Am I infringing on someone’s rights by remembering someones painting and trying to paint something similar?
No, because you're a person.
This isn't a person. It's a math problem. A mechanism. It's not meaningfully different from taking a picture, applying a filter to it, and selling it as your own creative work. But in typical "Do not create the Torment Nexus" fashion bazinga techbros have found a way to steal the creative output of all of humanity and produce a dead, sterile facsimile. The potential consequences are horrific. Imagine a world without artists, because all "art" can be sufficiently produced by these machines. No more creativity. No more innovation. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just endless, endless churning of the same parts in to pseudo-random configurations. Long strings of numbers masquerading as creativity.
No more creativity. No more innovation. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just endless, endless churning of the same parts in to pseudo-random configurations. Long strings of numbers masquerading as creativity.
You have a better point with what you said in another comment about the economic side of it, that once it reaches a commercial level it'll massively reduce the demand for particular forms of skilled labor in a way that will hurt a lot of people. Because that's true, and the tech is extremely dangerous for that reason.
The idea that creativity is contained exclusively in the specific technical abilities that will be commercially devalued by the tech is not a good point, however. The threat of AI art is entirely economic (except for the danger of advanced photo/video-editing/mimicking AIs, which are an entirely different sort of threat), because it will still rely on human initiative and guidance. So far as creativity and art goes it doesn't make a difference whether the creative process is the brain working out how to make the hands create a mimicry of an image that it contains inside itself using a brush or stylus, or if the process is the brain working out how describe what it sees to a machine in order to create that mimicry and then applying other technical skills to shape that to more closely match what it wants. I can only assume that as it gets more advanced the ways of providing it inputs will also get more advanced (integrating posing 3d dummies to provide another data point for it to work from, for example), to the point that making it output things that aren't just random slop and hoping it's somewhat close to what one wants becomes a technical skill of its own.
I don't even see it as a threat of losing those technical skills, because there are mountains of texts trying to teach people to translate images in their head into images on paper, outlining training exercises and describing different methods. Although I'm also not as convinced AI will obviate the technical abilities involved in art to the point that it stops being a thing, although it will probably siphon off a huge chunk of would-be illustrators who'll never learn to draw and instead learn how to manipulate the AI and edit its results to get what they want instead.
Saying the human mind and an algorithm designed to emulate art are equivalent is whats actually anti-materialist here. A soul does not have to be real in order for human beings to be materially different from code on a silicon wafer and the fact that this needs pointed out is sad.
Your understanding of materialism is flawed if you think an organ as immensely complex as the human brain is not "special".
Thought does not exist independent from matter. That is a very basic principle of materialism...
As far as the machine does it, it literally learns how to make things by picking out the image from noise patterns based on the chance that picking out specific bits will make it match the prompt... It learns this by practicing on a dataset that has had noise patterns put on it. That's pretty much the machine equivalent to doing a master study on a piece of art.
This isn’t a person. It’s a math problem. A mechanism.
The human body is nothing but a biological mechanism that we control. Ultimately, the program requires input to do anything. Left to its own devices, it will not spit out art much the same way as a pencil won't draw anything byself, nor will the arm that holds it do anything without being told to, and much the se for a camera. I don't get how one form of input can be separated from another as valid through anything but arbitrary distinction.
The human body is not just a mechanism to house our brain, it literally is us. Even if we ignore the flawed premise that "we" solely exist within our brain (and not the culmination of all our organs working in tandem to create a whole individual), our nerves extend into literally every part of our body anyway. Your brain is connected to the rest of you in a way that cannot be replicated by an algorithm.
Yeah of course it's not as simple as the brain piloting a meat costume. A lot goes into human consciousness but for the purposes of rendering art, we do that in a literal mechanical fashion. We control ourselves and move our body in a specific way that creates an outcome. Does it really matter whether that's moving our arm to draw, or typing out text?
Your brain is connected to the rest of you in a way that cannot be replicated by an algorithm.
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that there is literally no difference between our bodies and a computer, but that the difference ultimately doesn't matter when considering what we're using them for. The only thing that's changing is the degree of abstraction from the human, which again I don't see how we can arrive at a meaningful limit or distinction between what is and is not acceptable in a non-arbitrary fashion.
Does it really matter whether that’s moving our arm to draw, or typing out text?
