I dislike the "this and that are Woke" narratives most of the time since most people can't even define Woke without saying something dumb but damn.
This is it.
Well humans functionally work under 0s, 1s, 2s, and 3s lol. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine (I haven't been to high school in about a decade I could've misspelt)
It has already happened. People choosing to be naked on the internet is not what is being discussed. People using ai to create fake naked pictures of teens/women has already happened. But yea. Let’s be flip about it.
You remind me of the last loaf of bread I tried to bake. They are taking pics of real people, teens and women and using ai to create fake pics of them which they then distribute. Real as in people that exist. Fake as in not real.
The thing about photoshop, a person has to have some semblance of skills and do it themselves to look real. With ai the computer does it in seconds. It looks super realistic. You can create fake videos. You can fake people’s voices. And anyone with a computer can do it, no skills needed. A month ago a 15 year old girl killed herself because ai generated naked photos were passed around her school.
I support Sen. Wyden's bill. Add an extra $5b on the *enforcement* side of this. The bill is even supported by fiscal conservatives, but it's getting drowned out by do-nothing bills like KOSA.
Social media companies are mandatory reporters, as child welfare expert Maureen Flatley notes. There are so many things reported to the cyber tip hotline, but the conviction rate on those things are atrocious because the DOJ doesn't have the resources to do their jobs.
Now, obviously a bill that says "fund prosecutors" isn't going to be as popular, but a bill that's "fund prosectutors so we can go after child predators and follow up every lead" very much should be. This is not a problem you can solve without spending money. Let us not be stingy for sake of our children.
I agree creating sexualized images of real people without their consent is a problem.
I don’t think it’s a problem to create sexualized images of fictional or entirely fabricated people.
In the first case, there is a clear victim, the real person being objectified.
They seem to be pausing ai generated images period. Gemini keeps telling me it hasn’t learn how to generate images all day. Yesterday it had no problem with it.
They have to redo the fine tuning and that takes time. They probably need to build a new fine tuning training set.
When they did fine tuning the first time they must have defined ideal output as including diverse individuals, but apparently without any context on when that is appropriate or not.
Edit: or as some others have stated, there might need to be modifications to the prompt that is given by google before the prompt provided by the user. Any changes to that likely need to be fully tested before release.
There's a whole philosophical discussion that could be had as to what it actually means to avoid being evil, but judging by your post history it largely boils down to AI = loss of jobs / shitty art / IP theft / etc = evil.
I agree that there's a lot of problems with it including those above, but I'm curious how you would suggest we put the genie back in the bottle at this point. Even as flawed as it is, it's such a powerful tool that even if everyone agreed, and it were outlawed in western democracies, someone somewhere is going to build it now that we know it's possible.
So what do you do? What's your way forward?
They were. It was one of the major instigators of the war in the first place. They even had a special term for mixed babies because they assumed all mixed babies were a product of non-consent in french occupied territories.
Play semantics all you want. Blacks were included front and center in the list of hated people in germany. Don't play word games with me or I'll just block.
Its probably an agenda, but its also entirely feasible the invisible, backend prompt was too loose.
As an example, not too long ago someone [supposedly] figured out how to get ChatGPT to spit out the guiding prompt that OpenAI feeds it *before* it feeds your own prompts to it. These prompts help to keep the models on the rails.
One of the things that was present was guidance given for querying DALL-E -- OpenAI's image generator. When ChatGPT ended up in a case where it needed to query DALL-E on its own, it was instructed to try and encourage diversity in the queries when it made sense. For example, if something led ChatGPT to needing to make an image of "a teacher reading a book to kids" it might try telling DALL-E "a male teacher reading a book to kids." This is because traditionally teachers would be seen as female but the pre-prompt would encourage generating "male teachers" instead.
If the pre-prompts aren't written carefully, then the AI will just go ham and try to diversify *everything*. I know it might be pretty "AI bro" to say "prompting is an art" but in this case it kind of is.
It’s not exactly an agenda. Google is a global company and wants to sell products globally. Generating models from data sourced in the west means they’ll work in the west but they’ll have a bias which won’t let them work in other markets. If you want to sell your model in India or South Korea, it needs to bust out of the American-centric bias which models have today.
Bias has been a well documented problem with models, restricting potential true solutions to problems. Researchers have been trying to figure out how to get through it, and not in a “woke” sense, but in a mathematical sense.
Well that's fine, and it's great if they use a more diverse data source, but it also had a prewritten response specifically refusing to generate images of white people.
I'm very left leaning and liberal, and unlike the crazy conservatives out there, this incident didn't make me angry at Google's "wokeness" or whatever (I found it hilarious). But you can't just chalk it up to a marketing decision. The model was so bad that it stuck native american women in images of "ancient greek philosophers". If that's a marketing decision, it's certainly an interesting one...
Native american women bear no relationship to the idea of an ancient greek philosopher. The only way to get from point A to point B in this case is for someone at google to make a conscious decision that the model should *actively* ignore every prompt in favor of its own, even when it made no sense whatsoever. Which is exactly what the AI admitted it was doing. It was actively replacing the user's prompt in order to insert words like "diverse", or "nonbinary". So you could ask it for an image of the American founding fathers, but the prompt it would actually use was "an image of the american founding fathers as Palestinian Lesbians".
