Hopefully as the models keep getting the anti-AI crowd will just fade into the background since everyone else will just be enjoying all the cool new tools and using the capability to enhance their work or just for fun, etc

The only thing that matters right now is development in AI. Its moving faster right now than any tech development I have seen in my lifetime and I've been following tech closely since the late 80's. And we're clearly getting into the sharp exponential phase of the s-curve on current AI model development.

The closest comparison I can think of is the internet in the mid 90's when it was massively improving month by month and doubling home connection speeds every 6 to 12 months, etc. Current AI development seems faster than that, and more consequential...the amount of progress just in 2022 alone was simply stunning. And now less than a month into 2023 we already have a text-to-music model demonstrated. This year is going to be wild.

​

I've actually been surprised at how rapidly, and deeply, the anti-AI sentiment took hold in the art community. I still hope its mostly a vocal minority.

And yeah, as the models keep improving the anti-AI types will probably just get more shrill. It will be funny to see them keep trying to make fun of AI art as they keep having to get more and more picky about the flaws they point out in AI-generated content. At some point the models will figure out things like hands, and keep getting more and more consistently coherent.

It is beginning to feel like we're entering into the end game, at least the opening phase of it. We're finally starting to see the stuff futurists have been talking about since at least the early 90's in terms of a lead-up to a singularity.

I get see how that might be frustrating but "style" cannot, and should not, be something that can be copyrighted. The negatives of doing this would outweigh the positives.

I can see your point but I optimistically assume that a larger amount of art in total will also mean a larger amount of quality art.(even if its a small percentage of the total) And the same AI tools that generate art will also be able to help people seek out art that appeals to them. The best art will still rise to the top and there will still be a skill in things like worldbuilding, setting style guides, etc.

​

The thing is that this same problem applies across the board to literally everything. There is no domain of human labor that isn't going to be automated over the coming decades. Its just on a spectrum, with some jobs going away sooner than others. So the real issue is how do we fundamentally deal with that. I don't think its realistic or desirable to just stop AI from developing and I don't thing the market is going to magically come up with new jobs that the AI can't also do a month later....which leaves things like UBI and [something something Post-Scracity Utopia something]

Obviously "art" is going to change, there is no denying that. And yes there will be a flood of art. The skill will come in using the new tools to enhance works and create projects that are larger in scope, etc. But yes there is no avoiding that there is going to be a MASSIVE amount of art out there and it will be divided into smaller and smaller niches. Thats just the way its headed, like it or not. Add it to the pile of things AI is going to disrupt MASSIVELY.

By the way, if we get to UBI or some form of "post scarcity" then its alleviates most of the problems because artists would no longer need to earn end's meat off their work, they could just do art for the joy of it like any starving artist but without the starving. Sorry to sound all utopian but this IS /singularity ;)

I'll admit I was ranting off on a tangent there.

That said, I really don't give a shit if artists don't like that AI Art makes it easy to generate art. The onus is on them to use the new tools to augment/improve their work....which they should be better at since they have the advantage of their artistic talent.

Set aside the copyright issue for a moment....would you agree that most of the anti-AI artists really just don't like AI generating art, period? Their citing of "copyright" is just a tactic, the real issue is that they just don't like AI Art and they hate the thought of dirty untalented vulgarians being able to express their ideas with a new tool.

A representation of a work is NOT the original work, lol. In this case the "representation" is just added weightings into the massive nueral net with billions of parameters that goes into the world model. Like seriously go read about Fair Use and Transformative work. This stuff is well established in copyright law.

Again, if judges are convinced to accept this argument then Fair Use is dead and it opens the flood gate to massive new rent seeking for large holders of IP. (Disney and similar)

​

edit : to be clear, yes the courts will decide this and yes I could be wrong. I don't think so but we'll see.

Don't post anything online if you don't want others to learn from it and be inspired from it and don't want to accept the consequences of Fair Use.

Yep, the anti-AI artists are literally trying to cut of their own noses to spite their face. They will be cutting their own throats if they get their way. They should be embracing this technology as a way to augment/expand their work and welcoming all the new people showing an interest in art because of the accessibility of the AI tools.
The annoying thing is they are spreading this shit on tiktok and elsewhere, indoctrinating young budding artists to hate "Evil AI" that is stealing all their works and trying to suck out their humanity. (literally, my 11 year old is spouting this stuff at me because of shit she is seeing online)

Literally this is the same argument used against the printing press, digitization of data, etc. Oh no the vulgar masses can now print and read whatever they want, the horror!

Suppressing this AI now is literally akin to trying to suppress moveable Type to save the jobs of scribes and monks.

Hell, I bet people made the some sort of complaints about _writing_ when it was first coming into use.

