above.
| leobg wrote:
| One reason for that is that, like with ideas, society benefits,
| from styles intermixing. So making them "copyrightable" would
| be to the detriment of society.
|
| But the other reason might be that it has just not been
| feasible to actually measure things like "style". And if you
| cannot, in your lawsuit, put into words what you claim is, and
| where its boundaries are, it's impossible to enforce it.
|
| It's very much possible that people will forget the former
| reason and jump on the latter, now that one might be able to
| use AI to actually quantify, measure, and map things like
| style. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see companies like
| OpenAI play Good Samaritan and "helping legislators" solve the
| problems generated by AI. Only after they have secured the own
| datasets, of course.
| sanjayk0508 wrote:
| but the question is, is it copyrightable?
| rvnx wrote:
| Fast-forward in a few years, perhaps we could claim that if
| even a basic computer is able to do the same, the originality
| of the work is low, it may not meet the threshold for being
| copyrightable ?
| artninja1988 wrote:
| Are you talking about artistic styles? No, they're not
| copyrightable.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| AI is to the point where it can create it's own style. We talk
| about these styles as if it's some kind of sacred thing. What you
| don't realize is that we're past this point.
|
| There's a latent space of different art within a certain style
| category, but there's the latent space of different categories
| itself. AI can already traverse the space between art in a single
| style category AND it can traverse the gradient space BETWEEN
| categories. It can even go beyond that.
|
| AI has turned everything into a freaking best fit curve.
|
| Copywrite is such a mundane question. It's just a fight against
| the inevitable truth. That human creativity are just points on
| that curve. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
| I view this as a BAD thing. Copywrite is good, it's great. It's a
| law that implies what humans create has meaning. But we have to
| face the truth. That the output we produce is in actuality just
| one part of a high level pattern. That's all we are.
| monadINtop wrote:
| lol sometimes I wonder if the reason so many tech bros make so
| many grandiose statements about how AI has already trancended
| the bounds of human creativity is because they've never really
| had actual experience with art and literature and music growing
| up. They say things like this and then you go and look for an
| example of these incredible works of artificial art and it is
| the biggest pile of shit you have ever seen.
|
| Just like how they think that these glorified typing assistants
| function identically to the human brain. I mean maybe they
| really do replicate the level of creativity and intelligence of
| the people who believe these things, but maybe the people with
| decades of research in linguistics and neuroscience are right
| to be skeptical.
|
| Its kinda like when people talk about research mathematics like
| its all adding really big numbers together or calculating
| really tricky integrals.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Not yet but this is not too far off:
|
| One day you're going to encounter something that really moves
| you.
|
| And then you'll realize it was procedurally generated, by an
| AI.
|
| We're only about 1 - 2 years into AI. Think about the pace of
| progress.
| astrange wrote:
| There's a long tradition of random art and if you like
| that, there's dril GPT and Magic card GPT that produced
| lots of good absurdity. Of course, there's a human curation
| pass after it to let it be called art.
|
| https://x.com/drilbot_aww/status/1792077476338057292
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| We just started on this. Imagine what the next two
| decades will bring.
|
| This long tradition of stuff you speak of has only been a
| couple years at most. Draw the trend line. Extrapolate
| the inevitable consequence.
| astrange wrote:
| A lot longer than that!
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_art
|
| Could also count elephant paintings and such.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Your dignified belief in the supremacy of human ingenuity
| will be cold comfort to the young artists struggling to find
| employment
| monadINtop wrote:
| Yep, you're right. But idk why you phrased that like it's a
| rebuttal to my criticism. This is another failure of our
| economic system, for incentivising the owners of art
| production to churn out literal mindless slop to cut costs,
| instead of safe guarding artists and creators for the sake
| of their intrinsic value to society and humanity.
|
| Since, of course, they must eternally seek to reproduce
| capital to the detriment of everything else.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Well your argument is admonishing tech bros as if they
| don't get it, but generally they do get it completely in
| this context. The goal here is not replacing great art.
| It's replacing art assets.
|
| Comes off as naive and distracting to me.
| monadINtop wrote:
| The distinction is philosophical. Tech bros consider "art
| assests" or consumer oriented products as art. In their
| eyes its capibility as a tool for profit is a downstream
| effect.
|
| My point was that since their entire purpose in life
| revolves around developing and refining technology for
| the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness
| to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can
| be sold for a profit. When people post 3d versions of the
| Mona Lisa or a shitty remix of Monet's water lillies with
| breathless praise, it's because in their eyes the
| stylistic reproduction or reinterpetation of the literal
| shapes and colors on a flat screen is all there is to
| art, not merely because it demonstrates utility in
| replacing already exploited sectors of creative workers.
|
| I don't think we disagree about any of this. I think that
| I'm just making a tangential point to the article in
| response to a dumb comment, while you are talking about
| the subject more directly. Otherwise I fail to see what
| you think is naive, if only because I've seen so many
| examples of this rot of understanding around the essence
| of artistic expression from the mouthpieces of silicone
| valley and our wider, increasingly corporatized, culture.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| > My point was that since their entire purpose in life
| revolves around developing and refining technology for
| the reproduction of capital, it reveals their blindness
| to any deeper aspect of the human condition than what can
| be sold for a profit
|
| And I think that's grossly missing the point. The vast
| majority of people making art are just trying to make
| something look aesthetically nice within some sort of
| provided communication framework. And that's perfectly
| fine.
|
| Frankly I think elevating artists to the pedestal of the
| illuminating the human condition is very damaging to
| their actual interests
| monadINtop wrote:
| Is creating things of aesthetic quality not of value with
| respect to the human condition? Is not some subset of
| that aesthetic quality derivative of the intuition and
| intention of a human mind? Sure, if you want to build
| some tehchnology to make designing packaging for dog food
| more effecient go ahead, as long as it isn't the previous
| dog food packaging creators that are being made to absorb
| the economic cost of the new technology (which they are).
|
| But I hope at last some subset of human art strives to do
| more than that, and I think it's a bad thing that the
| incentive to increase revenue at the expense of quality
| has now expanded past being a tool to improve efficiency
| of laborious tasks and is now instead cutting costs via
| cutting artistic value.
| astrange wrote:
| If you need intelligent things to act exactly like a human
| being I think you're going to look bad in the future where we
| have aliens or uplifted ravens and this looks
| racist/speciesist.
|
| Being trapped in a computer with no environmental interaction
| is obviously a big difference though.
|
| > but maybe the people with decades of research in
| linguistics and neuroscience are right to be skeptical.
|
| Like other kinds of academics, many of those people are
| cranks so they're not necessarily right. For instance, some
| of them are Chomsky.
|
| (But it's their job to be wrong most of the time so of course
| this is expected.)
| monadINtop wrote:
| No, you need intelligent things to be intelligent.
|
| And it would probably be good to distinguish between
| "things that appear superficially intelligent" and "things
| that have genuine capacity for internal experience" while
| you're at it, since the popular perception on this forum
| seems to be to just declare that physicalism/materialism is
| obviously correct and explanatory and we can just brush the
| hard problem of conciousness under the rug. People are so
| eager to endow the statistical model that has been designed
| to produce responses that are statistically feasable in a
| given context (a very impressive feat of technology to be
| clear) as having internal experience.
|
| Chomsky happens to be more right about LLMs than 90% of the
| popular discourse will ever be able to understand, which
| isn't that suprising considering the impact if this
| "crank's" earlier work.
| astrange wrote:
| Chomsky's critique of LLMs was somehow not even correct
| about his own theories
| (https://x.com/profraha/status/1634311282135318529). And
| of course has the usual problem of 1. claiming LLMs are
| random statistical models (they aren't, the sampler is)
| 2. claiming instead of generating correct text they only
| "seemingly" generate correct text and not explaining why
| this is any less impossible.
|
| But people have built explicit grammar knowledge into
| LLMs (it's in llama.cpp) and nobody seems to need it to
| make English text.
|
| Of course the main reason Chomsky is a crank is that he's
| completely convinced he's right about politics despite
| his unbroken record of endorsing every mass murderer in
| the world as long as they're anti-American.
| monadINtop wrote:
| Oh right ok like I guessed, you have a ideological
| problem with him and his entirely irrelevant activism
| offends you, and so discredit any of his actual technical
| analysis on the subject. Maybe you do have the same
| faculty of reasoning as a LLM.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| I swear there's a personality type that simply can't
| resist injecting their politics into unrelated
| conversations.
