Comment on Visual artists fight back against AI companies for repurposing their work

<- View Parent
FooBarrington@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

They cannot make something new. By nature, they can only mimic.

Explain it to me from a mathematical point of view. How can I know based on the structure of GANs or Transformers that they, by nature, can only mimic? Please explain it mathematically, since you’re referring to their nature.

The randomness they use to combine different pieces of work, is not creativeness. It’s brute force. It’s doing the math a million times until it looks right.

This betrays a lack of understanding on your part. What is the difference between creativeness and brute force? The rate of acceptable navigations in the latent space. Transformers and GANs do not brute force in any capacity. Where do you get the idea that they generate millions of variations until they get it right?

Humans fundamentally do not work that way. When an engineer sees a design, and thinks “I can improve that” they are doing so because they understand the mechanism.

Define understanding for me. AI can, for example, automatically optimise algorithms (it’s a fascinating field, finding a more efficient implementation without changing results). This should be impossible if you’re correct. Why does it work? Why can they optimise without understanding, and why can’t this be used in other areas?

Modern AIs do not understand anything. They brute force their way to valid output, and in some cases, like with code, science, or an engineering problem, there might be one single best solution, which an AI can find faster than a human.

Again, define understanding. They provably build internal models depending on the task you’re training. How is that not a form of understanding?

But art, DOES NOT HAVE a single correct “solution”.

Then it seems great that an AI doesn’t always give the same result for the same input, no?

source
Sort:hotnewtop