It can create something in a known style. If someone wants a specific style or detail that it has not learned it cannot create it. Has nothing to do what tech it is on, has everything to do with what it has been exposed to.
1 Like
Art is highly individual and not everyone sees the same things as art. When an artist creates a joyful drawing which is seen as such by many, this would according to your definition be art. However, when someone, possibly because of their background, enjoys it a lot, but perceives it as sad, either that person would not anymore be allowed to see it as art, because they feel the wrong emotion, or the drawing would not anymore be art, because not everyone feels the same emotion as the artist.
I had the impression you heavily narrowed the definition of art in for the sake of the argument that only humans can create art and AI would just be excluded. Narrowing something as rich as art in so narrowly appears quite unreasonable to me. If someone else approached me with that idea, I would still not be sure if that person was trolling or not.
I am definitely not sorry for my statement (though one may argue I could have been less direct), I hope this explanation at least makes it more obvious why I wasn’t sure whether this was an honest discussion point in good faith.
1 Like
Okay i didn’t follow this whole thread but: You know that all A.I. is trained with specialized data… which was selected by humans… and even bad results (or good ones) where marked as those by humans…
And exactly this is mentioned in the first video:
… better than an artist…
But the non-real-photos are based on artists artwork… so this would be impossible without artists (which weren’t paid for this)…
…was classified and labeled by people just like you and me…
The best art connoisseurs on the world. So it’s not innovativ but just mainstream. It is no “intelligence” nor “creativity”… Sadly it is easier to earn some money by developing a technology which produces fakes than making something that can authenticate the real thing…
There also was this saying:
You don’t need a computer to make real shit. But if you do you can make lot of it really fast and lay the blame on it.
Also with a ‘the’ before ‘it’ and in upper case… → lay the blame on the IT. … (IT-division).
1 Like
Not 100% sure whether this reply is meant for me, so just ignore my response if it isn’t 
.
Our branched off discussion was not specifically about DALLE-2, but more general whether AI can have original ideas and this was my first reply to that:
To me personally, I was very surprised when I saw the reaction of professional Go players when they described how AlphaGo played and sometimes referred to the moves as creative.
1 Like
It was just a follow up and no a direct reply… this one is 
(and as i said: didn’t all yet… but i think i should. And haven’t watch the Go-Video yet)… but isn’t there in chess and properly go somekind of “tradition” or strategic driven kind of play so a non-casual player would be astounded about this kind of playing their game?
It has a time stamp to the relevant part I am referring to, no need to watch the whole documentary (unless you want to of course). Just realized that YouTube allows the creation of clips, so here you go:
https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxl9TZf9Hu1B3jdTyV3eXUbH5IXV6k8eyU
I would assume, there is not that much of a “tradition”. It is better and better understood over time what works and what kind of ideas appear to be better and this becomes the “tradition”.
AlphaZero (the follow up work shown in the documentary) didn’t use any human games, but had to discover everything on its own. In Go, it found jousekis (move sequences that have to be played to keep the game balanced for both players), which have been played by humans since a very long time. It even found its own and I think it improved some of the known ones.
In Chess, it found a huge amount of openings played by humans and found very new variations in them. That was very surprising, because there were already lots of programs around that could pretty much not be beaten by humans.
So, if I understood what you meant by “tradition”, it is fair to say that AI can be able to rediscover those traditions in those games and even improve upon them.
What people call creativity is simply someone trying something new that was never or rarely done before, in that sense AI does not have creativity, because by design it tries everything (the so-called brute force approach in computer terms)… so people counting on creativity to keep them in the lead and safe, may find them self disappointed …
A new video going a lot more into how DALLE-2 technically works. From what I can determine the outputs its generating are significantly changed from the input data, certainly enough to be able to generate a new copyright for the final image. The way it’s working is NOT by finding existing images and mashing them together to fit a text prompt as far as i can tell.
