Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • MentalEdge
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The randomness used by current machine learning to train the neural networks, will never be able to do what a human does when they are being creative.

    I have no doubt AI art will be able “say” things. But it wont be saying things, that haven’t already been said.

    And yes, AI can brute force its way to solutions in ways humans cannot beat. But that only works when there is a solution. So AI works with science, engineering, chess.

    Art does not have a “solution”. Every answer is valid. Humans are able to create good art, because they understand the question. “What is it to be human?” “Why are we here?” “What is adulthood?” “Why do I feel this?” “What is innocence?”

    AI does not understand anything. All it is doing is mimicking art already created by humans, and coincidentally sometimes getting it right.

    • @kava
      link
      English
      51 year ago

      AI can brute force its way to solutions in ways humans cannot beat

      It’s not brute force. It seems like brute force because trying something millions of times seems impossible to us. But they identify patterns and then use those patterns to create output. It’s learning. It’s why we call it “machine learning”. The mechanics are different than how humans do it, but fundamentally it’s the same.

      The only reason you know what a tree looks like is because you’ve seen a million different trees. Trees in person, trees in movies, trees in cartoons, trees in drawings, etc. Your brain has taken all of these different trees and merged them together in your brain to create an “ideal” of the tree. Sort of like Plato’s “world of forms”

      AI can recognize a tree through the same process. It views millions of trees and creates an “ideal” tree. It can then compare any image it sees against this ideal and determine the probability that it is or isn’t a tree. Combine this with something that randomly pumps out images and you can now compare these generated images with the internal model of a tree and all of a sudden you have an AI that can create novel images of trees.

      It’s fundamentally the same thing we do. It’s creating pictures of trees that didn’t exist before. The only difference is it happens in a statistical model and it happens at a larger and faster scale than humans are capable of.

      This is why the question of AI models having to pay copyright for content it parses is not obvious at all.

      Art does not have a “solution”. Every answer is valid.

      If every answer is valid then you would be sitting here saying that AI art is just as valid as anything else.

      • MentalEdge
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A human can understand what a tree is, after seeing one, maybe two. If you show a human a new species, they can effortlessly fit that into their understanding of reality.

        An AI machine learning network needs to be shown thousands. Often hundreds of thousands. And the way it “learns” is nothing like what humans do. We do not shuffle our neurons around until we get it right. Given good data, we just get it right.

        And even then, you can still make images that aren’t trees which will fool an ML model into saying they are. They work nothing like humans. The similarities are superficial, at best. The resulting model can be compared to a brain, but it is orders of magnitude more static.

        And no, AI art is not a valid answer. To create a valid answer, you must understand the question.

        4 is the correct answer to 2+2. But there is a difference in knowing that, and understanding the math for WHY its correct. AI can create correct answers to the question that is art, but not valid ones. For that, you need the human artist.

        • @kava
          link
          English
          31 year ago

          For that, you need the human artist

          Art isn’t defined by the creator, but the observer. I can run a line through a piece of paper and call it art as a joke, but perhaps someone sees some form of message in the line and it impacts them. The meaningless becomes meaningful only because it is viewed through a being that can assign meaning to nonsense.

          And even then, you can still make images that aren’t trees which will fool an ML model into saying they are

          You can make an image that isn’t a tree that will fool humans into saying they are. So what?

          They work nothing like humans. The similarities are superficial, at best We do not shuffle our neurons around until we get it right.

          Please explain to me how these two things are different.

          a) human goes through and studies the more than 20,000 works of andy warhol. he is inspired and creates various different artworks in a similar style.

          b) AI goes through and parses the same 20,000 works on andy warhol. it uses a statistical algorithm to pump out various different artworks in a similar style.

          What is the difference? Because a) isn’t copyright infringement. You are allowed to take a style and copy it. Only specific works can be copyrighted.

          You are trying to claim the AI and human learning is different - and it IS different because we are biological and machines are statistical models. You can find a million similarities and a million differences. But specifically, in the context of using copyrighted works to make novel content - what is the difference? To me, it looks identical

          1- take in data 2- use data to create new things

          Why should a) be allowed and b) not be allowed?

          • MentalEdge
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Claiming artistic expression is solely in the eye of the beholder discards the very definition of that second word.

            Art is communication. Remove the human source, and it becomes a message without a sender.

            Yes, you can still get value out of that, but it removes the reasons why art is culturally significant. It’s a discussion. Not just a monologue from ourselves to ourselves.