|
| It's truly fascinating.
| int_19h wrote:
| Materialism is rather obviously correct when it comes to
| consciousness just based on what we know brain damage
| does to humans.
|
| But what does this have to do with problem of
| consciousness or internal experiences? There's no reason
| why the latter cannot be a material process.
|
| As for the linguists... people forget these days, but
| before the AI winter, there were many experiments trying
| to build an AI by modeling the language. And what they
| learned from it is that when you have enough compute and
| just throw it at a neural net, you get better results
| (there was even a joke about AI progress being inversely
| proportional to the number of linguists working on it).
| Which, to put it bluntly, means that our understanding of
| language is still very lacking, and quite likely to be
| fundamentally wrong some respects. I don't think those
| people are in a position to judge at that point; not
| until they figure out language enough to _program_
| something that can talk as well as GPT-4 does.
| monadINtop wrote:
| There is zero understanding of the cause of internal
| experience. We can't even strictly define what it is. My
| contention isn't that materialism doesn't appear to be a
| reasonable canditate for cognitive process, but that we
| still have no idea HOW any of that happens. We may never
| know.
|
| People who claim that it is obvious that neural networks
| and LLMs replicate the functioning of a brain, any brain
| - let alone human, are just wrong. They are wrong to
| assume that it is obvious that just making bigger LLMs
| will somehow generate a being with the capacity of
| internal experience, whatever that may mean. They are
| wrong when they act like they have solved the problem of
| understanding cognition by just forgetting to mention the
| hard problem of conciousness. They are even wrong to
| simply assert that neurons and neural networks are "to
| do" with cognition. Hallucinogens and brain damage affect
| subjective experience, and both of those things are
| involved with the vascular system of the brain. Would I
| be right to say the vascular system produce cognition?
| Why doesn't anyone argue in favor of that view since it
| is not too far off from the same reasoning?
|
| Obviously, it's reasonable to assume that neurons are
| somehow involved with subjective experience, most serious
| neuroscientists and other researchers would hold that
| same assumption. But you need to EXPLAIN how, preferably
| with evidence. It is the burden of the one claiming they
| have finally figured it all out to present a convincing
| theory, or at least conjecture the path to get there.
| Loudly and smugly asserting that your assumption is
| correcter than the other people who have spent decades
| working on the problem doesn't make the problem dissolve,
| but it is especially irritating when the incentive of the
| loudest people doing so is in the pockets of the
| shareholders they are indebted to.
| saintfire wrote:
| Wish we could apply that logic to software. AI is in a magical
| universe where we all pretend copyright isn't a thing just
| because we don't like it.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| You missed the point.
|
| You view it as a war against human rights. Copywrite.
|
| I view it as a lost war. The war against human meaning.
|
| We're living in a bubble. Where we pretend it all still
| matters and that AI will always be inferior to everything we
| do forever and for all eternity.
|
| All bubbles will eventually pop.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > I view it as a lost war. The war against human meaning.
|
| If "human meaning" goes, all else goes with it;
|
| Social media, search, education, ambition, creation,
| innovation...
|
| And along with that goes Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Apple,
| Meta, Amazon...
|
| There's nothing that exists outside that "bubble" of human
| meaning,
|
| Technology must preserve it, or technology dies.
|
| Unless you are confirming what many have already said..
| that digital technology has become death cult?
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Human meaning won't go out the door.
|
| It's just we will no longer be able to differentiate it
| from machine generated content.
|
| Machine generated content will become more superior and
| more prolific such that it will cheapen human meaning.
|
| You'll find people will begin clinging onto the last
| vestiges of human created things like real painted art or
| vintage sculptures like they do vinyl records and non-
| digital books: An exercise in irrationality in attempt to
| reverse a war already lost.
|
| Perhaps that is what will save human meaning in the end.
| Self delusion. We will deliberately ignore superior and
| better content and tell ourselves that human works are
| and always will be the best. That's a little of what's
| happening in this thread already.
