That's good!
Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.
Acting like it's a bad thing is just ludditery.
Today, clothing is cheap and plentiful, along with bedding, curtains, towels and other cloth materials. Clothing would be outrageously expensive if everything were still hand spun, hand loomed, hand cut, hand sewn, and hand screened.
If the human computers[1] that predated the rise of the machine computer had done the same and won, it would have certainly been a boon for them at the time as well, but to the loss of all information technology developed hence.
The lack of a social safety net lent desperation to the luddites. Had they not faced imminent ruin and starvation as the machines eclipsed their occupation, they may not have had need to rebel against the newly emerging textiles mechanization.
AI may eventually replace traditional artists in many situations. Surely with simple images today, we can expect video examples in the future, and interactive AI generated simulations some time after that.
Do we smash the data centers now to save the artists' livelihoods and thereby avoid a future where anyone that wants can talk a computer through creating entire interactive fictional worlds via the synthesis of AI generation with feedback from their imagination?
[1] referring here to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
Yes, the sooner, the better.
I remember when I started working on generative models in 2015, you could barely generate a picture of a blurry 40x40 pixels face. Two years later 1024x1024 almost indistinguishable from reality. Now every week we have a new revolutionary application coming out.
Society needs to change the laws regarding the preservation of value of intellectual labor, as has long been suggested.
Acting like the law doesn’t matter is a bad thing, if we are making value judgements.
>the generative AI system censors any output containing a category of error
I can see the ruleset now…
"This picture of a woman is revealing hair, so it must be censored because it is objectionable to some people and we must respect all people whose beliefs are guided in a sanctioned way."
"This picture shows unadulterated fun, which must be censored because…"
etc.
etc.
I tried to be as general as possible.
The training data for a self-censorship neural network could be as robust as any given society would like.
An algorithm based on self-censorship of generated output wouldn’t require censorship within the training data for the generative neural network.
I can imagine some other advantages to that approach.
Disney have won cases in court were some artist has drawn their own version of Mickey Mouse, similarly try writing a story about some kids in a wizard school and you need to be extremely careful not to violate (or at least get taken to court) for Harry Potters copyright.
I'm pretty certain image production models have produced some images which would very likely to be judged to violate copyright (a much less strong statement).