←back to thread

1503 points participant3 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jauntywundrkind ◴[] No.43575060[source]
Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.

One thing I would say, it's interesting to consider what would make this not so obviously bad.

Like, we could ask AI to assess the physical attributes of the characters it generated. Then ask it to permute some of those attributes. Generate some random tweaks: ok but brawy, short, and a different descent. Do similarly on some clothing colors. Change the game. Hit the "random character" button on the physical attributes a couple times.

There was an equally shatteringly-awful less-IP-theft (and as someone who thinks IP is itself incredibly ripping off humanity & should be vastly scoped down, it's important to me to not rest my arguments on IP violations).... An equally shattering recent incident for me. Having trouble finding it, don't remember the right keywords, but an article about how AI has a "default guy" type that it uses everywhere, a super generic personage, that it would use repeatedly. It was so distasteful.

The nature of 'AI as compression', as giving you the most median answer is horrific. Maybe maybe maybe we can escape some of this trap by iterating to different permutations, by injecting deliberate exploration of the state spaces. But I still fear AI, worry horribly when anyone relies on it for decision making, as it is anti-intelligent, uncreative in extreme, requiring human ingenuity to budge off its rock of oppressive hypernormality that it regurgitates.

replies(12): >>43575108 #>>43575193 #>>43575230 #>>43575342 #>>43575482 #>>43575832 #>>43576291 #>>43579027 #>>43579936 #>>43581419 #>>43582536 #>>43584432 #
Pet_Ant ◴[] No.43575342[source]
> Obviously a horrible hideous theft machine.

I hate how it is common to advance a position to just state a conclusion as if it were a fact. You keep repeating the same thing over and over until it seems like a concensus has been reached instead of an actual argument reasoned from first principle.

This is no theft here. Any copyright would be flimsier than software patents. I love Studio Ghibli (including $500/seat festival tickets) but it's the heart and the detail that make them what they are. You cannot clone that. Just some surface similarity. If that's all you like about the movies... you really missed the point.

Imagine if in early cinema someone had tried to claim mustachioed villian, ditsy blonde, or dumb jock? These are just tropes and styles. Quality work goes much much much deeper, and that cannot be synthesised. I can AI generate a million engagement rings, but I cannot pick the perfect one that fits you and your partners love story.

PS- the best work they did was "When Marnie was There". Just fitted together perfectly.

replies(3): >>43576958 #>>43578177 #>>43590580 #
asadotzler ◴[] No.43576958[source]
>it's the heart and the detail that make them what they are. You cannot clone that

You absolutely can and these theft machines are proving that, literally cloning those details with very high precision and fidelity.

replies(1): >>43582939 #
1. Pet_Ant ◴[] No.43582939{3}[source]
I didn't mean visual fidelity, I meant the way that plot and theme and art interleave. I first watched My Neighbour Totoro on VHS with no visual fidelity and it was still magic.

You can easily steal the style of a political cartoon or especially XKCD but you cannot steal or generate genuine fresh insight or poignant relevant metaphor for the current moment.