Technology

parent

[–] lloram239@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

That's the current pace of AI. It's evolving insane fast and already extremely capable.

Here is a little game:

go to artstation.com
pick a random pretty picture
recreate it in DALLE3, Bing Image Creator (which gives DALLE3 access for free) or Midjourney

Example: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/LRmYvl

Result: https://imgur.com/a/ImbNQDk (about 20 seconds of effort)

It's ridiculously easy to recreate almost anything on there at a similar or sometimes even better level of quality. Literally seconds to recreate what would take a human hours or even days. What are the chances that humans will still be relevant in this line of work in 5 or 10 years, when we are able to create this level of quality after not even three years of AI image generation?

And the same will be true for every other job or activity that mainly works on digital data. When you can find enough data to train an AI on, it's gone. Humans are no longer needed. And more general AI model will sooner or later eat up all the rest as well.

I seriously don't know how one can look at the progress in AI over the last two years and not have a bit of an existential crisis.

parent

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It’s ridiculously easy to recreate almost anything on there at a similar or sometimes even better level of quality

And ridiculously difficult to copyright any of it because it was generated.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Yes, AI doesn't work with copyright.

And since AI is here to stay, we better replace our failed copyright system with something proper. Disney be damned.

parent

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago

we better replace our failed copyright system with something proper. Disney be damned.

I'd like that? But if you're expecting the "we" in here to be the current people in their current power structures I suspect you'll be waiting an awfully long time for that result.

parent

[–] lloram239@feddit.de -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

That doesn't change that the value of human art just went down to zero. Nobody is going to pay hundreds of dollar for something AI can produce in seconds. Furthermore the whole "AI art can't be copyrighted" is just wrong to begin with, any tiny bit of human cleanup automatically makes it copyrightable again and since nobody can tell how the image was created in the first place, you'd be operating in a minefield if you just randomly steal art in the hopse that it was AI generated. Keep in mind that Photoshop already has most of this builtin and it's becoming a normal part of the workflow of editing images.

And it's all pointless anyway. You have AI, you can recreate anything in seconds. Why even bother stealing anything in the first place? You can just make your own and customize it for the occasion.

The whole idea of copyright might soon be obsolete, as AI can make you something very similar, yet completely original.

The interesting question left is: Will static art survive at all? Will the future still have static movies or will everybody just generate their personalized dynamic entertainment on demand?

parent

[–] aesthelete@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago*

The interesting question left is: Will static art survive at all? Will the future still have static movies or will everybody just generate their personalized dynamic entertainment on demand?

Lol this reminds me of when Kramer from Seinfeld asks if we'll still be using napkins in the year 2000 or if this "mouth vacuum" thing is for real.

There's already been court cases suggesting that AI art isn't copyrightable.

The AI art I've seen so far is about as compelling as random crap from deviant art. The only difference being at least the starving artists on there know how many fingers are on a hand.