←back to thread

An image of an archeologist adventurer who wears a hat and uses a bullwhip

(theaiunderwriter.substack.com)
1503 points participant3 | 1 comments | 03 Apr 25 17:55 UTC | HN request time: 0.302s | source
Show context
MgB2 ◴[03 Apr 25 20:24 UTC] No.43574927[source]▶
Idk, the models generating what are basically 1:1 copies of the training data from pretty generic descriptions feels like a severe case of overfitting to me. What use is a generational model that just regurgitates the input?

I feel like the less advanced generations, maybe even because of their limitations in terms of size, were better at coming up with something that at least feels new.

In the end, other than for copyright-washing, why wouldn't I just use the original movie still/photo in the first place?

replies(13): >>43575052 #>>43575080 #>>43575231 #>>43576085 #>>43576153 #>>43577026 #>>43577350 #>>43578381 #>>43578512 #>>43578581 #>>43579012 #>>43579408 #>>43582494 #
RataNova ◴[04 Apr 25 06:40 UTC] No.43579012[source]▶
Yeah, I've been feeling the same. When a model spits out something that looks exactly like a frame from a movie just because I typed a generic prompt, it stops feeling like “generative” AI and more like "copy-paste but with vibes."
replies(1): >>43579124 #
1. FeepingCreature ◴[04 Apr 25 06:59 UTC] No.43579124[source]▶
To my knowledge this happens when that single frame is overrepresented in its training data. For instance, variations of the same movie poster or screenshot may appear hundreds of times. Then the AI concludes that this is just a unique human cultural artifact, like the Mona Lisa (which I would expect many human artists could also reproduce from memory).