it's another method of creating a vision you have in your head.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed. Tools actually allow you to express anything. These models, by virtue of how they're built, can't.
and the entire idea that reality wasn't like that will be erased
Except for all the primary and secondary evidence that runs counter to it. As if forgeries are a new problem.
Or do you mean literally erased. Which you'd have to do because people aren't as simple as you portray them to be. In which case the hallucinations of "AI" don't matter, it's just the erasure of history. Why is why that's the centerpiece of Orwell's 1984.
In 30 years, everyone will believe
You're confusing what we have now as AI. You have a weak grasp on the technology if you think a 30 year timeline is realistic to get from here to there. You've been beguiled and stultified by bad technology and have fallen into this midwit's trap. You mispredict the future badly and entirely at your own peril.
This is why the spend billions on the technology. Is so that you self select yourself out of a job and cede ground to them. They've won your slavery without even a fight.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed.
It isn't a copy. That isn't how that works. Deep Learning Neural Networks don't contain a library of images.
They are trained with a library of images, which is then taken away.
Convolutional Neural Networks play the Hot and Cold game for head-pats.
The training environment gives the Neural Network a prompt. For example "Draw a squid."
The NN does its best to draw a squid. The result is compared to one of the training images from the library of squid images. The NN is awarded head-pats accordingly.
This repeats thousands or millions of times.
A well trained AI can do things like drawing a well known character as though they were a squid which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Like it or not, that image has never been created before.
That's not a serious description and demonstrates a poor grasp on the underlying technology. It's guided recursive perturbation of noise. Until that noise looks enough like something it's seen before to become classified as the same.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in. You should really dig a little deeper here.
Anyways try the exclusive case. Have it draw something that has never been classified before. You can look around for items of antiquity or lost cultures and see how it fares. Since it can't do these things it obviously only can do things it has seen and have been classified. So it can only reproduce what it has been trained on. This is obvious.
which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Wow, so it combined two copies into one thing? That's still copying.
It is vaguely impressive that preturbative systems are effective at quickly finding approximate solutions. Which is why "satisfying both sets of criteria" means you get 7 fingered hands and other oddities expressed in the image. Add more criteria for more fun.
You're really just playing Monte Carlo on a stolen deck of classifications. To be fair, Google did pay a bunch of africans $2/day to tag the images, so there is some originality in the database, but very little.
that image has never been created before.
Fortunately that's now how copyright works or how copying is defined in the eyes of the law.
AI art is soulless and derivative, I find nothing it makes to be of much interest at all.
But I'm willing to pretend otherwise to piss artists off, as a group they come across as wholly petulant and entitled.
Except when it's a literal copy of something that previously existed. Tools actually allow you to express anything. These models, by virtue of how they're built, can't.
Except for all the primary and secondary evidence that runs counter to it. As if forgeries are a new problem.
Or do you mean literally erased. Which you'd have to do because people aren't as simple as you portray them to be. In which case the hallucinations of "AI" don't matter, it's just the erasure of history. Why is why that's the centerpiece of Orwell's 1984.
You're confusing what we have now as AI. You have a weak grasp on the technology if you think a 30 year timeline is realistic to get from here to there. You've been beguiled and stultified by bad technology and have fallen into this midwit's trap. You mispredict the future badly and entirely at your own peril.
This is why the spend billions on the technology. Is so that you self select yourself out of a job and cede ground to them. They've won your slavery without even a fight.
It isn't a copy. That isn't how that works. Deep Learning Neural Networks don't contain a library of images.
They are trained with a library of images, which is then taken away.
Convolutional Neural Networks play the Hot and Cold game for head-pats.
The training environment gives the Neural Network a prompt. For example "Draw a squid."
The NN does its best to draw a squid. The result is compared to one of the training images from the library of squid images. The NN is awarded head-pats accordingly.
This repeats thousands or millions of times.
A well trained AI can do things like drawing a well known character as though they were a squid which will combine their ability to satisfy both sets of criteria at the same time.
Like it or not, that image has never been created before.
That's not a serious description and demonstrates a poor grasp on the underlying technology. It's guided recursive perturbation of noise. Until that noise looks enough like something it's seen before to become classified as the same.
Anyone else would call this copying with a little bit of randomness added in. You should really dig a little deeper here.
Anyways try the exclusive case. Have it draw something that has never been classified before. You can look around for items of antiquity or lost cultures and see how it fares. Since it can't do these things it obviously only can do things it has seen and have been classified. So it can only reproduce what it has been trained on. This is obvious.
Wow, so it combined two copies into one thing? That's still copying.
It is vaguely impressive that preturbative systems are effective at quickly finding approximate solutions. Which is why "satisfying both sets of criteria" means you get 7 fingered hands and other oddities expressed in the image. Add more criteria for more fun.
You're really just playing Monte Carlo on a stolen deck of classifications. To be fair, Google did pay a bunch of africans $2/day to tag the images, so there is some originality in the database, but very little.
Fortunately that's now how copyright works or how copying is defined in the eyes of the law.