ChatGPT turned generative AI into an “anything tool”

Get one of the better llama versions fine-tuned on code (e.g. WizardCoder), take your entire code base and create embeddings from it, put those into a vector database.

Now, every time you ask your LLM a question about your code base, you first turn that prompt into an embedding and perform a search on your vector database. The results of that search are appended as context to the actual prompt before passing it to the LLM itself.

There's tons of packages that help with all of that, Langchain and Faiss are probably the most popular right now.

Language models can often reproduce an entire book. And image models like midjourney can reproduce lots of copyrighted art more or less flawlessly: https://ceoln.wordpress.com/2022/12/16/some-light-infringeme...

Because he already got paid enough to keep him going during the forthcoming drought caused by AI absorbing all the water.

Does that seems ok to you ? Today it’s the books and pictures but later it’s going to be anything.

I mean to produce anything it requires time, effort, money. They steal the end result, and produce any variation possible and make money out of it.

Your point would only be valid if OpenAI would be 100% free. It’s not

Criminality and perusing science not only aren't exclusive, they aren't even related. Would you try that same argument if you were stealing physical goods for your experiments?

We have tons of example of unethical and illegal things being done in the name of science. IRBs didn't come into existence because being a scientist wanting to further science automatically makes you moral or justified. I trust I don't need to list the various experiments.

Meanwhile, to return to what King said. That something doesn't worry someone worth more than half a billion dollars with a 5 decade career at the top of their game and iconic name recognition is not an indication that the thing is irrelevant, especially to people in the same line of work.

You can say you don't like copyright, but that's not what you are focusing on.

Ideas and artwork are qualitatively different. Artwork, it’s right there in the name. It takes work to create pictures/art. It’s more serious than stealing just ideas, which I agree are economically worthless until executed.

> Gaye's family argued that the songs were not merely stylistically similar; instead, they claim that "many of the main vocal and instrumental themes of "Blurred Lines" are rooted in "Got to Give It Up"; namely, the signature phrase, vocal hook, backup vocal hook, their variations, and the keyboard and bass lines" and "the substantial similarities are the result of many of the same deliberate creative choices made by their respective composers."

And they won. I don't agree with the outcome, but I do think it's an interesting benchmark. Obviously, this trial would've never been a thing if "Blurred Lines" wasn't a big hit. Something simlar could apply to a major brand using text-to-image generated material that was strikingly similar to a prominent photographer or artist, if they sued.

I wonder what's going to be the first big case having to deal with this.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharrell_Williams_v._Bridgepor...

You toss this out as though "Intellectual Property" is this concept you don't understand as (probably) a software developer of some sort, and beyond that, an entire divison of law, to which most companies have entire floors if not entire buildings of lawyers to deal with.

> We’re talking about pictures.

I'm talking about all art in all media. There is generative music, you know. And yes the big ones for now are the text, which has been trained on millions of blog posts, reddit posts, written works creative and otherwise, all, and I will keep saying it, without the permission of the authors by and large and similarly things like MidJourney which in turn were trained on massive imagesets with different specializations, but whose sources included: photographers, illustrators, painters, furries, and likely millions of people drawing in the anime style, *also without their permission.*

> If you believe that training models on art is stealing, then I’m a master ninja, since I’m the creator of books3. And even Stephen King today came out and said that he’s fine with it

I mean, you tell me. You created a thing you stand to profit from (even if indirectly via name recognition) via the use of IP you didn't have the rights to and got permission from ONE affected individual, after the fact. If you want to be ethically in the clear, why not get permission from everyone else? Then you're done. I suspect because a) it will be a substantial amount of work and b) that you know very well most people are not going to be comfortable with their creative output being used to train a machine who aren't already rich, which means a much, much smaller dataset to use.

And if it makes you feel better you can frame as all as zealotous luddites who want to smash your machine, but again, for the record, I do find this interesting. The only part I take issue with is rent-seekers trying to monetize access to them to monied entities, and what said monied entities are going to do with them: which is largely generate spam to sell at whatever price they can manage.

> If he’s not worried, why are you?

I'm not a creative, I'm not worried for me. I just don't like what's about to happen to creatives. I don't like technology being wielded by people who don't have skin in the game, who don't respect the creative process. I frankly find it incredibly offputting how ready and frankly gleeful everyone in my field is to put millions of people to pasture with no plan for how they're to make a living, especially given how hard it is to do so as an artist already.

I just cannot conceive of someone who's like "we should automate creative processes so humans have more time for spreadsheets and time cards" and just... UGH. What in god's name sort of world are we even trying to build anymore!?

> I take a dim view of people trying to frame researchers as criminals. We’re not. We want to further science. That’s all.

I'm sure Oppenheimer did too.

> You call me a grifter,

To be clear, I called users of your model grifters, not you personally.

> but I’ve made roughly a hundred bucks from books3, and that’s because someone found my patron buried under a pile of links and subscribed to it many months ago. Most of my researcher colleagues seem to have similar distaste for wanting to make money. The work is the goal.

That doesn't change the fact that what you guys are building will be used to inflict catastrophic societal harm by people who are not looking to "do the work" as you'd put it. They're looking to maximize profits because it's their contractual obligation. If they can make one designer do the work of a hundred by feeding them a drip of AI generated garbage to tweak to something usable, they will in a heartbeat *AND YOU KNOW THAT.*

Unless they agreed to provide their work for that purpose for free.

Postulate #1: Image generation models would not exist without large amounts of training data from current artists.

Postulate #2: Every major AI company either trained directly on public web scraped datasets or is murky about what they train on.

Theft at scale does not somehow make it not theft. Stealing 1/100th of a penny 10 billion times is still stealing.

And when you repackage the results of that theft in a profit generating machine, and then label it not theft because "it's a whole new thing," you start to sound like a CDO apologist.

And look, I get it -- it's about money.

It's always about money.

You may not be making any off your work, but that's immaterial because lots of huge companies are making obscene amounts of money from doing this (or expect to be in the future).

At the same time, it is an excellent tool. Art without human time! It will eliminate a lot of artist jobs, but everyone as a whole will be better off (because we're swapping human labor for electricity).

However, the currently vogue "artists don't deserve anything" smacks more of "we don't want to share profits during the transition period" than a cohesive moral argument.

We can have an AI future, but we should be honest about what enabled that. And we should compensate those people during the transition.

Hell, AI tax. Paid to everyone who created a work in a scraped dataset. Sunset in 30 years. Done.

Can you point to some scientific result(s) that you have produced?

You sure give the profit motive a lot of due for someone who claims to be above it.

Hard work and perseverance is a human instinct that is undermined by antisocial institutions like copyright, which has no precedent absent the barbaric mode of relations we call capitalism.

We're talking about the fruit of someone else's skilled labor and the long labor that went into developing the skills.

If you're so certain that's not valuable, well, then it shouldn't be any hardship to forgo that entirely and simply figure out some other way to get trained models.

If it is valuable, then maybe it's worth treating it as if it is, both in terms of compensation and determination. Not only for moral accounting but also because of economic feedback: if it's not treated like it's valuable, then it will become less frequent that people can invest time and other resources into doing it.

The art world itself has already asked many of these questions 60 years ago, when Warhol made Campbell's soup can art, and then people used that template to turn other brands into art.

"I'll keep saying it every time this comes up. I LOVE being told by techbros that a human painstaking studying one thing at a time, and not memorizing verbatin but rather taking away the core concept, is exactly the same type of "learning" that a model does when it takes in millions of things at once and can spit out copyrighted code verbatim."

So, you're evidently not a designer?

Congratulations, you just got fired from Apple.

I'll wager within five-ten years, ML Generated Art will be churning out content of that an experienced artist is capable of. In seconds, compared to months, years it takes for an artist. And once we master the formula of emotion, it's game over.

Stream AI/ML a real-life drone fed weather catastrophe and watch it produce an realistic journalistic news cast.

A manual-operated lathe was once assisted with human input, that then evolved in to an automated lathe, that then was aided by CAD and now with the aide of 3D printers, you no longer need the manual labor that once used to manually create an object from a block of wood, metal.

AI/ML is the new lathe of the digital world. It's a powerful tool that right now can aide with artists. But that will evolve, concept work won't be required and skill will be lost.

It's destined to be. It will replace artists, writers, journalists, news casters and other creative outlets.

Why? Because you don't have to pay AI.

It has for my personal projects. I used to hire freelance designers often. I see no need anymore.

> Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce.

Disagree, unless you believe we weren't that close to good 2D art generators a few years ago. Maybe 3D is different, but things can move surprisingly fast.

> And yes - it will make sense to physically draw stuff, because it's a much better way to tell the AI what to do.

Is that drawing? I write music as a hobby. If you told me I could strum some chords and give a model a rough beat and it would produce music 10x better and a 10,000x faster than myself I'd just stop doing it. What's the point? It's the complexity that makes it interesting, not the output. I'm guessing the fun part of being an artist isn't creating the rough initial sketches, but the complexity of getting the exact shadings and fine details perfect. Perhaps some people view it differently though.

"Not any time soon" in computer years is "not in the next nine months or so".

> Proper 3D art generators don't even exist yet. The ones that do are useless toys. We aren't even close to generators that can output anything even close to what a beginner 3D artist can produce.

The original DALL•E was terrible. DALL•E 2 was 15 months later, and was good enough to be interesting. 15 months after DALL•2, out comes SDXL.

That it is still better to use a sketch than an ex-nihilo prompt: I agree, but it doesn't seem to support your claim "not going to replace artists" — if a talentless hack can wipe stains of Nacho cheese from their fingers into a vague humanoid shape with the same attention to anatomical correctness as a child with crayons, take a photo of the now un-recyclable waste, and get useful result when they ask an AI to turn in into "a wizard riding a motorcycle up the side of the Empire State Building"… then talented artists already have an economic problem.

Are you assuming people should know what their AI assistant can do without asking? Because I'm saying that a tool not doing some arbitrary task it never implied it could isn't surprising, I don't think anyone has proposed what you just said.

Models like DeepFloyd IF work in pixel space, without learning a latent space. This means they can capture much more detail, but require more computational power. This is why these types of models usually rely on creating a smaller image and then using a separate model to upscale the image.