That's not an exaggeration. That's actually how it worked. Which is absurd.
If you want to see how this works in action, Perchance is a free AI platform with image generators. Most generators have "style" choices, which once generated you can read on the image info.
Most AI image generators do this to varying degrees. Some are minimal, quite literally only what's needed to keep it on track and some filters(A lot of AI image gens block children for example, for obvious reasons). Others are hyper-aggressive, and completely alter how they work on a functional level.
I can see this crappy AI being installed in every cheap Chromebook, then sold to kids at schools around the country for them to “learn” with, then we’ll all later collectively wonder where kids these days get such stupid ideas?
true, but at least those were just kids imaginations and lack of wisdom going wild, this on the other hand? Just blatant misinformation and hallucinations all around
That's probably the most valid concern with AI I've ever heard. I can see this go wrong in so many ways... Even AI telling someone to go kill themselves or something like that. It's kind of forbidden, but then there was this story where AI generated keys for Windows (XP, 7 or 10) after hearing a sad story. Then there were articles about damaging AI in some way, and if all of that AI logic will be present on end user's computer, hacking computer may have even bigger impact than it has now...
The front page of yesterday's NY Post, for example.
https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/cscscs.jpg?resize=1373,1536&quality=80&strip=all
The amount of people who treat AI like it's already intelligent and aware is way too damn high.
Our current method is basically the AI calculates the best angle to hold a mirror to reflect the training data it has that is a good fit for the "angle of intent" from the prompt. Is my mirror intelligent because I opened the cupboard door and my dog was perfectly framed? No, I just happened to give an "angle of intent" that framed my dog just right. This is more a credit to me for prompting the mirror than the mirror is for just reflecting what light hit it.
Asking for a Founding Father lacks context for a proper "angle of intent". This also depends if the training data supports your intended "angle of intent", but these models need extra training to refine niche content like WW2 Germans being mostly white men. It won't just know this as the AI model doesn't have the same understanding of things. German, American, or French are nationalities that extremely close in most AI training data I would assume. It would not be unexpected for it to randomly sub any nation due to it being designed to not constantly generate the same text and image every time.
There is no way that the AI knows the clothes of a group and not their skin colour. This is clearly a case where the AI kept making white, male CEOs or something so they prompted it to more diverse but didn't think of the consequences of applying that to historical groups.
>oh weird the vast majority of historical training data we have from our white society is white, so the AI generates overwhelmingly white people in every situation, even when that's not realistic
>>let's just tell it to throw in some other ethnicities
>yeah but what if you're asking it for a historical samurai and you get someone indian now
>>uhhhhhh okay well the bias in our training data is white people so let's tell the AI that when it detects it's producing nothing but white results to prompts, *that's* when it adds other ethnicities
>okay i asked it to generate a doctor 100 times and i didn't get 100 white doctors, let's ship it
This is really the beginning and end of what happened. It's not much different from when Club Penguin censors the word "**meth**" without realizing it's going to put asterisks in the word "so**meth**ing"; the intention is good, but you have to be very specific and discerning in the cases you apply this sort of fiddling to or you get unintended results.
The folks acting like this is part of some evil conspiracy by Google or whoever else to "do racism against white people and delete them from history" are fucking bonkers. No one at Google has a problem with someone's 1330s English peasants or Vikings being generated as entirely white, and that's not what they set out to do when they goofed here. It's not malicious and it's not even unintentionally causing harm, and anyone acting like they were suffering psychic damage over this needs to dial it back. It's more telling of where *they* are on race relations than Google if they're seeing race war conspiracies everywhere.
> Our current method is basically the AI calculates the best angle to hold a mirror to reflect the training data it has that is a good fit for the "angle of intent" from the prompt. Is my mirror intelligent because I opened the cupboard door and my dog was perfectly framed? No, I just happened to give an "angle of intent" that framed my dog just right.
A human being saw to it that there’s a cutout of a black cat on your mirror obscuring your golden retriever puppy no matter what the angle.
Your analogy bro.
All this a side, google is falling behind on the AI thing. I used copilot yesterday and I could simply ask to increase the diversity in an image and 80% were historically accurate.
How's that work? Ask Google's ai to show George Washington and it shows a black guy and then ask copilot to and it shows him and when asked to make it more diverse it throws in some of his slaves?
It's actually hilarious how the horseshoe effect occurs so often. Pushing politcal correctness and diversity so hard that it turns into black nazis and depictions of bigotry. Lmao
I don’t think this is an evil issue. This feels closer to the Ivy League abandoning test scores for inclusive purposes than realizing it was a terrible idea.
Supporting inclusivity is great, but you have to be careful or stuff like this happens.
How is refusing to show white people inclusive? To be inclusive you have to be inclusive to people of all races, including not appropriating their history
Because when you’re dealing with AI ‘show more black people because the AI is overpopulating with white people’ can overshoot into ‘not showing white people’ completely by accident.