| int_19h wrote:
| Human art and appreciation thereof is already by and
| large an exercise in irrationality, so I don't see why
| this is necessarily a qualitative change. If people want
| to imbue "human made" with a special meaning, that's
| really no different than thousands of other ways we
| pretend things into being every day.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| Yeah. The difference is at one point in time we didn't
| pretend, now we do. And therefore the lie we tell
| ourselves is more obvious. Many people will see through
| the lie.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| Indeed. It's entirely arbitrary.
|
| I think, in using terms like "rational" the grandparent
| is confusing AI with science and presuming some kind of
| objectivity. One cannot make any sensible claim about
| what is "more superior" (the "more" is redundant by the
| way) since quality of art and meaning is not arranged on
| any cardinal scale. Humans get to define what is better,
| and that's the final judgement. And should they choose to
| define AI as "meaningless", then it's meaningless.
|
| Now as to whether it will be "more prolific", that's a
| another matter. Cockroaches are already far more prolific
| than humans.
| int_19h wrote:
| I think they are arguing that _by already established
| criteria_ , AI art can easily exceed human art in
| quality. So we can of course rejig our criteria, but in
| doing so we cannot help but acknowledge that the original
| ones no longer cut it.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Do you want a world where google can sue your open source
| project because it utilizes it's style of coding?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Maybe? If they show you started with their code and
| abstracted your code from their's mechanistically, then it
| seems reasonable to say that you copied from their code.
|
| If you, a person, read their code and imitated the style -
| assuming it to be definable as Google's style and not
| easily confused with the style of others (which would
| suggest it was not distinctive) - then yes, why not? You
| would have directly abstracted the essence of Google's work
| from them.
|
| They should be entitled to the copyright for at least 7
| years, maybe up to at most 14!
|
| Could you expand on what you mean by "its style of coding"?
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| I'll have ai randomly generate unique styles of code and
| start copywriting it all.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Copyrights only apply when there is copying; independent
| production is allowed. As it's tort (mostly!), you only
| have to prove they copied on balance of probability (in
| jurisdictions I'm familiar with), but you still have to
| show they copied.
|
| Fwiw, copyright is named for "rights", legally
| allowed/restricted activities. "Copywrite" is the verb
| meaning to write content for a publication, content being
| referred to as "copy" in this context.
| spywaregorilla wrote:
| Ok let's try a different argument.
|
| You think the world would be a better place if Monet was
| able to sue Renoir out of the impressionist movement?
|
| Or if Spielberg was able to sue director's trying to
| emulate the Spielberg oner?
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| Impressionism has scope. Most people can tell a [famous]
| Renoir from a Monet and would not think Renoir copied
| Monet (in general). The devil is in the detail, courts
| have too decide what is too close and what isn't, but
| it's very much 'I know it when I see it', I feel.
| Allowances to be made for distinctiveness.
|
| I'm not a movie buff, I know a few films from Spielberg's
| oevre, but I've never seen anything that I thought was a
| copy of his style ... perhaps you have examples you feel
| are so close that 'a blind man on a horse' would see
| (sic) that they are copying Spielberg's style?
|
| I like the change of tack though, would appreciate some
| more push back.
| astrange wrote:
| Whether or not there are copyright issues depends on the laws
| of specific countries. In general though it's a lot more
| legal than currently legal things like Google Image Search,
| because it's much more transformative than making thumbnails
| of other people's images is.
|
| But if you don't want it to be legal then just pass a law
| saying it's not.
| croniev wrote:
| Human creativity _turns into_ a point on that curve. One
| mission of art is to find a different dimension, out of the
| curves reach, until eventually it becomes more common and the
| curve can be fitted to it again. AI cannot think outside of the
| box because it cannot think at all, there is no meaning behind
| what it does.
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| >Human creativity turns into a point on that curve.
|
| All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve.
|
| It doesn't matter what turns what into what into some point
| on the curve or finding a different "dimension"
|
| If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that curve
| you've found the algorithm for human creativity.
|
| We are close, deadly close, to the end.
|
| Especially given the fact that these AI algorithms literally
| treat the problem as a best fit curve from a mathematical
| perspective. Like the analogy I made is not even really an
| analogy, it's the reality of how these algorithms actually
| work.
| mistermann wrote:
| "We're at the tippity top of the mountain, but we're only
| halfway up".
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| We're at the foot of the mountain. We only just started.
| mistermann wrote:
| Surveys of humans strongly demonstrate that they are
| rather impressed with their mountain climbing
| accomplishments thus far. The main shortcoming to
| humanity is only the actions of those other people.
| astrange wrote:
| > All human creativity are points ON the SAME Curve.
|
| That's what they said about mathematical proofs.
|
| > If you come up with an algorithm that can traverse that
| curve you've found the algorithm for human creativity.
|
| And that's what they said about programs that take finite
| time to prove whether or not other programs halt.
|
| Neither of those turned out to be true though. (In
| particular, because the curve you're talking about is
| infinitely large and so you cannot compute on it in finite
| time.)
|
| Also, real world things cannot be reduced to their bit
| descriptions because they have metadata even if their
| descriptions are identical:
| https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
| ninetyninenine wrote:
| >And that's what they said about programs that take
| finite time to prove whether or not other programs halt.
|
| An actualization of human creativity exists. Your brain.
|
| The existence of your brain as a physical thing indicates
| that human creativity can be actualized. It's literal
| proof via existence.
|
| It's the complete opposite of what you describe. We have
| proof that it is 100 percent possible.
| rulalala wrote:
| Please is there anything like this for writing? I am serious, I
| do write and want to experiment. Please would you have any
| suggestions for me? Thanks for your time.
| Kuinox wrote:
| You can finetune a llama3 (not instruct) model on your own
| text.
| emporas wrote:
| Writing is the simplest of all. Really trivial actually. I
| create new styles almost every other day. See the latest entry
| on my blog for a style i created last week, and this video [1].
|
| Different styles can be created by taking advantage of the
| context window.
|
| 1) Take some random style of a writer, a blogger, or even a
| website.
|
| 2) Generate some examples you may like, and annotate them,
| something like: Example Chapters.
|
| 3) Put the machine to describe the text of Example Chapters.
|
| 4) Select some keyword descriptions, and ask to imitate the
| writer's/blogger's style plus the keywords.
|
| 5) Generate some more examples, and delete the previous ones.
| Now it will start converging a lot better.
|
| 6) Ask the machine to use the Example Chapters as a reference,
| and DO NOT REPEAT examples. Do not repeat has to be written
| exactly like that.
|
| 7) Generate 1 or 2 chapters of your desired text, by generating
| 10 different drafts, and stitch them together by editing them a
| lot by hand. That's plenty difficult and time consuming.
|
| 8) As soon as you have 2 good pages of the text you like,
| delete the examples you do not need them anymore.
|
| 9) Ask the machine to continue the 2 Chapters it has written,
| but it doesn't actually need to continue something. Just ask to
| to write the story, but in the prompt it has to be asked to
| continue.
|
| 10) It is best the 2 Chapters of your story to have the same
| characters with exactly the same names as the story you want to
| write.
|
| 11) When you ask it to continue, obviously you continue using
| the same style of writer/blogger plus keywords.
|
| It comes down to a lot of experimentation.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33FcIL6tFnY&pp=ygUNb3duIHN0e...
| numpad0 wrote:
| imho the whole GenAI and artists and luddites thing is way
| overblown and mis-characterized. The outputs simply aren't up to
| snuff and people hates it. The negative emotional outrage comes
| first, then the logical explanation ex post facto, everyone can
| see that.
|
| By the way, I have one of numerous back-burner ideas about the
| GenAI rage problem - why isn't anyone trying to "close the loop",
| like by attaching a gaze tracking and mood detecting device to a
| human(like a camera pointed at such tool's developer) and chaos
| monkeying the image with noise, maybe with a bit of help from
| generative algorithms, until the human is satisfied? Then
| operation log of that monkey tool can be put into GAN side of
| diffusion or made into a new tag for embedding or something.
|
| I think that saves everyone's time a lot. There shouldn't be
| ethical concerns to it, at least to same degree that running A/B
| tests on unsuspecting bunch is considered totally ethical and
| morally acceptable.
| mattkevan wrote:
| I've been using generative AI in my art for a good few years now
| and have a few thoughts on this.
|
| Yes it's trivial to train a model on a particular style, I've
| done it many times, including on my own art. It can make things
| that look pretty good!
|
| But it can't make anything great, not without a lot of luck or
| creative input from the user.
|
| It can make something that looks similar to a style, but it can't
| explain what makes that style good, why it should be chosen over
| another and the thinking behind it. An artist would have no
| problem answering that.
|
| As I understand it, generative AI is a sort of average machine,
| in that if you ask it for a picture of a dog, it'll give you the
| most average result for the prompt, model and whatever randomness
| there is in the system.
|
| Therefore, the lowest common denominators - stock photos,
| Corporate Memphis, clipart etc are in big trouble. AI images
| don't need to be great to displace them, just good enough.
| Average.
|
| However, for creatives, AI tools are a wonderful opportunity.
| It's not everyday a brand-new medium comes along.
|
| When photography arrived, it was possible to make a perfect
| representation of something at the click of a button. Instead of
| killing art, it unleashed a wave of creativity. Art no longer
| needed to be about drawing pictures of things or people and could
| get more abstract and experimental.
|
| So with AI. It won't kill creativity, it's just another creative
| tool. I've had a lot of fun over the last few years exploring
| what it can do, and it'll be exciting to see how art changes with
| its arrival.
| mattkevan wrote:
| As a follow on: One of my friends is a professional illustrator
| and was concerned about the impact of AI on their work.
|
| As a demonstration I trained some models on their styles. They
| were worried right up until they saw the output. Yes, it looked
| superficially like their work, but the slightest glance showed
| it to be absolute crap. Anyone who would consider using the AI
| version of their work over commissioning the actual artist
| would absolutely get what they paid for.
|
| However, they have found the models to be very useful in
| exploring concepts and compositions, becoming an essential part
| of their creative process.
| GaggiX wrote:
| It's possible that your model wasn't great, for my
| experience, in the past I uploaded an AI image in the same
| style of a certain artist to a website that organizes anime
| images, someone tagged it with the artist's tag because they
| thought it was made by him, also the image I uploaded got
| much more "likes" than anything made by the artist in months,
| and it's not like I'm spamming images, that was the only
| upload. (I later removed the tag, of course)
| astrange wrote:
| Part of the reason for that is those artists are doing
| commercial art, which means the "style" is imposed on them
| by the customer/series character designs/etc, and they're
| not putting their whole ability into it.
|
| It's like how it was easier to automate office workers
| because they just followed steps in a process and didn't
| use creativity.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I mean, the artists you see on Twitter or other platforms
| usually have a dominant art style, their own, but even
| without changing the art style, you can still be really
| creative with the composition, actions, and so on.
| mattkevan wrote:
| The model was good, it's just that the illustrations needed
| to convey specific concepts and were created for particular
| purposes, something gen AI is not good at without
| significant guidance.
|
| Superficial style is easy to replicate, the underlying
| meaning and thought process is not.
| Der_Einzige wrote:
| Just call them what they are, "booru" websites. The AI
| community needs to actually understand what these are and
| why they just happen to give us extremely large, high
| quality, well taged datasets. Yes, the AI community will
| have to admit that coomers have been really good for AI
| development. Yes that will rustle feathers.
|
| A lot of AI researchers are either playing dumb or are
| actually ignorant of this space. A lot of really talented
| folks are operating in the shadows and should be at NeurIPS
| and ACL presenting and bartering for VC funding rather than
| posting anime waifus on /g/ and staying anonymous on
| discord...
| astrange wrote:
| > As I understand it, generative AI is a sort of average
| machine, in that if you ask it for a picture of a dog, it'll
| give you the most average result for the prompt, model and
| whatever randomness there is in the system.
|
| "Generative AI" isn't a single technology. Text and image
| generation don't actually work the same way (have the same
| model architecture), which frankly makes it absurd we invented
| them both at the same time.
|
| But for text at least this isn't true; LLMs have fractal
| complexity, which is why they work. ("Average" text would just
| be the letter 'e'.) It's harder to say how diffusion models
| even work.
|
| It makes them easier to handle if you train them to act like
| this though, but try playing with a "base model" and you'll see
| all kinds of inhuman results.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| AIUI diffusion models of images are trained to make a noisy
| image into an image without noise (reverse diffusion). Then
| when an image is required, the system starts with white
| noise, and maybe a prompt, and then iteratively performs
| reverse diffusion - guided by the prompt - to produce a final
| image.
|
| You can enhance an image by [forward] diffusing it, then
| feeding it to the NN created to perform the reverse
| diffusion.
| croes wrote:
| The only must be good and cheap enough to convince management.
|
| That's the main problem, not that AI is as good or even better
| as humans but that it's considered good enough.
| birracerveza wrote:
| >It won't kill creativity, it's just another creative tool.
|
| I've been banging on this drum since AI's inception, and will
| continue do so.
|
| Even if machines were capable of directly reading our mind and
| outputting a perfect representation of exactly what we wanted
| at the mere thought of it, it's still a mere tool bound by the
| creativity of its artist, even if the artist were the AI
| itself.
|
| Art is dead. Art is always dead.
|
| Did people complain when digital paintings became a thing?
| aenvoker wrote:
| > Did people complain when digital paintings became a thing?
|
| Yes. A lot. All the same complaints. "It's low-effort
| cheating. The machine does all the work. It's soulless. Art
| requires a physical process. It looks like crap. It will put
| 'real' artists out of business."
|
| But then, they also complained loudly when _Impressionism_
| became a thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gentle_Art_
| of_Making_Enemi... So, it's good to keep an historic
| perspective.
| mattkevan wrote:
| As far as I can see, the whole history of art is a long
| argument about whether something can be called art or not.
| It's always art
|
| As a recent example, Tron was disqualified for a visual
| effects Oscar because it was all done on computer and
| therefore seen as cheating, instead of being recognised aa
| both an incredible achievement and a precursor for the next
| 40 years of filmmaking. [1]
|
| Imagine the howls when the first film with significant
| amounts of AI effects is released.
|
| [1]https://www.slashfilm.com/1177735/why-tron-was-
| disqualified-...
| Zambyte wrote:
| > But it can't make anything great, not without a lot of luck
| or creative input from the user.
|
| That seems true of "non-generative" art too, no?
| mattkevan wrote:
| Yes, absolutely. It's why all the people saying AI is the
| death of creativity are wildly off the mark.
|
| Still needs an artist to guide it.
| wormius wrote:
| I only have a Ryzen 5 3600x and a 7650xt, and downloaded AMD's
| LLM tool. It runs, and chats. I have thought about training it on
| the 4500 pages of LJ entries I saved to PDF (I know I'd have to
| extract the text, and then spell check that puppy. or not. Maybe
| I should just leave my misspells if it's a doppleganger).
|
| But it seems it'd take a few weeks of running nonstop to train?
| Everywhere I'm reading says it's hard to determine the actual
| time required.
|
| I would think 4500 pages of text would be a large enough volume
| to train. (assuming 500 words per page? If not more)
|
| What's a good minimum number of blog entries/words to train a
| thing. I would think the more the merrier, but I ain't spending
| non-stop processing for weeks at a time.
|
| I hate AI, I have no idea why I even want to try this, but... The
| data is there and it's local to my machine not shared with
| upstream, so I figure it'd be fine to mess with. Is my estimate
| in the ballpark?
| dmbche wrote:
| If you hate AI, why do this?
|
| If you just want to do it, why not just do it?
| baq wrote:
| Not OP but I'd personally would rather be an informed hater
| instead of a believer hater.
| codercowmoo wrote:
| Depending on the finetuning tool you're using, you can just
| start the training run, and then it shows you how long it'll
| take. Like give it 5 mins to stabilise, then see the estimated
| duration.
|
| Axolotl is a good finetuning tool if you need one.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| The work of a good artist is much more than a style. You can
| express ideas, tell stories, generalize, convey something in a
| specific manner. If style can be reproduced with ease, the other
| qualities of what makes art great are harder to reproduce by AI.
| So if your art is more than just a style, you shouldn't be
| worried about AI.
| smarm52 wrote:
| Unclear why this is relevant. The author has no credentials
| except for a few pictures. And so it's unclear what rigor they
| bring to this project.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/crosswords/wordle-review....
|
| https://rai.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-96...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-20 23:01 UTC)