Hacker News Reader

Comment by KaoruAoiShiho | Hacker News Reader

"Creative application".

That's just going to get automated too. We're in the twilight of art, if not humanity.

This makes art more accessible, but in the end the 'art' aspect comes from what the creator is trying to express, in which case as long as humans (or anything else with a creative drive) exist there will be art.

Just like how photography didn't cause the end of paintings, movies/TV didn't cause the end of stage plays and electronic music didn't replace instruments, all this will do (and to an extent has been done by other generative models) is create a new kind of art.

That’s my take too. Nobody will care for a AI generated painting made with no effort by a computer. Something new, where human effort with an opportunity cost remain, will arise.

Perhaps non-perfection will become the new trend vis-a-vis the opposite today?

But who says that those artists must declare that their artwork came from an AI?

Even on HN, people have already begun to accuse others of writing comments with GPT-3 without disclosing so. Whether joking or not, this feels like a glimpse into future human attitudes towards this breed of creation.

If we equate human-created == valuable, and AI-generated == not valuable, but we as humans cannot reliably tell the difference, then I'm picturing a future of distrust where creators/consumers suspect or accuse each other of fraud.

Such behavior is already prevalent with social media today, so why wouldn't it be amplified even further when new and advanced technology is introduced? DALL-E 2 isn't even at an AGI-level and it has already cleared some people's bar for what qualifies as "production-ready art."

I also recall the recent article where Ed Sheeran said he films his creative processes to prove he was the true author - and that was an authorship case solely involving human-created works. In the future, "pure" artists might have to adapt a similar protocol to protect those kinds of virtues.

The forum singularity will be reached when the GPT-3 generated responses themselves include accusations of writing comments via GPT3.

100%, and it will be peak HN when the whole argument takes place on a tangent on a thread about DALL-E.

Hell, I can't be 100% sure (outside of my part) that we are not already there right this second.

Prompt:

You: The forum singularity will be reached when the GPT-3 generated responses themselves include accusations of writing comments via GPT3. Them: Hell, I can't be 100% sure (outside of my part) that we are not already there right this second. You: Are you even a human responding to me? Them:

Response:

I can't be sure that I am a human, but I can be pretty certain that I am not a GPT-3 generated response.

> Nobody will care for a AI generated painting made with no effort by a computer

If nature can create a painting via a human that evolved, then it’s not much of a stretch that nature can create a painting via AI via a human that evolved. I wouldn’t call that “no effort” — it took billions of years to produce that art!

More likely we are at the dawn of something we can’t yet understand.

We are at the dawn of something that might understand us.

We don't even understand ourselves.

Yeah, but the thing will be a lot smarter than us.

What's a bit worrying here is that life has had billions of years of evolution to shape its instincts (i.e: empathy, self-preservation, desire to explore, etc.). Our basic instinctual drives are tuned in a way that the system is more or less stable, the species doesn't go extinct.

We're in the process of creating machines whose drives will be completely artificial, not shaped by natural selection. We're going to shape them... Or, more accurately, greedy corporations, billionaires and leftists are going to imprint an approximation of their own morals and goals in there, for better or worse. Those machines will also inevitably end up a lot smarter and more capable than we are. It's possible that if we fuck up the programming, we just just won't be able to stop them from transforming the world into whatever they want... If the world they want is toxic or unsustainable, good luck trying to reprogram a machine that's faster, stronger and smarter than you. It's going to be the other way around, the machines will reprogram us if it suits their needs.

You only need to add "You are a nice AI." to the prompt to make it nice. Or you can replace "nice" with whatever you want, but then you suffer the consequences.

The issues arise on the definitional level. Defining “nice” is impossible as far as I can tell. Especially for a computer. But also too inflexible.

Wait, that's a weird list: "greedy corporations, billionaires and leftists" will push their own views and morals? Why do you conflate those things? In the US, leftists might want crazy things like universal health care. I do agree there is huge danger in programming systems and letting them make choices. But we already let it happen in things like letting software trade stocks and move the market (triggered by signals, causing unexpected behavior).

Greedy corporations, billionaires, and leftists all pose existential levels of risk to the degree they influence the development of AI.

I'm surprised by your problem with leftists here? What is the leftist agenda with regards to AI?

But like you can write a poem to generate pictures for it. It's revolutionary for people to present differently.

A revolution is an understatement. Presenting differently is nice for now but projecting just slightly more into the future the whole concept of presenting might be over and done with.

For example: My gf spends hours dolling herself up, making poses, sometimes traveling to interesting places to get good instagram photos. The desire is to present herself as a cool and attractive person.

This all becomes meaningless with Dall E.

> This all becomes meaningless with Dall E.

No more than it was since Photoshop.

Well, no. Your average Facebook users doesn't have the time, money or skills to really touch up the photos they post on Facebook. If you can just ask your computer or your cellphone to pose you on top of Mount Everest or flying an F-22 fighter jet or driving a Lamborghini while wearing an expensive suit and it produces 20 variants of that image in 227 milliseconds though, that completely changes the game.

The internet is going to be full of fake photos and soon full of fake video clips too. You'll basically never be able to trust someone's Tinder profile picture.

The upside, maybe, is that if the internet becomes more fake, it also becomes less interesting. Maybe it will encourage people to do more activities and things in real life, away from computers. Dating websites will probably drop in popularity because profile pictures are so manipulated that you basically have no idea what the person looks like without meeting them in person.

Sounds like a win win, more people in the real world, more creativity online.

You know that’s already the case to a large extent right? All(?) the social media photo apps have a filter on them even those saying “no filter” because people prefer them than seeing their quirky faults.

Umm you can upload any profile photo you want, right? So how has that changed

It seems like it's the exact same amount of meaningful or meaningless regardless of DALL•E? None of that activity you described is meaningful as-is except for the meaning that she, you, or we project onto it for her having done it. That doesn't necessarily go away. The actions and activities themselves are meaningless. What sets them apart from results produced via DALL•E is precisely that your girlfriend was the agent involved. That can still be true and that quality can still be what makes them meaningful.

For example, robotic welding is incredible, truly a spectacular thing to observe, and the results are often immaculate for certain applications. However, I still pay a premium for handmade bicycle frames because I appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into them compared to mass produced alternatives.

It was all meaningless before. We attached meaning to it all as we grew as a species, but we are not functionally different from our ancestors 10,000 years ago who were just finding their way, who could see the universe, imagine it, creating whole civilizations and fighting wars and battles over the very imaginings in their head.

What's fascinating about DALL-E is that there now exist no barriers to that primitive, but remarkable, imagination. Many people could have envisioned Michelangelo's works. You can probably do that now, if you close your eyes real tight. But Michelangelo could not have created his great works without the funding of the House of Medici.

It wasn't meaningless, there is tangible value that comes out of that activity.

It sounds like you don’t like her.

I like her lol, we talk about social media a lot and she talks about it in this way too.

Or perhaps this just opens doors to new types of art and creativity?

Don’t worry, probably will end up as NFT generator.

han, the humanity will destroy itself with idiots like putin who believe in nuclear strikes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com