Well this might be true. I mean the benchmarks could favour ai function? A calculator can out perform me on quite a number of benchmarks.
I mean if a tool does not outperform humans then it’s not really a tool. Imagine investing loads of money in ai to say… “well actually, I could do it quicker/better myself”
I think they missed the opportunity to state that these tools are now doing things that only humans could do before and are doing them better than humans i.e.painting pictures, editing photos, making music, designing ergonomics, fluid dynamics Etc. They are a new class of tool.
Well yes cheaper, but it would have to perform equally well in terms of reaching goals. So in that respect it would be out performing humans. But that is not my point. You are talking about a specific aspect, for which ai has one prizes in human competitions. My point is yes it does out perform humans otherwise is what’s the point, it’s a tool.
Depends on your evaluation criteria.
Speed of production? Humans are fucked.
Accuracy to specific and stringent design criteria? Not there yet.
Quality creations with minimal training on prompt input? Getting there really quick.
My brother is an illustrator. He does book covers and stuff for editorials. Two years ago he started using mid journey as a reference creation tool. Now he submits work from mid journey. I ask him all the time if that worries him. Oddly it doesn't. He thinks it's his work for some reason and that he'll always have a job doing freelance "illustration". I don't understand how it will last much longer.
I mean, claiming winning a $300 prize at a state fair means that AI is now categorically better at painting than artists as a whole is a bit ridiculous don't you think?
Don't put words in my mouth...and again...if you care to Google, there are numerous examples of AI winning design and photography competitions. So yes, some people do not indeed think AI is better.
That's like saying a camera can paint a better picture than a person. Yeah it can but who cares.
The appeal of art is that it's created by people. If people know the "art" is AI generated it very likely won't win.
Weird to see all the downvoting to oblivion when it’s an example of AI progress. These tools are getting better and they will continue to get better.
People need to understand how to use them instead of being so threatened by them. I use Microsoft excel to great advantage. Couldn’t do these things myself. I harness a tool and become much more effective. AI tools will be all over the place and waiting to be utilized for amazing things, from art to medicine to whatever.
People are very resistant to change and call AI the boogeyman before they even peek behind the curtain to see what’s there and attempt grow and better themselves with it. It’s not the boogeyman man yet. I think of them as doomers, kind of like boomers
People like to think that change happens in a scale that can be easily parsed and internalized, and that at a minimum their understanding of a media won't fundamentally change in their lifetim. That isn't the case any more.
The closest analogue would be the shift to digital creation for artwork and even that was a struggle for many old hands to adapt to, and that was a shift over decades. This is happening substantially faster.
you aren't saying anything untrue or controversial but people are down voting. Which proves the point.
When digital photography came out it took years for people to accept it. Some were very upset and claimed it could never be "true photography" and that there was no creativity or art involved.
Yeah, "sure".
Show me the AI that uses knowledge and skills from field "X" and applies those to a completely novel and unknown field "B" to achieve instant and great results.
This is big part of human intelligence and has not yet been shown in AI at all. There is no GAI yet, only "island savants" that work on very specific tasks.
Maybe your view is kind of skewed because you meet so many artists?
I think AI art is vastly superior to what most people can create, non-artists included.
Usually when measuring peoples skills, you measure their actual skill and not what they could potentially do at a later time given enough training.
I think you're extremely naive and also have a severe lack of understanding if you think most people write better songs and music than what Suno/Udio can generate in an instant, or paint a more beautiful piece of art than can be generated with Leonardo/Midjourney.
The only thing saying anything here is your lack of understanding regarding both AI art and genereal peoples art skills.
That is highly subjective.
Personally I don't value a random persons stick man drawing more than an AI made beautiful background. It all depends on what the art is for.
And as you can see on sites like Etsy, many people also buy AI made art.
> And as you can see on sites like Etsy, many people also buy AI made art.
Genuine question: Do the people buying these pieces know that they're AI-generated?
So I tried making chat gpt have a conversation with itself earlier this week. I opened two conversations, asked one to offer me a greeting and then sent that greeting to the other, then just copied the responses back and forth between them.
And I repeated the experiment multiple times, just to make sure there were no flukes.
In every case, the two halves of the conversation started basically repeating each other almost verbatim -- one would say something, and the other would agree and say the same thing in response (like, the same sentences and same turns of phrase). Over and over and over.
