Gregory's Server@remenca Making a good fake copy of a painting is also extremely complicated, but that is not the point. The point is that procedural generation doesn't depend on artists' data used without their consent (nor it requires humongous amounts of energy to create), and the argument of it being hard refers to the creative aspect of it. You have to *create* procedural art intentionally. The effort of replicating existing art is not relevant. The only "creative" things coming from generative models is just novel ways of mixing existing stuff up, which can be done at a fraction of the cost by commissioning an artist. That is, if you care about creativity and quality, of course.
|
14 comments
There is also the philosophical argument about what is creativity other just mixing already seen inputs, and Hume and Kant and bla bla bla. Imho creativity is precisely this, combining things that exist in novel ways, because ex nihilo nihil fit. After all, the human illustrator has learned by copying others too. In the end I do not see such a difference. @remenca You're missing the point. You can use CC0 data, but you don't because it's just not enough training data. And I don't care about what you think about creativity. That wasn't the argument in the first place. This is about the human cost, the human effort. No matter how "hard" it is to train your model with unethically obtained data. YOU are not the one being creative here. And it shows. I think that you are the wrong here. Please tell me what's unethical about using this model. @remenca The fact that I'm exposed to such horrid "art". As I already said, it's just not enough data. It gives terrible results. @remenca I answered it in the first sentence. I obviously ran on the assumption that you didn't use CC0 data. But if you do that's fine. It doesn't contradict my previous arguments. Or OP's argument for that matter. Regular artists (including the ones creating good procedural generation) obtain much better results than with any generative model, CC0 or not. And then, when we only consider CC0 data, the results are so much worse that I don't even know why you're using it as an argument in the first place. I am using it because you stated that there is no way to train a network on CC0'd data and some other bullshit, and I wanted to prove you wrong. Now that we have agreed on that and we can dismiss the "its unethical" argument, we can move to I never claimed that AI generated art is better than procedurally created art, I just said it was art, and now you are trying to play an strawman on me. I do not think that this conversation is in good faith, so I would like to conclude here. @remenca I never claimed that you can't. I said that you don't (as in: people don't). It's unethical because the ethically obtained results are shit, plain and simple. If you come in good faith you shouldn't have replied to a thread with an irrelevant argument in the first place. OP is not talking about that. I just wanted to explain _why_ it is irrelevant and why you got blocked by Eniko. I replied like I replied because it makes me mad to see so many people shitting on AI, in a manner similar to Eniko. Not all AI is Sam Altman. I fault people for putting the blame on AI when, as you are admitting, the blame is with capitalism. But I don't know. Maybe you are right. I started researching AI years ago thinking that we were working to make a better world where people wouldn't need to work because machine would do it for us, and all I got is this exploitative genAI bullshit that makes climate change worse and makes people lose their jobs and I'm very mad at it. I think I'll change careers. |
@starsider
You response is inaccurate. You can use CC0'd data to train your model, you can do it using your own gaming GPU, without incurring in more energy cost than gaming which is a socially accepted practice. And then, if you manage to train the network then there is all the difficulty involved with prompting until the network finally spits an imagine you are satisfied with.