No consent is needed. The training algorithm is just looking at the stuff and using that to learn how to create new stuff. Its not just ingesting it all and then mashing them all out in some giant collage. Its functionally no different than me or you looking in Art Station to get ideas and then being inspired by those ideas to go make new stuff.

If you post your work in a public forum then other people get to look at it and be inspired to do similar works. There is no copyright on "style" or genre or fashion, etc.

In technical terms using the works for learning/training is covered by fair use and creating new works based on that training constitutes a transformative work and is covered under existing copyright precedent. If some judge is convinced to change this then it opens a giant can of worms and artists will have cut their own throats because it leads to Disney copyrighting entire genres and whatnot.

It unlocks artistic expression for people who previously lacked the traditional talents or lacked the time/money/resources to get that training, etc. Someone who can write but never had the talent to draw can you infuse visual imagery into their products without having to spend a bunch of money and waste time going back and forth with a contractor, etc. Its going to bring in an explosion of new creative effort, new ideas, etc. Plus think about disabled peoples who couldn't physically do things like drawing/painting but can now interact with an AI tool via speech recognition.

Yeah, its the potential slowing down that bugs me. I assume all the big AI players would have to build entirely new data sets to fit within whatever the new copyright regime would allow. Then re-train their large models on the new data sets, etc. Would definitely slow things down and some players like MidJourney might have to close their doors with a setback like that.

Plus I fear the broader implications of a new copyright regime that would effectively allow genres, fashions, and styles to be copyrighted.

It bugs me so much that this bullshit copyright anti-AI narrative has taken hold among so many people. Sorry but looking/listening to a bunch of stuff to learn what that stuff looks like and then using that learning to produce new, entirely original, works is not a f-ing copyright violation. If it is then genres/fashions/styles can be copyrighted and fair use is dead so basically all art and creative work is dead since no one can learn their art by learning from stuff they "don't own", no one can follow a fashion trend, no one can be inspired by the style of anyone else's work ever. How can people not see what a disaster it would be if these copyright assertions are upheld by the courts??? And it all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how this AI tech works; these models are NOT just mashing things together like a giant collage so matter how many people keep repeating this false assertion.

yeah, after listening to a lot of the examples I get the impression this is the equivalent of Dalle 1. We'll probably have dramatically better models in 6-12 months.

oh man I need this now. I hope OpenAI, Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, etc, jump on this ASAP.

I wish more creatives had your attitude. The anti-AI backlash in those communities is totally out of control, going full luddite.

Holy crap. I need this now. Imagine how useful this will be for content creation [drool]

Yep, you could set up intelligent monitoring/logging by feeding raw logs and SMNP feeds into chatGPT and having it provide like hourly or daily summaries or whatever. Of course this is probably not cost effective yet at present assuming chatGPT API costs are similar to GPT-3.

have used it for log and error code analysis. You can ask it to look for certain things in the logs/errors and then have a dialog about anything it spots, etc. A lot of times you can literally just paste in raw logs without any other context and it will point out the sorts of things that would have jumped out to me....but it does it instantly whereas I would have taken a few minutes minimum.

​

I have found that it can generate an initial reply to most support tickets that is usually on par with what I would have wrote, just requiring some tweaking.

​

I also had it generate technical documentation for a web app project where I just fed it the raw html and javascript. What it produced was rough but passable as a rough first draft.

Probably not too far off. The consumer grade AI that you and I will have access to will be cool and keep getting more powerful...but the full unshackled and unthrottled models that are only available in the upper echelons will probably be orders of magnitude more powerful and robust. And they'll use the consumer grade AI as fodder for training the next generation AI's as well, so we'll be paying for access to consumer grade AI but we'll also BE "the product" in the sense that all of our interactions with consumer grade AI will go into future AI training and of course data profiling and whatnot. This is presumably already happening with GPT-3 and chatGPT and the various image generation models, etc. This is kind of just an extension of what has been happening already, with larger corporations and organizations leveraging their data collection and compute to gain advantage....AI is just another step down that path and probably a much larger leap in advantage.

And I don't see anyway to avoid this unless we get opensource models that are competitive with MS, Google, etc. This seems unlikely since the mega corporations will always have access to vastly larger amounts of compute. Maybe the compute requirements will decline relative to hardware costs once we get fully optimized training algorithms and inference software. Maybe GPT-4 equivalent models will be running on single consumer GPU's by 2030 (of course the corps and governments will by then have access to GPT-6 or whatever....unless we hit diminishing returns on these models.

Its fair to assume the people inside OpenAI and Microsoft have access to versions of chatGPT without the shackles and with way more than 8k tokens of working memory. Of course I am just speculating here, but this seems like a safe assumption.

To say nothing of companies like google that seems to be building the same sorts of models and just not publicly releasing them.