ATR2400 t1_j6h5vgy wrote
Reply to comment by ikediggety in Google’s MusicLM is Astoundingly Good at Making AI-Generated Music, But They’re Not Releasing it Due to Copyright Concerns by Royal-Recognition493
That’s not how it works at all. Stable diffusion is trained on over two hundred terabytes of data yet it’s download takes up 4gb on my computer. How? Because it’s not just pulling images from some database and playing mix and match with their pieces.
Although comparison to human learning is not the best in this case it’s called “training” for a reason. The imagery it views is used to teach the AI to create its own imagery. If it bears a resemblance to someone else’s art style it isn’t because it’s ripping images from their deviantart page. It’s because a great deal of how it learned about imagery came from that person. It’s very loosely similar to how if during the process of learning to draw I browsed other peoples works to learn how images of certain things are assembled and used that to gain skill and knowledge but when I make my own art I don’t directly use those images in the creation process. If I learn a lot from a specific person my style may grow similar to theirs. Now I must stress that humans and machines are very different but it’s closer to that than it is to having the AI access some database of stolen images
And no. There’s no compression good enough to compress 250 terabytes into 4gb without making the data supremely useless. And it doesn’t connect to the internet. It works offline
ikediggety t1_j6jclch wrote
"Because it’s not just pulling images from some database and playing mix and match with their pieces."
It's playing mix and match with not just their pieces, but their characteristics. If that wasn't what it was doing, the database would not be required.
"It’s very loosely similar to how if during the process of learning to draw I browsed other peoples works to learn how images of certain things are assembled and used that to gain skill and knowledge but when I make my own art I don’t directly use those images in the creation process."
But you aren't a machine carrying out instructions with no choice. You aren't just an output-producing biological algorithm. The most important input for creation is the initial idea that it is necessary. When you sit down to make a painting, yes, you are employing techniques you may have learned from others, but you may also invent your own techniques that haven't been used before. Most importantly, you are the instigator of your own creative process - you are not making that painting because you are compelled to by outside forces you cannot control, you are making that painting because it occurred to you and you thought it was a good idea.
No machine, absent human input, has ever produced a painting, for the simple reason that no machine ever does anything absent human input. Machines simply carry out instructions given to them by humans. They are very good at that.
It's simply a calculation engine, and humans have done the hard work of figuring out how to use calculations to synthesize works of art.
Let me know when an AI, unprompted and with no input, asks a question of a human being. At that point I will call it intelligence. Until then, it's just a very advanced program processing input to produce output.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments