oxomoxo

This article covers the solution https://access.redhat.com/solutions/7044059

I bought both his books back in December. They are really cool and one of the most intuitive ways to learn about logic gates. If you decide to pick one up he is back ordered so expect to wait a little bit. Dude is doing the whole thing himself out of his house...

AirBnB started in 2008, not sure what they are referencing.

Aren’t you supposed to be pretending to argue in good faith?

I am sorry you feel this way.

The machine learning of the last 50 years hasn’t been nearly as sophisticated nor disruptive as the AI we’ve seen in the last few years – that’s why it has a completely different name.

Machine Leaning is a subset of AI. I muddied the argument by switching labels. The sophistication is due to exponential development.

And you find focusing on “capital exploitation” disrespectful because you’re arguing against an opinion that nobody outside your imagination holds.

I am not entirely sure what this means. I formed my opinion on what I've heard some data scientists have spoken about and combined it with what I have heard artists speak about and because we are talking about the future, we can only reference imagination, since it's not yet happened.

Functionally nobody opposes AI on the basis of “technology scary” or thinks the data scientists behind it are talentless or greedy. They oppose it exactly because of the capitalist exploitation.

I have seen an onslaught of news articles and had a few conversation specifically on "technology scary", further every innovation comes with naysayers who are scared of change. They said it about books, radio, school, television, video games, computers...

I think people don't care to differentiate the data scientist from the companies that are exploiting their work. So I don't agree here. I think some people oppose it due to capitalist exploitation, while other realize the technology and the business are mutually exclusive. Since there is a whole world of open source models you can self host and leverage for personal use. In other words AI without the money exists.

AI companies used artists work without permission, in a for-profit, commercial product, without compensating them. Even worse, they’re using that artwork to take work away from those artists.

My argument is that AI is approximation of the human brain, and because of this, it is my opinion that using other people work to train a model is an equivalent exercise to showing a person others art works. I also don't agree that AI will necessarily take work away from artists, I can chose to buy a product made by machine or one made by hand. As well art is not the elusive domain of profit. We created art work long before money was involved, and not everything we do needs to be monetized.

Without that training data, these models would be nothing and underneath all your flowery “all art is stolen” rhetoric, you know it. These models can churn out 1000 fake Van Goghs a second but without his work in it’s training data, it never would have come up with it organically.

My position is that artists would be nothing without their own experience (training) as well. So yes I know it, but I don't understand your point. A young artist also churns out a bunch of copies of work inspired by the artist they admire before they find their own voice. While I would agree AI hasn't produce much work on it's own currently, I believe and the data scientists believe that it will most likely be able to find it own voice in the near future. My understanding is at least in realm of writing, AI is starting to do unexpected and perceivable unique things.

I think people like to see themselves as unique and special, in other words the machines are not able to do what we do. I disagree, both because of past evidence of machines taking our jobs (manufacturing, automation, computation, communication, etc...) but I also believe that if allowed, the machines could surpass our creativity at a rate we have not yet imagined. Because imagination needs a reference (training data).

Just so you’re aware machine learning has been around for 50 years and isn’t the exclusive domain of tech start-ups. It’s the product of very talented and passionate data scientists who are artists in their own right. I find it disrespectful to just focus on the capitalist exploitation.

Further art forms like cubism (as an example) didn’t come from nothing, it is stolen from the art that predates it. All creativity in every form builds from the other art that preceded it. This idea that artist are creating anything from nothing is flat out wrong and any artist would tell you that. Why do you think every interview with any kind of artist almost always asks about their influences…

I love dropping by #unpopularopinion and agreeing with an OP. The downvote train makes me laugh...

AI isn't taking their art, which implies copyright infringement, it's training their models on it, to then create something different than the original art. It becomes philosophical argument about what defines art or creativity. If we are saying that art can only be created by humans, then we also have to remember AI is created by humans.

If you saying the trained model stole art, then you have to remember that all art was stolen, because the only way we know what an orange looks like is because we've seen an orange. The only way we know what cubism is, is by looking at a Picasso. There is no creativity without "theft". People like to pretend they are different than the AI model.

Is it because we are terrified to acknowledge our own insignificance. Could it be AI is making people feel insecure about our own existence? After all, people have spent a millennia building careers to end up dying and have it be forgotten anyway. For every human remembered in a history book there are millions more who's name hasn't been spoken since death.

I think you’re in the ballpark of the truth OP. Art and all forms of human creativity come from two sources, experience and connectivity. Nothing man has ever created came from a vacuum. We start observing and remembering the world from birth, and once we are old enough we begin to connect these experiences together with lateral thinking.

MLLM models just taking training data (experience) and connect it together in potentially new ways (lateral thinking). A close approximation of human creativity. Which will eventually become identical and then surpass any human capability.

Once we begin to understand that our human brains are not unique we will then be able to extend our creativity in ways that will make modern art seem archaic.

People need to stop being of afraid of what is new, despite what your lizard brain is telling you. Start accepting that AI is step in human evolution that will allow us to live in a world we have not yet imagined… or it will kill us all.

Had a book of his art growing up. My parents were weird conservative Christians who didn’t want me watching something so evil as the Simpsons but as long as it was artwork, nudity was fine. Love Vallejo!

Not sarcastic at all. It is nice.

That sounds like a nice life you’ve chosen for yourself and your family.

The best I can tell, you seem to be adding more to my statement than I implied. I am not advocating for technological regression. I am simply stating that if someone thinks they NEED a car, they are mistaken. There a plenty of people living in every type of community, including middle America, that live just fine without cars. It's a conscious decision that can be made with certain sacrifices and effort. People over state the idea that it's somehow impossible or not their choice. Living with less convenience is still living, and I would say in many cases a benefit to ones health, both mental and physical.