Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Shelsonw t1_j9iaqlv wrote

And so it begins, the flood of cheap content that will bury human made content in a morass of garbage until we won’t know what’s fake or real. All to cheers and applause of what a brilliant future we are creating….

49

aft_punk t1_j9id1ve wrote

I actually think it has the possibility of swinging the other way (at least in some areas).

Content being read and judged more critically, to select the gems among the sea of drivel (which humans are quite capable of producing without the assistance of AI)

This article is about the editors attempts to block AI content, it’s hard to see how a publication will be able to curate high quality content without a bit of my theory playing out.

11

Ehgadsman t1_j9isozl wrote

its not the quality, its the ability to deal with the shear mass of AI generated content versus content humans take time to produce.

19

scummos t1_j9iy72c wrote

> I actually think it has the possibility of swinging the other way (at least in some areas).

I think that's without alternatives honestly. The internet long has suffered from a problem with algorithmically curated, if not outright generated, content now. This time will come to an end, because already now googling things tends to yield heaps of garbage to sift through to get to the one good piece of information, and it will get worse quickly with all this AI tooling available.

I guess people will turn back to reading their favourite blogs and websites more (or the more modern counterparts realized in Instagram or whatever -- same concept, you look at content created or curated by a specific person), and explore through what people they trust point them to. Which is probably a good thing, since exploring the algorithm-curated landscape was usually not particularly great. (I'm looking at you, "Youtube related videos".)

I think the algorithmically curated landscape (e.g. Google search) will retract more and more towards just buying/selling things, because that's a transaction with real money and real things attached, which cannot plausibly be fudged by AI.

4

K----_ST t1_j9lmxwd wrote

As long as you have the option to upvote or 'like' or 'retweet' things, your theory doesn't hold true. The internet is about popular opinion even if it's not right.

1

RobsEvilTwin t1_j9it619 wrote

ChatGPT is already a better writer than a lot of fresh out of uni graduates I have trained over the years :X

0

XO-3b t1_j9iuh9t wrote

And what if that AI creates some of the greatest pieces of art we've ever seen

−5

walkingmonster t1_j9j9lsj wrote

AI "art" is just an amalgam of 1000 things we've seen 1000 times before (but now with goopy mutant hands). It's a revolutionary tool for content creation, but it doesn't come close to actual human creativity/ ingenuity. It will always be derivative.

3

Shelsonw t1_j9jctzj wrote

Is that true if AI Art wins Art Contests? If the AI is able to “beat” real artists in a competition, one where the art is scrutinized for these things… and do it without the competition knowing… Would that not be the pinnacle? Proof that it’s able emulate what we do?

https://www.theinertia.com/surf/ai-generated-surf-image-wins-australian-photo-competition/#

0

K----_ST t1_j9lomg4 wrote

It isn't though. There's quite a bit wrong with that image from a surfer's perspective and the judges weren't surfers which is why she talks about the 'perfection' being appealing to the laymen person. A surfer is going to know that the break is weird, or the flow and physics of the whitewash doesn't make sense.

In general, most people who aren't privy to a specific discipline are ignorant of it. My neighborhood fb group is filled with people who couldn't tell the difference between a well post-processed photo and one that's massively clipped in the highlights with maxed out clarity and saturation.

2

ExasperatedEE t1_j9ijpww wrote

There's nothing fake about it.

And garbage is garbage, whether its created by humans, or created by AI.

If ChatGPT is generating garbage, and this magazine can't tell the difference between the work an AI is spitting out and what humans are putting out, then what the humans were putting out was also garbage.

−7

Clairvoidance t1_j9islc2 wrote

Well if they closed it because of the amount of people that submitted AI content, they must've been able to tell

a likely explanation is that they didn't want to sift through it

10

Ehgadsman t1_j9isomq wrote

its not the quality, its the ability to deal with the shear mass of AI generated content versus content humans take time to produce.

5

Zer0pede t1_j9ix7nj wrote

Yeah, before if a bad writer wanted to submit something, they’d actually have to take the time and effort to write it. That slows them down and weeds out the lazy ones. Now they just have to write a prompt. Nothing to slow them down and nothing to weed out the laziest. Having to read the first several paragraphs of hundreds of submissions just sounds miserable—literally more work than it took them to “write” it. I would absolutely ban everyone who wasted my time like that.

8

K----_ST t1_j9lnojp wrote

Just had this convo in the Midjourney sub. Not only is it creating entitled, low-effort individuals, it's also teaching them to use descriptive words and phrases of concepts incorrectly. But they don't care because it yields the output that looks good to them.

2

Zer0pede t1_j9lom1q wrote

“Write me a book in the style of Leonardo DaVinci. Greg Rutkowski. Not ugly. Anatomically correct hands. Masterpiece. Beautiful woman. Greg Rutkowski. Makoto Shinkai. Anime. Greg Rutkowski. Normal fingers.”

2

ExasperatedEE t1_j9k5b7k wrote

500 short stories in one month is not an insurmountable amount of content. That's the amount of reading a child is expected to do in a month in school.

0

Shelsonw t1_j9jcyx5 wrote

AI wins art contest in Australia, even the judges couldn’t tell it was AI generated. Right up there with top quality images. So much for all of it being garbage; or is the very best we can do also garbage?

https://www.theinertia.com/surf/ai-generated-surf-image-wins-australian-photo-competition/#

0

ExasperatedEE t1_j9k3ibt wrote

Well, in that case you could argue the AI cheated. It didn't take a photo. It PAINTED the image. If a human used photoshop to create a photorealitic image that won a photography competition, they would also be cheating, and lose, if caught.

> or is the very best we can do also garbage?

It's photography. It's a hobby where if you are wealthy enough to afford the equipment and travel to exotic places and hang out for long enough to spot a cool looking animal, you can win prizes by pointing, adjusting focus, and clicking a button at the right time. It doesn't require a huge amount of skill. Someone can be a naturally talented photographer with almost no training, whereas being a highly skilled artist requires decades of practice. Don't tell me that the award winning photo of the afghan girl isn't a photo that almost any portrait photographer in a mall couldn't have managed to snag, had they been in the right place at the right time.

So maybe the problem really is we're giving wealthy people awards for mediocirity? Even art is not immune to this. There is a hell of a lot of "art" that sells for a lot of money which is literally just a pile of garbage in a corner. But hey, the AI can't produce that, yet, right? That's a physical thing.

So maybe the solution here is for artists to go back to mediums that are physical, like acrylic paint on canvas, and then sell those works for a lot of money instead of just mass printing their stuff on a laserjet? I know I wouldn't buy a laserjet image, human or AI generated, but something with acrylic or oil that has depth to the brush strokes? That's something worth hanging on your wall and paying for.

2