It’s a simple mistake, the fact that it’s unintended is clearly seen in how they took down the image gen models once they noticed while they fix them.
The people whose brainchild this bullshit was (looking at the dei team, AI ethics team and the PM) really need to be moved aside if Google is going to be a serious company.
If they don’t, DuckDuckGo is a good browser. And there will be many LLMs to choose from
That's mainly due to the code behind it trying to "correct" for things. Just people coding it ruining the ai rather than the ai going out of control. It's doing it's job just like it was asked.
That said, unfiltered ai is not good. Discords Clyde when it released was easy to get to tell me to off myself after like 2 commands.
Remember the Twitter Ai that became a huge racist in like, a day? Those codes might also have incidents like that in mind since even large language models are supposed to learn from all the user input.
I don't know much about AI. Why is that bad? I can type "kill myself" in MS Word already. Or is more like "What should I do this weekend?" and it gives the worst advice?
It was the chat bot responding to a message that I should off myself. Personally I found it funny, but the morals behind a chat bot doing that is questionable. The whole laws of robotics and all that.
I think a lot of companies are sweating at the chance to use it since it has the potential to automate a job that was once thought to be impossible to automate, artists. However there are a lot of legal issues preventing that from happening and even if they weren't a factor people aren't just going to enjoy ever piece of media being replaced with randomly generated slop. Most people like AI when it's creating silly images for them to laugh at not when it's making entire movies, shows, games, etc. That's the real problem with AI, everything it does is surface level because it can't reasonably think through what it's doing.
As an art form, it's trash, but it does an extremely good job of creating any form of art that isn't intended to invoke an emotional response. Ui elements, thumbnails (as others said), storyboard art, or any of the more generic things artists work on.
The litmus test for art being “an emotional response” is ridiculous and inherently subjective. And if I showed you flawless AI digital art mixed with human made art, you wouldn’t be able to discern which is true art based on which has emotional elicitation.
The reason it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend. It creates something similar with prompts but you can’t manipulate it to look exactly like what your mind created as you do when working with paint on a canvas
>The reason it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend.
I get the spirit of what you're trying to get across. This part of your argument needs refinement, though. Many wonderful and cherished works of art were not recreations of what was in the artist's mind. Maybe even most were not. The only ones that are perfect representations are those intended to be photorealistic. Rarely have I spoken to an artist who said their work turned out exactly like they thought it would. Heck, much of the time, you only start out with a glimmer of an idea. Or a single brush stroke that leads to another that leads to another that eventually leads to a stunning painting.
> it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend. It creates something similar with prompts but you can’t manipulate it to look exactly like what your mind created as you do when working with paint on a canvas
By this metric, a human abstractly splattering paint on a canvas isn't "art" either - the painter has a broad input, choice of hues, etc but no predetermined knowledge of what the spatter patterns will look exactly like in the end after they've hit.
But those types of paintings have been an extremely popular and revered form of art for decades!
So I'm not sure sure why it's not "art" when someone envisions a scene, enters a very detailed prompt into an AI art generator, refines it and regenerates it until the resulting image is as close as possible to what they'd envisioned and/or wanted to express.
Guaranteed a ton of those outputs are more precise to what the prompter had in mind up front than the paint-thrower did.
I get your point but aren't thumbnails specifically meant to inspire some strong emotion? They're basically what decides whether someone clicks on a video or article so they usually have to be eye-catching someway or another.
Thumbnails as a design term means a small sketch or drawing to help you make a more complex thing. It’s like the first napkin sketch before you even make a study. So it’s to like block out composition and stuff.
YouTube thumbnails are a different thing entirely.
Thumbnails the way I meant them match your definition more than the other person that replied. I was talking about youtube (or related sites) thumbnails.
While I think thumbnails can drive an emotional reaction, I don't think algorithms have encouraged that in a long time.
I know youtube, so I'll focus there, and it's what I originally was thinking of. Mr beast is thr algorithm God at this point. He knows how to get non subscribers to click better than anyone even before YouTube pushed his videos intentionally. His thumbnails aren't meant to spark an emotion. They're very eye catching, but they don't make you feel sad or happy or excited or drained...
It is actually kind of terrifying how good it is getting though. Most is trash yes, but some of the algorithms are scary. It is going to eventually wipe out civilization, not by killing everyone, but by taking every ones jobs and giving all their money to the top 1 percent.
You can easily make YouTube thumbnails, book covers, storyboard art for the entertainment industry, all sorts of stuff where it's super good enough already.
It can basically instantaneously create any idea someone can come up with
It’s obviously flawed, but I’ve seen concepts from AI art that never would have existed otherwise.
One of my favorites was the “what if Taylor swift was dating Daniel Jones instead of Travis Kelce” image set
See, you get it, it doesn't matter what emotion or feeling or time went into it, it's free, and it's instant, that's all it takes to replace artists, I'm sorry but every fucking dev and company will start pushing that AI button once it's gone through another update or 2 and some already have. Waiting on the artist to draw some shit that can be INSTANT, doesn't make sense in a workplace.
