Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work::Three visual artists are suing artificial intelligence image-generators to protect their copyrights and careers.

  • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    This is what it always comes down to - you have this fuzzy feeling that AI art is not real art, but the deeper you dig, the harder it gets to draw a real distinction. This is because your arguments aren’t rooted in actual definitions, so instead of clearly explaining the difference between A and B, you handwave it away due to C, which you also don’t explain.

    I once held positions similar to yours, but after analysing the topic much much deeper I arrived at my current positions. I can clearly answer all the questions I posed to you. You should consider whether you not being able to means anything regarding your own position.

    • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      I am able to answer your questions for myself. I have lost interest in doing so for you.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        But can you do so from the ground up, without handwaving towards the next unexplained reason? That’s what you’ve done here so far.

        • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Yes.

          I once held a view similar to the one you present now. I would consider my current opinion further advanced, like you do yours.

          You ask for elaboration and verbal definitions, I’ve been concise because I do not wish to spend time on this.

          It is clear we cannot proceed further without me doing so. I have decided I won’t.

            • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Not today. I have too much else to do.

              And it’s not like my being concise makes my argument absent.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                1 year ago

                The issue isn’t you being concise, it’s throwing around words that don’t have a clear definition, and expecting your definition to be broadly shared. You keep referring to understanding, and yet objective evidence towards understanding is only met with “but it’s not creative”.

                • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  1·
                  1 year ago

                  Are you suggesting there is valid evidence modern ML models are capable of understanding?

                  I don’t see how that could be true for any definition of the word.

                  • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    1 year ago

                    As I’ve shared 3 times already: Yes, there is valid evidence that modern ML models are capable of understanding. Why do I have to repeat it a fourth time?

                    I don’t see how that could be true for any definition of the word.

                    Then explain to me how it isn’t true given the evidence:

                    Language models show a surprising range of capabilities, but the source of their apparent competence is unclear. Do these networks just memorize a collection of surface statistics, or do they rely on internal representations of the process that generates the sequences they see? We investigate this question by applying a variant of the GPT model to the task of predicting legal moves in a simple board game, Othello. Although the network has no a priori knowledge of the game or its rules, we uncover evidence of an emergent nonlinear internal representation of the board state. Interventional experiments indicate this representation can be used to control the output of the network and create “latent saliency maps” that can help explain predictions in human terms.

                    https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.13382

                    I don’t see how an emergent nonlinear internal representation of the board state is anything besides “understanding” it.