If you thought Spiderman V Elsa was bad just wait until you see this lot.
OH GREAT.
Adding the narration from the GPT-3 story is easier than automating background music and sound effects.
I don't like this world at all. I really really don't.
It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them, who are otherwise the sweetest. I'm afraid of how their generation is going to turn out after being so attacked by the media they unwittingly consume in their childhood.
For one these videos are hilarious.
on the other hand you wouldn't be bothering them if they went to a museum of surrealist art
If anything blame the parents for not teaching boundaries.
And ultimately:
> It's very scary how violent these kids get when I take it away from them
stop stealing acquaintances' kids' property it's rarely a good look for a grown ass man to sidestep parents.
Every parent who reads this is getting a full, hearty laugh, thank you.
GPT-3 style language models assemble nonsense with similar statistical properties to the (hopefully) meaningful text in their training corpus, and that's it. At best, they are engines for contextually regurgitating chunks of real information, but in practice it's more like reaching for a volume from a lightly curated shelf of Borges' Total Library; self-cast shadows of information that roil and collapse into meaninglessness. The technique is fundamentally untrustworthy for any application with real stakes.
GPT-3, I think, is most dangerous when it comes to reducing the amount of propaganda a human has to write in order to be 'taken seriously.' Long essays and long articles in major publications are taken seriously, but how many people read to the end? With GPT-3 a human propagandist can get away with writing a headline and initial paragraph. The filler text - that's required to make the article 'weighty' enough to be taken seriously can be GPT-3. That's one of the initial applications I see in terms of manufacturing consent and propaganda.
It's one of hundreds of skills it has.
I think you overestimate the difficulty of exploiting our sense of novelty.
Amazon too via Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) with AI-generated illustrated children books. I can imagine a future of personalised AI children books featuring your son or daughter in the story.
But yours is FAR more dystopiatech...
We need a cultural practice which prohibits ANY child from screen time until age ~5 -- and 50% of daylight time must be spent outside, where possible.
Techno-Hippies (CyberAmish?)
(IIRC their terms say they won't claim any ownership of GPT-3 output though.)
https://www.theverge.com/2022/2/21/22944335/us-copyright-off...
But "AI art" generally has human involvement of some form, and the standard for that is very low. The specific case of submitting for copyright and claiming that no human input was involved means that the copyright office can take that claim for face value. That doesn't mean AI art generally doesn't qualify for copyright, you just need to "admit to" human involvement of some form. And it's unclear if AI art without human involvement even is a thing.
E.g. if as discussed in the subthread here we are talking about claims of copyright infringement, the first thing the claiment is going to assert is that humans had input into your "AI", and good luck disproving that (especially for the even more specific example here were the people making the claim were involved in building the core of your "AI", so even if you find an argument that your work wasn't human involvement you still need to disprove their claim that their work was!).
The linked decision doesn't even say that. It says an AI can't own its own work. It doesn't say anything about human ownership of works created by a machine.
Given the court ruling I linked earlier OpenAI almost definitely does not have ownership over the output of the AI, which is what they claim.
As for the authors of the training data, they still enjoy the copyrights over the works they created. Images generated by DALL-E only copy the style, something humans are also allowed to do. Anyway, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube, now we have to live with image and text models. Next year we'll be shocked at video models that can play games, accomplish meaningful office work and also generate long videos.
From the Verge article: "So if someone tried to copyright a similar work by arguing it was a product of their own creativity executed by a machine, the outcome might look different."