Hoasi

> Is our society built on trust?

A good part of society, the foundational part, is trust. Trust between individuals, but also trust in the sense that we expect things to behave in a certain way. We trust things like currencies despite their flaws. Our world is too complex to reinvent the wheel whenever we need to do a transaction. We must believe enough in a make-believe system to avoid perpetual collapse.

What an interesting—and I believe valid—take.

Whether this is intentional by the document's authors or not doesn't matter. The outcome is likely more undemocratic centralization of power, forcing policies people do not want under the guise of competitive efficiency.

You could say it's better than rallying people against an inexistent threat. Besides, you could also argue that Europeans do not necessarily want to be more competitive.

While the relative benefits of a large market and (relative) peace are a consensus, the rest of the European project is opaque at best and only reflects the aspirations of a few people living in a bubble.

If Mark went scorched earth on AI, you can bet it is not for the sake of generosity.

> All the actual creative people I know don't care what other people are doing. What other people are doing is usually a sign of what not to do if you want to be creative.

100%

AI wouldn't help their app in the slightest. Taking an anti "AI" stance aligns with their business. It's a perfectly rational decision. Now, that doesn't take anything away from being a heartfelt decision, too.

> You can tell me about the math, theories and laws but look around you, nobody cares about those any more.

It's true. Just a few years back, design thinking was all the rage. Nowadays, even apps from flagship companies feel all over the place. Attention to detail, unobtrusive interface, intelligent symbols, subdued color palettes, rich illustrations, all that is out the window now. Why should we need good design when we can replace it with cheaper "AI" templates?

It seems unfortunate that they inflicted pain and negative experiences on animals to prove common knowledge.

Thank you for these recommendations.

Exactly. It’s undemocratic. It’s also unwise strategically.

Microsoft doing Microsoft things…

The whole picture reeks of bad taste. The hands are particularly terrible. Total fail! But then again, maybe it's due to a poor prompt.

Sound strategy by Adobe.

Absolutely. I always buy music from artists to support them on Bandcamp. Spotify lets you discover bands that are little known, which is cool, but it's not a place that enables you to support those artists. Unfortunately, Bandcamp might also change since they are changing owners.

Maybe it just indicates a general AI buzzwords fatigue, regardless of actual progress in the field.

Let's hope so.

Companies coming up with outlandish claims on April 1st can look fun or enticing, and that's great PR. Otherwise, when a company does it because it's April 1st or worse, the CEO is the only one who thinks it's fun...it's just cringe.

OpenAI starts looking slightly desperate.

No surprise here.

> The best answer I can give is "good taste"

Midjourney's initial success was a combination of elusive marketing and a unique style. They focused on building a large community and took advantage of constant feedback.

> (I am not talking about the old "houses" - those are about the logo, but new brands are different)

Have you looked at Hermès' business model? It has never been about their logo. They'll often hide it from their product.

> Implied in the fair use argument is that it is a derivative work.

You can get all LLMs to spit out almost exact copies of known IP visuals from movies and games. For instance, with Dalle-E and Midjourney, it's relatively easy to get similar pictures from film and game studios. Those are copies with minor changes. It would be hard to argue otherwise in court. The same happens with ChatGPT spitting out verbatim passages from New York Times articles.

Not really. Large language models' output is creative only insofar as you prompt them to mix data. It allows you to create combinations that nobody has seen before. On its own, an LLM is incapable of producing anything creative. Hallucinating due to a lack of data is the closer it comes to autonomous creativity. Happy accidents are an unreliable creativity source. This type of creativity is amusing but doesn't solve any existing problem today.

Quality is a hard sell in almost every field in a world that values immediacy over the long term.

> I disagree, just look at the legs of the woman in the first video.

The people behind her all walk at the same pace and seem like floating. The moving reflections, on the other hand, are impressive make-believe.

Agreed, by some definitions, specifically associating unrelated things, models are already creative.

Hallucinations are highly creative as well. But unless the technology changes, large language models will need human-made training substrate data for a long time to operate.

It's automating some of the craftsmanship part, which is substantial, but in a sense, it also threatens the creative part.

It's already very tempting for large entertainment businesses to create lazy remakes as it involves less risk. Automating creative jobs will create a shift at the production level but also on the receiving end: the public.

> As of now, the models still need large amounts of human produced creative works for training.

That will likely always be the case. Even 100% synthetic data has to come from somewhere. Great synopsis! Working for hire to feed a machine that regurgitates variations of the missing data sounds dystopian. But here we are, almost there.

> AI is automating the creative, intellectual work and leaving the rest to us.

Indeed, there is a risk it completely devalues creative jobs. That's ironic. Even if you can still use AI creatively, it removes the pleasure of creating. Prompting feels like filling Excel sheets while also feeding a pachinko machine.

> If you tried to replace all of a devs duties with current LLMs it would be a disaster,

Overall a chatbot like GPT-4 may be useful, but not that useful as it stands.

If you can write well, it's not really going to improve your writing. Granted, you can automate a few tasks, but it does not give you 10X or even 2X improvement as sometimes advertised.

It might be useful here and there for coding, but it's not reliable.

> I would argue the current system of copyright has been largely harmful to creativity for a long time now

I'd love to hear that argument.

How has the current system of copyright been harmful to creativity?

> I can semi-draw with AI help. Good enough.

Good for you. But that's not drawing, though. You won't know what drawing is until you try. Then you'll come back with more questions. It's an open-ended endeavor.

Drawing is not something you solve with an app.

That's why the whole premise of this thread is a bit sad. AI is a tool that bypasses the joy (and the point) of drawing entirely.

> This is entirely not the point.

It's not the point for you. Fine.

For the record, I'm not advocating for laws or banning AI. It's an impressive technology you can use in a myriad of ways. Ethical ways would be preferable.

Using AI does not make you an artist, just as having a pencil in your hand doesn't make you a qualified draughtsman.

AI's whole value, the dada, was obtained without living artists' consent. That's a fact. Without data, there are no images, no spirals, nothing. The unfortunate side effect is that, at scale, it devalues these artworks. Prompting AI tools, you get a synthetic substitute for art made by real people.

If that is what you want, why not? If you sell this spiral as your art, it becomes slightly more complicated.

> Be very careful that in banning AI learning you do not also ban human learning. A law that covers one might also cover the other.

False equivalency.

And again, I'm not advocating for banning anything. AI art, or imagery, if it's not art, who cares, is not going away. Whether AI output is stunning, incredibly beautiful, or cheap, synthetic, the equivalent of junk food, is already pretty clear. The question becomes: who owns it?

Perhaps artists will find ways to make it better and truly impressive. That said, it's not unreasonable for artists to ask back some of the value they unwillingly provided. Or just for their work to be removed from the pool of data scraped by AI companies.