Source (Via Xcancel)
Text
At first glance I thought this **** was just posting my work and claiming it as their own… and I was a bit angry. On closer examination, this is AI generated, and “angry” doesn’t come close to describing how I feel. The second image is the original, just for reference.
Followup tweet:
The reason AI’s results look so convincing is because it’s a plagiarism machine (and sometimes not a very good one). It cannot operate without our work which has been stolen and used without compensation because the courts have decided this is a “fair use”. Fair to whom?
I saw a great video on Youtube illustrating this by attempting to convince it to make a wine glass full to the brim (which it simply can’t), and going into the deeper philosophy of ideas to explain why it normally appears to be able to create “completely new” concepts when really it’s just mashing two existing concepts together, but cannot actually correctly combine the separate ideas of “completely full” or “almost empty” with a “wine glass” properly. Because nobody ever does this and we use a different definition of “full” for a wine glass, there is no useful source material for it, and the AI has no idea how to do it either, while of course always being convinced it has correctly understood what a completely full wine glass looks like. It doesn’t have novel ideas, it doesn’t have an imagination, it is not intelligence. It is just plagiarism. It is using its nearly limitless database of the work of thousands of years of human creativity to appear as if it too is creative. It’s not.
One of the top comments on the video says that as of 2 months ago it was able to produce a full glass of wine. The video is 4 months old.
It is old, and yes AIs are continuously getting updated, but the principles still stand. Of course images of completely full wine glasses can and do exist (and if they didn’t it would only take a few moments to create some), and upon realizing this limitation, people (not the AIs themselves) are going to learn from this mistake and train the AIs better, give the existing or created images the necessary weighting to make sure that particular flaw is fixed and make their AI seem even more intelligent.
But it doesn’t address the fundamental philosophical limitation and it doesn’t make them intelligent. It only fixes wine glasses in particular. and of course in the process they also fix the millions of other things they’re constantly training these AI to do. What it does NOT fix is the literally infinite number of other ideas that an AI simply can’t conceive. I’m sure we’ll add them as quickly as we come across them, but that’s still human ingenuity at work, not AI.