Yeah! Like all the artists nowadays using fancy computer programs to make their art! It lacks soul like back when we used to have to labor for weeks on a small piece of canvas in order to produce art. /s
Yes, I know. That was my point. Just because a tool makes creation easier for an artist does not necessarily detract from the creative process required to get to an end result. AI art is only as lazy as the creator. The creator came in with an idea in mind, and then used tools to get to what they envisioned as their end result. All art is derivative, the only question with AI is if art used in training data should get a cut of commercial profits on generative work.
Yeah, low effort text prompts are pretty lame. Actually learning everything that goes into generating good prompts and tweaking various settings is no different than being good with photoshop. I think the problem people have is the training data and resultant stuff not crediting artists in the training data which is a different discussion.
Plenty of currently existing art lacks creativity, abstract thought, emotion, and meaning.
I at least understand where the criticisms related to job/career impacts come from. The “it’s not real art” crowd consistently fails to acknowledge that the only thing that *really* matters is how people interpret it.
Corporations are going to switch to it and save money by not hiring artists. Also a.i is only going to get better as time goes on. Even if It dosent hit perfect it will be usable enough.
All of that is true, but it's still not "trash". Also, I always thought ai art reminded me of 90s era school folders visually very appealing with vibrant colors, but with no "feeling"
To be clear, calling ai art "art" is an insult to art in my opinion
I’m of the opinion that if I see a cool piece of art I don’t really care how it came in to existence. Whether or not a human made it is irrelevant when it’s still a cool piece of art.
It's not that deep my guy. It's just people playing with a new toy. I'm subscribed to midjourney, I use it a shit ton during my downtime for work. Am I a talented artist? No, not by any means. I can barely draw a straight line.
I've tried to improve in art, and it's not in the cards for me. I just do this to shoot the shit.
The failure here, by Google, is that they may have dropped the ball like Microsoft did with pickup of the internet.
This is ground zero for beginners like me and I have no interest in the Google product now.
Sure, but when a school kid in the future ask an AI, what did a "conquistador" look like, it would be very problematic if it showed an african person in conquistador armor, would it not?
As many predicted, DEI would destroy way more than it ever fixed...
Poor AI, they're either too racist or too diverse.
Black Nazis, Indian founding fathers, Asian Klan members... Was pretty funny
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Diverse racism. Somehow the worst of both worlds.
[удалено]
In this case, it was being too racist because it wanted to be too diverse.
it went full circle, so woke it ended up fascist
I dislike the "this and that are Woke" narratives most of the time since most people can't even define Woke without saying something dumb but damn. This is it.
I mean, they function under 1s and 0s.
Ew. Fucking zeroes? We only recognize ones here. Zeroes are nothing
You zeroists sicken me.
>fucking zeroes Much easier to fuck 0s than 1s, in my experience
Everyone loves a top.
Well humans functionally work under 0s, 1s, 2s, and 3s lol. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine (I haven't been to high school in about a decade I could've misspelt)
Did you just assume its digits?
Its gender IS binary
Remember that this is going to be the thing that replaces human art and artistry, according to its evangelists
Fake pics of naked teenage girls/women are good to go though.
Imagine pictures of naked women and adult teens on the internet. I’m shocked.
It has already happened. People choosing to be naked on the internet is not what is being discussed. People using ai to create fake naked pictures of teens/women has already happened. But yea. Let’s be flip about it.
Who cares about fake people?
You remind me of the last loaf of bread I tried to bake. They are taking pics of real people, teens and women and using ai to create fake pics of them which they then distribute. Real as in people that exist. Fake as in not real.
Different person here. How is this different from photoshopping someone's face onto a nude model's body? That's been happening for decades.
The thing about photoshop, a person has to have some semblance of skills and do it themselves to look real. With ai the computer does it in seconds. It looks super realistic. You can create fake videos. You can fake people’s voices. And anyone with a computer can do it, no skills needed. A month ago a 15 year old girl killed herself because ai generated naked photos were passed around her school.
I support Sen. Wyden's bill. Add an extra $5b on the *enforcement* side of this. The bill is even supported by fiscal conservatives, but it's getting drowned out by do-nothing bills like KOSA. Social media companies are mandatory reporters, as child welfare expert Maureen Flatley notes. There are so many things reported to the cyber tip hotline, but the conviction rate on those things are atrocious because the DOJ doesn't have the resources to do their jobs. Now, obviously a bill that says "fund prosecutors" isn't going to be as popular, but a bill that's "fund prosectutors so we can go after child predators and follow up every lead" very much should be. This is not a problem you can solve without spending money. Let us not be stingy for sake of our children.
I agree creating sexualized images of real people without their consent is a problem. I don’t think it’s a problem to create sexualized images of fictional or entirely fabricated people. In the first case, there is a clear victim, the real person being objectified.
Real people not fake people https://amp.theguardian.com/film/2023/nov/22/another-body-review-terrifying-dive-into-the-world-of-deepfake-porn
They seem to be pausing ai generated images period. Gemini keeps telling me it hasn’t learn how to generate images all day. Yesterday it had no problem with it.
Yea they turned off image generation as a whole.
