They are choosing to abstain from using artificial intelligence for environmental, ethical and personal reasons. Maybe they have a point, writes Guardian columnist Arwa Mahdawi
You only notice AI-generated content when it’s bad/obvious, but you’d never notice the AI-generated content that’s so good it’s indistinguishable from something generated by a human.
I don’t know what percentage of the “good” content we see is AI-generated, but it’s probably more than 0 and will probably go up over time.
Shit take, the more AI-made media is online, the harder it is for AI developing companies to improve on previous models.
It won’t be indistinguishable from media made with human effort, unless you enjoy wasting your time on cheap uninteresting manmade slop then you won’t be fooled by cheap uninteresting and untrue AI-made slop.
I was talking about ai training on ai output, ai requires genuine data, having a feedback loop makes models regress, see how ai makes yellow pictures because of the ghibli ai thing
Sure, that mainly applies when it’s the same model training on itself. If a model trains on a different one, it might retrieve some good features from it, but the bad sides as well
If they weren’t trained on the same data, it ends up similar
Training inferior models with superior models output can lower the gap between both. It’ll not be optimal by any means and you might fuck its future learning, but it will work to an extent
The data you feed it should be good quality though
Maybe, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was trained on stolen artwork and is being used to put artists out of work. I think that, and the environmental effect, are better arguments against AI than some subjective statement about whether or not it’s good.
You only notice AI-generated content when it’s bad/obvious, but you’d never notice the AI-generated content that’s so good it’s indistinguishable from something generated by a human.
I don’t know what percentage of the “good” content we see is AI-generated, but it’s probably more than 0 and will probably go up over time.
Shit take, the more AI-made media is online, the harder it is for AI developing companies to improve on previous models.
It won’t be indistinguishable from media made with human effort, unless you enjoy wasting your time on cheap uninteresting manmade slop then you won’t be fooled by cheap uninteresting and untrue AI-made slop.
They all use each other’s data to improve. That’s federated learning!
In a way, it’s good because it helps have more competition
I was talking about ai training on ai output, ai requires genuine data, having a feedback loop makes models regress, see how ai makes yellow pictures because of the ghibli ai thing
Sure, that mainly applies when it’s the same model training on itself. If a model trains on a different one, it might retrieve some good features from it, but the bad sides as well
AI requires genuine data, period. Go read about it instead of spewing nonsense.
If they weren’t trained on the same data, it ends up similar
Training inferior models with superior models output can lower the gap between both. It’ll not be optimal by any means and you might fuck its future learning, but it will work to an extent
The data you feed it should be good quality though
deleted by creator
Maybe, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was trained on stolen artwork and is being used to put artists out of work. I think that, and the environmental effect, are better arguments against AI than some subjective statement about whether or not it’s good.