It seems odd to complain that computers are using human's artwork to inspire their own creations. Every human artist has done the exact same thing in their lifetime; it's unavoidable.
It seems odd to complain that computers are using human's artwork to inspire their own creations. Every human artist has done the exact same thing in their lifetime; it's unavoidable.
It's like a very complicated form of linear interpolation:
a*x + (1-a)*y
These systems do not "think". Today I spent all day mulling an idea, experimenting with variations, feeling frustrated or excited, imagining it, simulating it, making mistakes, following paths of reasoning, deducing facts, revisiting dead-ends with new insight, daydreaming, talking to my wife about it, etc. That's human thought.These models do not "think" like a human, they do not dream or imagine or feel. They run a feed-forward system of linear equations (matrix multiplications).
They INTERPOLATE HUMAN WORK.
They don't exist without training data (huge amounts of intellectual property) aggregated and interpolated in a monstrous perversion of "fair use":
https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa...
Starve the machine. Without your work, it's got nothing.
It's a problem of scale.
> Because if anything, I think AI-generated art is in the process of disproving this exact hypothesis
But it's not creating anything, it's regurgitating it's training material (through a suitably fine blender) in the way that scores best. These models are nothing without the actual art they've appropriated.