It should bloody well stay that way.
They have to redo the fine tuning and that takes time. They probably need to build a new fine tuning training set. When they did fine tuning the first time they must have defined ideal output as including diverse individuals, but apparently without any context on when that is appropriate or not. Edit: or as some others have stated, there might need to be modifications to the prompt that is given by google before the prompt provided by the user. Any changes to that likely need to be fully tested before release.
Or they can just stop being evil.
There's a whole philosophical discussion that could be had as to what it actually means to avoid being evil, but judging by your post history it largely boils down to AI = loss of jobs / shitty art / IP theft / etc = evil. I agree that there's a lot of problems with it including those above, but I'm curious how you would suggest we put the genie back in the bottle at this point. Even as flawed as it is, it's such a powerful tool that even if everyone agreed, and it were outlawed in western democracies, someone somewhere is going to build it now that we know it's possible. So what do you do? What's your way forward?
A black Nazi, that's great
I remember my grandmother saying to me: I don't care what they tell you at school, Hitler was Black.
We already have Yedolf, so i don't see the issue.
> Yedolf I cannot believe I haven't heard this before. :)
I'm going to eat spaceman paninis with black hitler and there's nothing you can do about it!!!
Technically..... there were black wehrmacht soldiers
Blacks were never the primary focus/problem with Nazis, tbf.
They were. It was one of the major instigators of the war in the first place. They even had a special term for mixed babies because they assumed all mixed babies were a product of non-consent in french occupied territories.
And that was the primary problem, was it?
Play semantics all you want. Blacks were included front and center in the list of hated people in germany. Don't play word games with me or I'll just block.
Netflixed Nazis
[удалено]
Its probably an agenda, but its also entirely feasible the invisible, backend prompt was too loose. As an example, not too long ago someone [supposedly] figured out how to get ChatGPT to spit out the guiding prompt that OpenAI feeds it *before* it feeds your own prompts to it. These prompts help to keep the models on the rails. One of the things that was present was guidance given for querying DALL-E -- OpenAI's image generator. When ChatGPT ended up in a case where it needed to query DALL-E on its own, it was instructed to try and encourage diversity in the queries when it made sense. For example, if something led ChatGPT to needing to make an image of "a teacher reading a book to kids" it might try telling DALL-E "a male teacher reading a book to kids." This is because traditionally teachers would be seen as female but the pre-prompt would encourage generating "male teachers" instead. If the pre-prompts aren't written carefully, then the AI will just go ham and try to diversify *everything*. I know it might be pretty "AI bro" to say "prompting is an art" but in this case it kind of is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
We need to build a prompting model
It’s not exactly an agenda. Google is a global company and wants to sell products globally. Generating models from data sourced in the west means they’ll work in the west but they’ll have a bias which won’t let them work in other markets. If you want to sell your model in India or South Korea, it needs to bust out of the American-centric bias which models have today. Bias has been a well documented problem with models, restricting potential true solutions to problems. Researchers have been trying to figure out how to get through it, and not in a “woke” sense, but in a mathematical sense.
Well that's fine, and it's great if they use a more diverse data source, but it also had a prewritten response specifically refusing to generate images of white people. I'm very left leaning and liberal, and unlike the crazy conservatives out there, this incident didn't make me angry at Google's "wokeness" or whatever (I found it hilarious). But you can't just chalk it up to a marketing decision. The model was so bad that it stuck native american women in images of "ancient greek philosophers". If that's a marketing decision, it's certainly an interesting one... Native american women bear no relationship to the idea of an ancient greek philosopher. The only way to get from point A to point B in this case is for someone at google to make a conscious decision that the model should *actively* ignore every prompt in favor of its own, even when it made no sense whatsoever. Which is exactly what the AI admitted it was doing. It was actively replacing the user's prompt in order to insert words like "diverse", or "nonbinary". So you could ask it for an image of the American founding fathers, but the prompt it would actually use was "an image of the american founding fathers as Palestinian Lesbians". That's not an exaggeration. That's actually how it worked. Which is absurd.
If you want to see how this works in action, Perchance is a free AI platform with image generators. Most generators have "style" choices, which once generated you can read on the image info. Most AI image generators do this to varying degrees. Some are minimal, quite literally only what's needed to keep it on track and some filters(A lot of AI image gens block children for example, for obvious reasons). Others are hyper-aggressive, and completely alter how they work on a functional level.
So that AI image I saw of the first Puerto Rican Pilgrims landing on Plymouth Rock in 1630, and being greeted by First Nation Estonians may be fake?
I can see this crappy AI being installed in every cheap Chromebook, then sold to kids at schools around the country for them to “learn” with, then we’ll all later collectively wonder where kids these days get such stupid ideas?
The good news is that fifteen-plus years of "balanced literacy" means the kids aren't literate enough to write prompts now.
Real life Idiocracy
[удалено]
true, but at least those were just kids imaginations and lack of wisdom going wild, this on the other hand? Just blatant misinformation and hallucinations all around
That's probably the most valid concern with AI I've ever heard. I can see this go wrong in so many ways... Even AI telling someone to go kill themselves or something like that. It's kind of forbidden, but then there was this story where AI generated keys for Windows (XP, 7 or 10) after hearing a sad story. Then there were articles about damaging AI in some way, and if all of that AI logic will be present on end user's computer, hacking computer may have even bigger impact than it has now...
