I have a feeling this experiment would sooner get the axe than have ads injected. There was initially a waiting list, but just a few days in it was completely open to the public.

Sometimes they just do research. Like when their employees made transformers and nothing came of them until Open AI capitalized on it.

There are ads in them now? I didn’t encounter any when using it a few days ago.

I just generated one and didn’t hear any ads.

You keep moving the goal posts and putting words in my mouth. I never said you can do new things out of nothing. Nothing I mentioned is approaching, equaling, or exceeding the effort of training a model.

You haven’t answered a single one of my questions, and you are not arguing in good faith. We’re done here. I can’t say it’s been a pleasure.

Do you have any examples of how they fail? There are plenty of ways to explain new concepts to models.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19427 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.11643 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12962 https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06425 https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18922 https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01300

What kind of creativity are you talking about then? I’ve also never heard of a bloated model. Which models are bloated?

But at what point does that guidance just become the dataset you removed from the training data?

The whole point is that it didn’t know the concepts beforehand, and no it doesn’t become the dataset. Observations made of the training data are added to the model’s weights after training, the dataset is never relevant again as the model’s weights are locked in.

To get it to run Doom, they used Doom.

To realize a new genre, you’ll “just” have to make that game the old fashion way, first.

Or you could train a more general model. These things happen in steps, research is a process.

There are more forms of guidance than just raw words. Just off the top of my head, there’s inpainting, outpainting, controlnets, prompt editing, and embeddings. The researchers who pulled this off definitely didn’t do it with text prompts.

I mean, you’ve never seen a purple elephant with a tennis racket. None of that exists in the data set since elephants are neither purple nor tennis players. Exposure to all the individual elements allows for generation of concepts outside the existing data, even though they don’t exit in reality or in the data set.

Is one of these cats just large or is this a trick of perspective?

Yeah, I’m fine with a coalition being formed as long as there are no people like Sam Altman in it.

ACAB

This isn’t undermining artists, it’s expanding access and knowledge, enabling individuals to take control of their own destinies. Open-source AI will empower artists, existing artists and newly active or returning artists who give this new medium a shot, by giving them the new tools that will push the frontiers of self-expression and redefine creativity this decade.

100 years ago photographers and filmmakers significantly disrupted the careers of most illustrators, story tellers, and theater companies of the time. Despite this, storytelling and image making exploded, entering a new golden age. Musicians panicked over the use of synthesizers in the 80s too often refusing to work with people involved with synthesizers. As a result, there are fewer drummers today than in 1970, but out of that came hip hop and house. Suppressing that tool would have been a huge cultural loss. Generative art hasn’t found its Marley Marl or Frankie Knuckles yet, but they’re out there, and they’re going to do stuff that will blow our minds. Cutting edge tools and techniques have always propelled art and artists forward. Every advancement a leap forward, leaving behind constraints and enabling more people to pursue their creative aspirations.

That reminds me of a presentation I saw a little while back.

If you want to fight against people’s right to freely communicate and express themselves, be my guest, but it’s not a fight you can win.

Giving all people a tool to help them more effectively communicate, express themselves, learn, and come together is something everyone should get behind.

I firmly believe in the public’s right to access and use information, while acknowledging artists should retain specific rights over their creations. I also accept that the rights they don’t retain have always enabled ethical self-expression and productive dialogue.

Imagine if copyright owners had the power to simply remove whatever wasn’t profitable for them from existence. We’d be hindering critical functions such as critique, investigation, reverse engineering, and even the simple cataloging of knowledge. In place of all that good, we’d have an ideal world for those with money, tyrants, and all those who seek control, and the undermining of the free exchange of ideas.

Taking artists’ work without consent or compensation goes against the spirit of open source, though, doesn’t it?

It doesn’t. Making observations about others’ works is a well-established tool for any researchers, reviewers, and people inventing new works. A concept which work perfectly within the open source framework. That’s all these models are, original analysis of its training set in comparison with one another. Because it’s a step one must necessarily take when doing anything, doing this doesn’t require anyone’s permission and is itself a right we all have.

I’m not fighting for the extremely wealthy, I’m fighting for the existence of competitive open source models. Something that can’t happen with what you’ve proposed. That would just hand corporations a monopoly of a public technology by making it prohibitively expensive to for regular people to keep up with the megacorporations that already own vast troves of data and can afford to buy even more.

This article by Katherine Klosek, the director of information policy and federal relations at the Association of Research Libraries does a good job of explaining what I’m talking about.

I don’t think they have to, the point is to fight against regression of public rights for the benefit of the few.

So the question that comes to mind is exactly how, on a practical level, it would work to make sure that when a company scrapes data, trains and AI, and then makes billions of dollars, the thousands or millions of people who created the data all get a cut after the fact. Because particularly in the creative sector, a lot of people are freelancers who don’t have a specific employer they can go after. From a purely practical perspective, paying artists before the data is used makes sure all those freelancers get paid. Waiting until the company makes a profit, taxing it out of them, and then distributing it to artists doesn’t seem practical to me.

This isn’t labor law.

Creating same-y pieces with AI will not improve the material conditions of artists’ lives, either. All that does is drag everyone down in a race to the bottom on who can churn out the most dreck the most quickly. “If we advance the technology enough, everybody can have it on their device and make as much AI-generated crap as they like” does not secure stable futures for artists.

If you’re worried about labor issues, use labor law to improve your conditions. Don’t deny regular people access to a competitive, corporate-independent tool for creativity, education, entertainment, and social mobility for your monetary gain.

Art ain’t just a good; it’s self-expression, communication, inspiration, joy – rights that belong to every human being. The kind of people wanting to relegate such a significant part of the human experience to a domain where only the few can benefit aren’t the kind of people that want things to get better. They want to become the proverbial boot. The more people can participate in these conversations, the more we can all learn.

I understand that you are passionate about this topic, and that you have strong opinions. However, insults, and derisive language aren’t helping this discussion. They only create hostility and resentment, and undermine your credibility. If you’re interested, we can continue our discussion in good faith, but if your next comment is like this one, I won’t be replying.