Rogue Trader Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader Split off discussion

[txa1265]

So perhaps you can explain why human art is not also enirely derivated?

I can't think of a kinder way to put this ... so you know the saying "there are no stupid questions"? Yeah, that has never been true, and this is a great example of why.

 

[bjon045]

Seems like a very odd choice to start using AI art. I liked their artwork already and they should have known only bad things could come from this i.e. negative perception from their customers.

What Owlcat need to get better at is not making too much filler content.

 

[Morrandir]

I can't think of a kinder way to put this ... so you know the saying "there are no stupid questions"? Yeah, that has never been true, and this is a great example of why.

Well, I guess there are indeed stupid questions, but I don't think this is one.
(Perhaps I'm using the term "derivated" incorrectly - I'm not a native speaker.)

What I mean is:
Generative AIs produce things by some type of command (currently simple prompts) and for the production process use a model trained with a lot of data. The result is new in a sense that it didn't exist before in this same way.
Humans produce things not necessarily by commands, but by various motivations, e.g. they need to produce something for an employer, or they just want to do it themselves for joy.
For the production process humans use their experience, not only from works of art from the same category/modality (e.g. images), but general (multi-modal) world "knowledge", including their own emotions. This all (or parts of it) come together resulting in a work of art, which, same as with an AI, didn't exist before in this way.
So in both cases the art is derived from (multimodal) input.

The interesting question is, if the human brain (what else?) is able to actually create something new that is not somehow a (partly randomized) product of these inputs.
For example can a human create an actual new style of art that hadn't been done before (like Dalí, Picasso, Gaudí etc.)?
And if yes, can an AI also do this?
If yes, what then is it that humans can do, but AIs can not?
Or asked differently: which special capability do humans have in creating things, which we're more or less sure that AIs don't also have and never will have?

And don't take the current state of generative AIs as given forever. That's only the beginning. Feeding them more data, especially in different modalities, will result in a lot more sophisticated models and results.

As I've said before, I'm not an expert when it comes to human creativity and art, and I'm sure smart and experienced people have been thinking about stuff like this for a longer time. And I'm genuinely interested in what they think about it.

 

[purpleblob]

This has gone off topic lol. @Pladio are you able to split this into another thread?

 

[Morrandir]

Sorry.

 

[purpleblob]

Sorry.

No need to aplogise to me lol. I just thought this probably deserves a thread of its own.

 

[Redglyph]

Yeah, I proposed that as a poll. Though after all this, perhaps nobody's willing to discuss it any further.

 

[Pladio]

This has gone off topic lol. @Pladio are you able to split this into another thread?

Nope - I have very limited powers.
@Taluntain , @Corwin ?

 

[bizorker]

"Proponents believe increased productivity creates more economic output, which raises $$ / person."

Are we still talking about trickle down economics? You live on the same planet I do, you know how this goes. Surely you know how averages work. "Raising $ per person" means nothing when one person gets all those $'s and raises the average for the rest of the group, who get nothing. In fact, a sizeable number of people in that group will get less $'s.. the fact that the overall number might rise as that wealth is further concentrated in fewer hands is not cause for hope or celebration.

Yes this is an economic theory, and you rightly bring up some of the various counter-points and criticisms. I was just pointing out that any technology-driven productivity advancement (general purpose AI being a relatively new one we are now grappling with) is subject to the same debates about the benefits and costs of increasing human output through productivity gains. Some gains are overwhelming positive and more equally distributed across all humans globally. Others less so. And yes some benefit a tiny fraction of society to the detriment of the masses. Where will AI end up on that spectrum? It seems this group generally feels uneasily about the tradeoffs for the specific sub category of "AI-generated CPRG art". I'm a bit more optimistic, but I could easily see it being very bad along the lines many here point out.

 

[bizorker]

I can't think of a kinder way to put this ... so you know the saying "there are no stupid questions"? Yeah, that has never been true, and this is a great example of why.

I thought the question was fascinating and definitely not stupid. If I were in a philosophy class and asked to come up with some rebuttal to the statement "AI is theft because it is based on prior work", I think this is a legit line of questioning that the class would find interesting and worthy of examination. Nothing I do is really original because it is derived from my human experience. And so using a machine to accelerate and enhance what I am already doing as a human isn't unethical. Not saying that is correct or even makes sense, as I was not philosophy major. But I'd be willing to bet this line of thinking is discussed / debated by serious people outside of the RPGWatch forum.