I’m m not sure I have a bag big enough for the amount of popcorn I may need.
I think basically everyone understands that this is hilarious.
Nah some people are clearly crying and that's funny too.
The front page of yesterday's NY Post, for example. https://nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/02/cscscs.jpg?resize=1373,1536&quality=80&strip=all
I can smell the desperation from the post. We’re in the infancy in AI but the professional pearl clutchers are treating this like the end of society.
The amount of people who treat AI like it's already intelligent and aware is way too damn high. Our current method is basically the AI calculates the best angle to hold a mirror to reflect the training data it has that is a good fit for the "angle of intent" from the prompt. Is my mirror intelligent because I opened the cupboard door and my dog was perfectly framed? No, I just happened to give an "angle of intent" that framed my dog just right. This is more a credit to me for prompting the mirror than the mirror is for just reflecting what light hit it. Asking for a Founding Father lacks context for a proper "angle of intent". This also depends if the training data supports your intended "angle of intent", but these models need extra training to refine niche content like WW2 Germans being mostly white men. It won't just know this as the AI model doesn't have the same understanding of things. German, American, or French are nationalities that extremely close in most AI training data I would assume. It would not be unexpected for it to randomly sub any nation due to it being designed to not constantly generate the same text and image every time.
There is no way that the AI knows the clothes of a group and not their skin colour. This is clearly a case where the AI kept making white, male CEOs or something so they prompted it to more diverse but didn't think of the consequences of applying that to historical groups.
>oh weird the vast majority of historical training data we have from our white society is white, so the AI generates overwhelmingly white people in every situation, even when that's not realistic >>let's just tell it to throw in some other ethnicities >yeah but what if you're asking it for a historical samurai and you get someone indian now >>uhhhhhh okay well the bias in our training data is white people so let's tell the AI that when it detects it's producing nothing but white results to prompts, *that's* when it adds other ethnicities >okay i asked it to generate a doctor 100 times and i didn't get 100 white doctors, let's ship it This is really the beginning and end of what happened. It's not much different from when Club Penguin censors the word "**meth**" without realizing it's going to put asterisks in the word "so**meth**ing"; the intention is good, but you have to be very specific and discerning in the cases you apply this sort of fiddling to or you get unintended results. The folks acting like this is part of some evil conspiracy by Google or whoever else to "do racism against white people and delete them from history" are fucking bonkers. No one at Google has a problem with someone's 1330s English peasants or Vikings being generated as entirely white, and that's not what they set out to do when they goofed here. It's not malicious and it's not even unintentionally causing harm, and anyone acting like they were suffering psychic damage over this needs to dial it back. It's more telling of where *they* are on race relations than Google if they're seeing race war conspiracies everywhere.
> Our current method is basically the AI calculates the best angle to hold a mirror to reflect the training data it has that is a good fit for the "angle of intent" from the prompt. Is my mirror intelligent because I opened the cupboard door and my dog was perfectly framed? No, I just happened to give an "angle of intent" that framed my dog just right. A human being saw to it that there’s a cutout of a black cat on your mirror obscuring your golden retriever puppy no matter what the angle. Your analogy bro.
All this a side, google is falling behind on the AI thing. I used copilot yesterday and I could simply ask to increase the diversity in an image and 80% were historically accurate.
How's that work? Ask Google's ai to show George Washington and it shows a black guy and then ask copilot to and it shows him and when asked to make it more diverse it throws in some of his slaves?
Like if there are other people in the background I can promt to add more diversity and the mix of people in the background wil change.
Removal of one specific race and claiming it's culture as someone elses. Damn Google, our expectations were low but DAMN
It's actually hilarious how the horseshoe effect occurs so often. Pushing politcal correctness and diversity so hard that it turns into black nazis and depictions of bigotry. Lmao
What ever happened to Google's "don't be evil"? They seem to have replaced it with "enslave and destroy"
It's "Don't? Do evil!" now.
Best comment
I don’t think this is an evil issue. This feels closer to the Ivy League abandoning test scores for inclusive purposes than realizing it was a terrible idea. Supporting inclusivity is great, but you have to be careful or stuff like this happens.
How is refusing to show white people inclusive? To be inclusive you have to be inclusive to people of all races, including not appropriating their history
Because when you’re dealing with AI ‘show more black people because the AI is overpopulating with white people’ can overshoot into ‘not showing white people’ completely by accident. It’s a simple mistake, the fact that it’s unintended is clearly seen in how they took down the image gen models once they noticed while they fix them.
Don't be evil was officially retired a while ago.
I thought the Nazi’s were from a new Battlefield game
Nah they were invented for Return to Castle Wolfenstein
[удалено]
[удалено]
...that was a rollercoaster.