Yes. The act of creating art is as much a part of the art itself as the finished product. Just as the art is affected by the medium you make it with, the way in which it is created affects the end product. Yes, inputting words into the tool is a form of creativity but its materially not the same as directly drawing/painting/writing a piece yourself
No, because you're a person.
This isn't a person. It's a math problem. A mechanism. It's not meaningfully different from taking a picture, applying a filter to it, and selling it as your own creative work. But in typical "Do not create the Torment Nexus" fashion bazinga techbros have found a way to steal the creative output of all of humanity and produce a dead, sterile facsimile. The potential consequences are horrific. Imagine a world without artists, because all "art" can be sufficiently produced by these machines. No more creativity. No more innovation. Nothing new. Nothing unexpected. Just endless, endless churning of the same parts in to pseudo-random configurations. Long strings of numbers masquerading as creativity.
You have a better point with what you said in another comment about the economic side of it, that once it reaches a commercial level it'll massively reduce the demand for particular forms of skilled labor in a way that will hurt a lot of people. Because that's true, and the tech is extremely dangerous for that reason.
The idea that creativity is contained exclusively in the specific technical abilities that will be commercially devalued by the tech is not a good point, however. The threat of AI art is entirely economic (except for the danger of advanced photo/video-editing/mimicking AIs, which are an entirely different sort of threat), because it will still rely on human initiative and guidance. So far as creativity and art goes it doesn't make a difference whether the creative process is the brain working out how to make the hands create a mimicry of an image that it contains inside itself using a brush or stylus, or if the process is the brain working out how describe what it sees to a machine in order to create that mimicry and then applying other technical skills to shape that to more closely match what it wants. I can only assume that as it gets more advanced the ways of providing it inputs will also get more advanced (integrating posing 3d dummies to provide another data point for it to work from, for example), to the point that making it output things that aren't just random slop and hoping it's somewhat close to what one wants becomes a technical skill of its own.
I don't even see it as a threat of losing those technical skills, because there are mountains of texts trying to teach people to translate images in their head into images on paper, outlining training exercises and describing different methods. Although I'm also not as convinced AI will obviate the technical abilities involved in art to the point that it stops being a thing, although it will probably siphon off a huge chunk of would-be illustrators who'll never learn to draw and instead learn how to manipulate the AI and edit its results to get what they want instead.
Don't have to the machine will do that for me :fidel-cool:
deleted by creator
Saying the human mind and an algorithm designed to emulate art are equivalent is whats actually anti-materialist here. A soul does not have to be real in order for human beings to be materially different from code on a silicon wafer and the fact that this needs pointed out is sad.
Your understanding of materialism is flawed if you think an organ as immensely complex as the human brain is not "special".
Thought does not exist independent from matter. That is a very basic principle of materialism...
As far as the machine does it, it literally learns how to make things by picking out the image from noise patterns based on the chance that picking out specific bits will make it match the prompt... It learns this by practicing on a dataset that has had noise patterns put on it. That's pretty much the machine equivalent to doing a master study on a piece of art.
No it does not
🤓
:jesse-wtf:
The human body is nothing but a biological mechanism that we control. Ultimately, the program requires input to do anything. Left to its own devices, it will not spit out art much the same way as a pencil won't draw anything byself, nor will the arm that holds it do anything without being told to, and much the se for a camera. I don't get how one form of input can be separated from another as valid through anything but arbitrary distinction.
The human body is not just a mechanism to house our brain, it literally is us. Even if we ignore the flawed premise that "we" solely exist within our brain (and not the culmination of all our organs working in tandem to create a whole individual), our nerves extend into literally every part of our body anyway. Your brain is connected to the rest of you in a way that cannot be replicated by an algorithm.
Yeah of course it's not as simple as the brain piloting a meat costume. A lot goes into human consciousness but for the purposes of rendering art, we do that in a literal mechanical fashion. We control ourselves and move our body in a specific way that creates an outcome. Does it really matter whether that's moving our arm to draw, or typing out text?
The point I'm trying to make here isn't that there is literally no difference between our bodies and a computer, but that the difference ultimately doesn't matter when considering what we're using them for. The only thing that's changing is the degree of abstraction from the human, which again I don't see how we can arrive at a meaningful limit or distinction between what is and is not acceptable in a non-arbitrary fashion.
Yes. The act of creating art is as much a part of the art itself as the finished product. Just as the art is affected by the medium you make it with, the way in which it is created affects the end product. Yes, inputting words into the tool is a form of creativity but its materially not the same as directly drawing/painting/writing a piece yourself