💾 Archived View for station.martinrue.com › haze › 849c3ea1717143068335560a9c420159 captured on 2023-04-26 at 15:09:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-04-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Please convince me:
AI art creation has been in a bad light due to not respecting artists. But artists already agreed people could download their work and decode it. People could already learn from art. So why is AI learning from art so cnoterversial?
My basis is that humans are not holy or magic. We are just wet computers at the very bottom. (From a scientific view). I want to be on the side of artists. But I don't see any reasonable, logical mechanism in which artists can be protected while keeping the line between humans and AI seprate.
Since humans and AI both learn. And potentially through the same prrocess (will cite later). There's no difference right? I think I'm in crysis.
1 month ago · 👍 danrl
2. simply because there is precedent for an event, does not mean it is a desirable outcome. that is not a logically derived conclusion, in the barest, most mathematical sense of the word.
3. you are not above being an animal. you are not above the social nature of your species. why? because without other members of your species present, you would die. you simply do not have the ability to care for yourself. therefore, it is logical to prioritize the welfare of your own kind. most people experience this logic as an emotion called 'empathy', but that does not make it illogical. · 4 weeks ago
@haze if you want to have a consistent belief that reflects reality, then please face the following realities:
1. we will not have full brain simulations in our lifetimes. it's neither close in range on a scientific level nor where the industry is headed, because companies do not want robots that think, they want robots that work without complaint. and all that aside, we simply do not know enough about the actual human brain to pull it off. · 4 weeks ago
I understand @anthrax's point. But that's a property that we want the law to have. Not a mechanism we can depend on the decide what's ok and what's not. I think this is what I'm stuck on.
@angryboyd Yes, but there's 2 problems. First, the argument of humans are special will break at some point. At most when we figure out how to do full brain simulations. And second, that's like saying eletronic comuters replaces human computers in the 1900s. Why is this case differemt? It's not about what feels right. It's about what is logically consistant and correct. I want to have a consistant belief and refect the real world. · 1 month ago
also, while AI are capable of adapting in response to change, they are not people. AI does not possess genuine self-awareness (see the chinese room scenario). It does not think for itself, it's a very fancy math equation, with lots of input and outputs, but not much more. I'm not opposed to the use of it as a tool, even in art, but it's not worth the direction that the art industry is turning with it. · 1 month ago
we could have a long debate about the value of humanity in art or whatever but frankly i don't think that's going to get us anywhere; there's little appreciation for art or ethics in tech and i'm not about to dig for it in the hearts of strangers. the problem is automation and the effect it has on jobs; companies will do anything to cut costs, and labor is percieved as the largest cost. embracing and enabling this technology is already leading companies to use AI art generation in place of hiring actual artists. art is already high effort low reward as an industry; AI is only making it worse. · 1 month ago
@anthrax how is a human learning a particular style or technique any different to an AI model learning the same? An artist or model will both take examples of others styles or techniques and attempt to emulate them. Most humans would not apply those skills to create fraudulent works for profit but rather use those new skills in concert with others to produce original pieces. A well designed generative AI solution will essentially do the same; only regurgitating an existing piece of art if it were serverely overfitted, exceptionally unlucky or designed and trained in a way so as to intentionally do so. · 1 month ago
Also, people just enjoy a human touch. Art is an inherently human creation, so when it becomes automated, it feels less authentic. And perceived inauthenticity goes a long way in deciding what people find valuable in art. · 1 month ago
I think you're looking at it from a really technical perspective. Even though you can freely download and repost an artist's work because that's how browsers work, most artists prefer you ask permission before doing so. AI takes and trains on artists' work without their permission, and can lead to them completely recreating one artist's style or just spitting out one of their works unchanged. Also most of these big AI art generators ask for payment to use them, so they're "stealing" from human artists for profit and giving no compensation to those whose works make up the dataset. · 1 month ago
Edit: Artists agree others to download and decoce because that's the only way any browser can display their work.
I guess I want to understand where I'm wrong and keep my believes consistant with each other. · 1 month ago
[1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.03725.pdf - Predictive Coding Can Do Exact Backpropagation on Convolutional and Recurrent Neural Networks · 1 month ago