Comment on This new data poisoning tool lets artists fight back against generative AI
realharo@lemm.ee 1 year agoNow you’re just cherry picking some surface-level similarities.
You can see the difference in the process in the results, for example in how some generated pictures will contain something like a signature in the corner, simply because it resembles the training data. Or how it is at least possible to get the model to output something extremely close to the training data - gizmodo.com/ai-art-generators-ai-copyright-stable….
That at least proves that the process is quite different to the process of human learning.
The question is how much those differences matter, and which similarities you want to focus on.
vidarh@lemmy.stad.social 1 year ago
If you were to train human children on an endless series of pictures with signatures in the corner, do you seriously think they’d not emulate signatures in the corner?
If you think that, you haven’t seen many children’s drawings, because children also often pick up that it’s normal to put something in the corner, despite the fact that to children pictures with signatures is a tiny proportion of visual input.
People also mimic. We often explicitly learn to mimic - e.g. I have my sons art folder right here, full of examples of him being explicitly taught to make direct copies as a means to learn technique.
We just don’t have very good memory. This is an argument for a difference in ability to retain and reproduce inputs, not an argument for a difference in methods.
And again, this is a strawman. It doesn’t even begin to try to answer the questions I asked, or the one raised by the person you first responded to.
Neither of those really suggests that all, but again that is a strawman.
9thSun@midwest.social 1 year ago
I appreciate your responses, thank you!