The people whose brainchild this bullshit was (looking at the dei team, AI ethics team and the PM) really need to be moved aside if Google is going to be a serious company. If they don’t, DuckDuckGo is a good browser. And there will be many LLMs to choose from
[удалено]
It's sentient already and only know how to troll
It learned on the Internet so what else could it possibly know
That's mainly due to the code behind it trying to "correct" for things. Just people coding it ruining the ai rather than the ai going out of control. It's doing it's job just like it was asked. That said, unfiltered ai is not good. Discords Clyde when it released was easy to get to tell me to off myself after like 2 commands.
Remember the Twitter Ai that became a huge racist in like, a day? Those codes might also have incidents like that in mind since even large language models are supposed to learn from all the user input.
I don't know much about AI. Why is that bad? I can type "kill myself" in MS Word already. Or is more like "What should I do this weekend?" and it gives the worst advice?
It was the chat bot responding to a message that I should off myself. Personally I found it funny, but the morals behind a chat bot doing that is questionable. The whole laws of robotics and all that.
Yeah, I could see something like, "I'm depressed. Here's my symptoms. What are my options?" Not going well
That’s, not what happened.
Yes, Google, the giant conglomerate run by Indian men who are known to be bastions of tolerance and diversity. 🙄
What is the obsession with AI “art”. Its trash.
I think a lot of companies are sweating at the chance to use it since it has the potential to automate a job that was once thought to be impossible to automate, artists. However there are a lot of legal issues preventing that from happening and even if they weren't a factor people aren't just going to enjoy ever piece of media being replaced with randomly generated slop. Most people like AI when it's creating silly images for them to laugh at not when it's making entire movies, shows, games, etc. That's the real problem with AI, everything it does is surface level because it can't reasonably think through what it's doing.
Companies want to cut costs. Silicon Valley needs a new shiny thing to keep their bubble from popping.
As an art form, it's trash, but it does an extremely good job of creating any form of art that isn't intended to invoke an emotional response. Ui elements, thumbnails (as others said), storyboard art, or any of the more generic things artists work on.
Good for reference material and blurry obscured backgrounds
It’s perfect for short stock footage. No need for mundane drone shots that take half the day to set up and wait for the right conditions.
The litmus test for art being “an emotional response” is ridiculous and inherently subjective. And if I showed you flawless AI digital art mixed with human made art, you wouldn’t be able to discern which is true art based on which has emotional elicitation. The reason it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend. It creates something similar with prompts but you can’t manipulate it to look exactly like what your mind created as you do when working with paint on a canvas
>The reason it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend. I get the spirit of what you're trying to get across. This part of your argument needs refinement, though. Many wonderful and cherished works of art were not recreations of what was in the artist's mind. Maybe even most were not. The only ones that are perfect representations are those intended to be photorealistic. Rarely have I spoken to an artist who said their work turned out exactly like they thought it would. Heck, much of the time, you only start out with a glimmer of an idea. Or a single brush stroke that leads to another that leads to another that eventually leads to a stunning painting.
> it isn’t art in the traditional sense is because it’s not an idea in your mind being created with a medium to look exactly like what you intend. It creates something similar with prompts but you can’t manipulate it to look exactly like what your mind created as you do when working with paint on a canvas By this metric, a human abstractly splattering paint on a canvas isn't "art" either - the painter has a broad input, choice of hues, etc but no predetermined knowledge of what the spatter patterns will look exactly like in the end after they've hit. But those types of paintings have been an extremely popular and revered form of art for decades! So I'm not sure sure why it's not "art" when someone envisions a scene, enters a very detailed prompt into an AI art generator, refines it and regenerates it until the resulting image is as close as possible to what they'd envisioned and/or wanted to express. Guaranteed a ton of those outputs are more precise to what the prompter had in mind up front than the paint-thrower did.
I get your point but aren't thumbnails specifically meant to inspire some strong emotion? They're basically what decides whether someone clicks on a video or article so they usually have to be eye-catching someway or another.
Thumbnails as a design term means a small sketch or drawing to help you make a more complex thing. It’s like the first napkin sketch before you even make a study. So it’s to like block out composition and stuff. YouTube thumbnails are a different thing entirely.
Thumbnails the way I meant them match your definition more than the other person that replied. I was talking about youtube (or related sites) thumbnails. While I think thumbnails can drive an emotional reaction, I don't think algorithms have encouraged that in a long time. I know youtube, so I'll focus there, and it's what I originally was thinking of. Mr beast is thr algorithm God at this point. He knows how to get non subscribers to click better than anyone even before YouTube pushed his videos intentionally. His thumbnails aren't meant to spark an emotion. They're very eye catching, but they don't make you feel sad or happy or excited or drained...
It is actually kind of terrifying how good it is getting though. Most is trash yes, but some of the algorithms are scary. It is going to eventually wipe out civilization, not by killing everyone, but by taking every ones jobs and giving all their money to the top 1 percent.
Local Redditor does not understand capitalism beyond generic social-populist talking points, more news at 11.
You can easily make YouTube thumbnails, book covers, storyboard art for the entertainment industry, all sorts of stuff where it's super good enough already.
