• Kissaki@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Original Content”.

    Is it content? Yes.

    Is it original? That depends on the context. What do you ask about, in what context? Where is it placed? Which AI? How was it trained? How does it replicate?

    If someone generates an image, it is original in that narrow context - between them and the AI.

    Is the AI producing originals, original interpretations, original replications, or only transforming other content? I don’t think you can make a general statement on that. It’s too broad, unspecific of a question.

    • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You absolutely can make a general statement. Humans don’t make original content if you don’t think AIs do. The process is basically the same. A human learns to make art, and specific styles, and then produces something from that library of training. An AI does the same thing.

      People saying an AI doesn’t create art from a human prompt don’t understand how humans work.

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Large language models (what marketing departments are calling “AI”) cannot synthesize new ideas or knowledge.

        • redballooon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Don’t know what you are talking about. GPT-4 absolutely can write new stories. What differentiates that from a new idea?

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can’t tell whether you’re saying I don’t know what I’m talking about, or you don’t know what I’m talking about.

            • redballooon@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Doesn’t matter.

              When in conversation the “AI can’t have creativity/new ideas etc” argument comes up, I often get the impression it’s a protective reaction rather than a reflected conclusion.

        • HamSwagwich@showeq.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          First off all, yes they can for all practical purposes. Or, alternately, neither can humans. So the point is academic. There is little difference between the end result from an AI and a human taken at random.

          Secondly, LLMs aren’t really what people are talking about when they talk about AI art.

          • Melllvar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            First off all, yes they can for all practical purposes. Or, alternately, neither can humans. So the point is academic. There is little difference between the end result from an AI and a human taken at random.

            Not even the AI companies’ marketing departments go that far.