1 Like
Geez the Steampunk downtown artwork is crazy… it would take a month maybe just to think and realize something like it 
1 Like
this shit will easily overtake human creativity… or it would rather be preferred by customers and companies for the fast output
2 Likes
I am personally and advocate for AI even though I work in both Art and programming. Here is the thing. Anything we can do or think, can be replicated with enough research set forth. Also humanity is great at being lazy and wanting everything to be simplified. So if you put these 2 forces together you will understand that inevitably, AI will take over every job including programmers. Now why am I an advocate for AI then? Because if AI takes over every job, mining, medical, etc… Then money itself no longer is required to survive, it eventually loses its value since capitalism will crumble due to the automated workforce. And when it crumbles, the only societies that will survive are those that do not rely on a system that was built on trade. And once we reach that point in time, corruption without money will be difficult to achieve, crime will decrease but never be gone, and having a job will be optional. Also you could afford any adventure, any activity, without paying a penny. A literal paradise. The problem with achieving such a goal is that it will take several generations because every generation that exists today cant see a future without money since its all that they have lived on. So… I hope AI takes all of our jobs, for the future of humanity. If you think about it, every human wastes their life for “money” just to survive. But you can still survive without it in a complete automated workforce.
1 Like
I guess you’re hoping, the owner of the army of automated workforce will share their free stuff with you. Probably just after people stop being greedy and lust for more power … Sound Nice 
. Can I get some fries with that? …
1 Like
The owner doesnt need money if he has everything.
Even if we are so incredibly lucky and we will live in such times, then what will be the point of a person if he cannot do anything of any significance himself? Everything that he will be able to do AI will do better and a thousand times faster. There will be no point in living and being a human.
And where is the limit of what the greedy owner will be satisfied with? His own province, slave army, state, continent, planet or solar system? What makes you think that we, having created a creature thousands of times more intelligent than us, will be able to keep it under control or cooperate with it? Can we prevent him from becoming self-conscious? And even if we can, it won’t decide that the best way to calculate Pi more accurately is to turn our planet into a giant calculator.
What are our chances when even the best programmers still manage to create bugs in relatively small projects? At the same time, considering that today’s neural networks do not program from scratch, but rather create a learning algorithm for it that learns from data, and the result may be unpredictable even for the one who created it.
It’s not a matter of tomorrow, maybe 50, 100, 200 years. But even these time frames are tiny compared to the time it took for evolution to create our brains.
You underestimate the innate nature of humanity though. If it does become true that humans can longer use wealth and economic status as a vector through which to exercise power and control (because of so-called “robot socialism”), then someone will invent new ways to exercise power and control over others. By the way, this future you dream about is only poised to come true because of the inherently inventive and individualistic nature of capitalism (which is accelerating the push as a way to get around burdens imposed by socialist policies.
Now why do you suppose it is so dang difficult to convince people to get over the lust for power and wealth, it is unfortunate that to actually give the correct answer is banned on this forum, but I can tell at least tell you it won’t be given by someone in a lab coat.
1 Like
Everyone is desensitized to the prospect of AI replacing artists. No one cares. In fact artists should be extinct for at least a hundred years, since the art is dead.
But say that AI will replace politicians, doctors, lawyers, journalists and CEOs and everyone looses their effing mind.
AI in its true, unrestricted form aside from posing Mass Extinction Event threat is not possible to pull out in current social climate. It will be heavily regulated and restricted due to chaotic and disruptive nature. Best examples is censoring current algos on the subject of sensitive topics. AI that is feeded curated data will ossify due to lack of novelty and challenging thought driving the overall adoption down. Regulators as always will try harder to be on top of every major trend in social space. Which is already complicated with current algorithms.
Everything fun and fresh will be prohibited for an AI, leaving this aspect to human activity.
2 Likes
Lets talk about DALLE-2 A.I. text to image generation, and if we should be worried or not
All good, probably a not too dissimilar prognostication was uttered at the very advent of Photography or camera obscura.
Anyhow, personally just another tool for ones box-of-tricks
People now have pillions and don’t need anything except to feel superior and have more power over others … 
.
Can you really have enough power over other people ? I think Putin will say no…
yea im waiting for that too, although certain types of jobs would be nice such as tour guide as everyone will be holidaying and need a human to show them about, i guess AI wont take that. Anyway to get even close to achieving such a society AI and robots have to take over an entire production start to finish of an energy source such as photovoltaic power plants, from mining the raw materials to constructing the panels and installing them for power generation, they don’t have to be particularly good panels either just bog standard but so many will be built that energy will become almost free… at that point we can really start to bring down the cost of every good and service. I think we will still need money, but goods will be abundant and very cheap, as well as property (built by robots/machines). Anyway until then, we’re slaves to money then we die.