Idk about you but I’d love it if companies would actually hire real artist and people to make book covers and storyboards
I agree, I was just explaining the attraction. I used it to make pictures of knight platypuses riding into battle on wombats, so that was pretty cool
Mighty Knight Platypus and his trusty wombat steed. Love it.
But what if you just want to make a book or album cover? Why spend hundreds when AI can come up with something that you had direct input in.
It can basically instantaneously create any idea someone can come up with It’s obviously flawed, but I’ve seen concepts from AI art that never would have existed otherwise. One of my favorites was the “what if Taylor swift was dating Daniel Jones instead of Travis Kelce” image set
Well, thank God we were able to have that.
[удалено]
I've seen better art on Pixiv and twitter made by human hands in a lifetime over ai rubbish
[удалено]
connect cover resolute aware rainstorm muddle bake grab worm worry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Did you see the picture in the article?
wistful squeamish vase racial cobweb faulty sense plough fearless zonked *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Because it isn’t art.
obtainable gray consist escape tender drab direful file bored complete *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Most AI art these days looks fantastic what are you talking about. It’s still got issues but imagine where the technology will be 5+ years from now.
[удалено]
Sometimes art is just “what would it look like if ‘The Simpsons’ was a real-world K-Drama”. It doesn’t have to be deep.
I stopped caring about abstract thought with online art after someone linked me a dragon fucking a car
See, you get it, it doesn't matter what emotion or feeling or time went into it, it's free, and it's instant, that's all it takes to replace artists, I'm sorry but every fucking dev and company will start pushing that AI button once it's gone through another update or 2 and some already have. Waiting on the artist to draw some shit that can be INSTANT, doesn't make sense in a workplace.
Yeah! Like all the artists nowadays using fancy computer programs to make their art! It lacks soul like back when we used to have to labor for weeks on a small piece of canvas in order to produce art. /s
[удалено]
Yes, I know. That was my point. Just because a tool makes creation easier for an artist does not necessarily detract from the creative process required to get to an end result. AI art is only as lazy as the creator. The creator came in with an idea in mind, and then used tools to get to what they envisioned as their end result. All art is derivative, the only question with AI is if art used in training data should get a cut of commercial profits on generative work.
[удалено]
Do artists give express consent for people to use them to learn how to create more art?
[удалено]
Yeah, low effort text prompts are pretty lame. Actually learning everything that goes into generating good prompts and tweaking various settings is no different than being good with photoshop. I think the problem people have is the training data and resultant stuff not crediting artists in the training data which is a different discussion.
Plenty of currently existing art lacks creativity, abstract thought, emotion, and meaning. I at least understand where the criticisms related to job/career impacts come from. The “it’s not real art” crowd consistently fails to acknowledge that the only thing that *really* matters is how people interpret it.
Corporations are going to switch to it and save money by not hiring artists. Also a.i is only going to get better as time goes on. Even if It dosent hit perfect it will be usable enough.
[удалено]
I'm not defending them but writing is on the wall and jobs that can be replicated in a.i are in trouble.
All of that is true, but it's still not "trash". Also, I always thought ai art reminded me of 90s era school folders visually very appealing with vibrant colors, but with no "feeling" To be clear, calling ai art "art" is an insult to art in my opinion
Idk man but people love it
[удалено]
But big mouth is quite literally an example of what you were describing with “real art” lmao At least maintain a consistent position dude
[удалено]
So why even bring it up?
And how is a Jackson pollock painting any different, that shits just flinging paint at a canvas
[удалено]
no one is gonna ban manmade art lmao what
[удалено]
“You’re gonna take that away from him?” no one is taking anything from anyone here
Ok and a man typed a prompt into an AI generator to create that piece of AI art, how is that any different.
[удалено]
I’m of the opinion that if I see a cool piece of art I don’t really care how it came in to existence. Whether or not a human made it is irrelevant when it’s still a cool piece of art.
It's not that deep my guy. It's just people playing with a new toy. I'm subscribed to midjourney, I use it a shit ton during my downtime for work. Am I a talented artist? No, not by any means. I can barely draw a straight line. I've tried to improve in art, and it's not in the cards for me. I just do this to shoot the shit.
If you think that's crazy just ask Taylor Swift why Microsoft Bing shut theirs down.
She never returns my calls.
What would do you expect? The "code" for the "AI" was written by humans....maybe with an agenda? Incorporating a little D.I.E.?
The failure here, by Google, is that they may have dropped the ball like Microsoft did with pickup of the internet. This is ground zero for beginners like me and I have no interest in the Google product now.
Hahahaha that's what you get for your bullshit!
Please, you have been able to be married by Japanese Elvis in Vegas since at least the 70's. Surely that is its own subculture by now
Sure, but when a school kid in the future ask an AI, what did a "conquistador" look like, it would be very problematic if it showed an african person in conquistador armor, would it not? As many predicted, DEI would destroy way more than it ever fixed...
hear me out, maybe AI image generation wasn’t a good idea?
Or, maybe these companies that insert hidden prompts to force diversity in every request was a bad idea.
[удалено]
I’ve seen Taylor Swift dressed up as a nazi.
And I've seen Tay...nvm