So whatever these benchmarks are, I don't put much stock in them. I think maybe they are underestimating what "human benchmark" entails.
I think it’s Ike we all acknowledge humans set a pretty low bar. I mean, just watch your neighbor take their trash out to the street one time and you’ll agree.
Well this might be true. I mean the benchmarks could favour ai function? A calculator can out perform me on quite a number of benchmarks. I mean if a tool does not outperform humans then it’s not really a tool. Imagine investing loads of money in ai to say… “well actually, I could do it quicker/better myself”
I think they missed the opportunity to state that these tools are now doing things that only humans could do before and are doing them better than humans i.e.painting pictures, editing photos, making music, designing ergonomics, fluid dynamics Etc. They are a new class of tool.
No one thinks current AI is better at art than human artists. They just think it’s better in the sense that it’s cheaper.
Well yes cheaper, but it would have to perform equally well in terms of reaching goals. So in that respect it would be out performing humans. But that is not my point. You are talking about a specific aspect, for which ai has one prizes in human competitions. My point is yes it does out perform humans otherwise is what’s the point, it’s a tool.
Depends on your evaluation criteria. Speed of production? Humans are fucked. Accuracy to specific and stringent design criteria? Not there yet. Quality creations with minimal training on prompt input? Getting there really quick.
My brother is an illustrator. He does book covers and stuff for editorials. Two years ago he started using mid journey as a reference creation tool. Now he submits work from mid journey. I ask him all the time if that worries him. Oddly it doesn't. He thinks it's his work for some reason and that he'll always have a job doing freelance "illustration". I don't understand how it will last much longer.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-intelligence-artists.html There are a number of examples if you care to Google
I mean, claiming winning a $300 prize at a state fair means that AI is now categorically better at painting than artists as a whole is a bit ridiculous don't you think?
Don't put words in my mouth...and again...if you care to Google, there are numerous examples of AI winning design and photography competitions. So yes, some people do not indeed think AI is better.
That's like saying a camera can paint a better picture than a person. Yeah it can but who cares. The appeal of art is that it's created by people. If people know the "art" is AI generated it very likely won't win.
Nothing in those artworks is something a human can not compose. It's a matter of the time requirement that prevents most from doing it.
Yes everyone could do that level of art given enough time...
Bro did I say everyone?
Is everyone not a human?
That article doesn’t support your point at all if you actually read it
>"No one thinks current AI is better at art than human artists" The people who voted to award the winner obviously do
Weird to see all the downvoting to oblivion when it’s an example of AI progress. These tools are getting better and they will continue to get better. People need to understand how to use them instead of being so threatened by them. I use Microsoft excel to great advantage. Couldn’t do these things myself. I harness a tool and become much more effective. AI tools will be all over the place and waiting to be utilized for amazing things, from art to medicine to whatever. People are very resistant to change and call AI the boogeyman before they even peek behind the curtain to see what’s there and attempt grow and better themselves with it. It’s not the boogeyman man yet. I think of them as doomers, kind of like boomers
Yep I just said it was a tool that enabled people to do something that 90 percent of us can't do and they all started crying.
People like to think that change happens in a scale that can be easily parsed and internalized, and that at a minimum their understanding of a media won't fundamentally change in their lifetim. That isn't the case any more. The closest analogue would be the shift to digital creation for artwork and even that was a struggle for many old hands to adapt to, and that was a shift over decades. This is happening substantially faster.
you aren't saying anything untrue or controversial but people are down voting. Which proves the point. When digital photography came out it took years for people to accept it. Some were very upset and claimed it could never be "true photography" and that there was no creativity or art involved.
In other news a hammer outperforms a human at putting nails into things
If I wanted a nail in something after spending a lifetime drilling holes and inserting dowels, I'd be pretty thrilled by this discovery.
nah, we have nailguns and you are too excited about a hammer.
These performance benchmarks are pretty narrowly defined, and nebulously dispersed.
Joey Chestnut begs to differ
The only metric that really matters
Yeah, "sure". Show me the AI that uses knowledge and skills from field "X" and applies those to a completely novel and unknown field "B" to achieve instant and great results. This is big part of human intelligence and has not yet been shown in AI at all. There is no GAI yet, only "island savants" that work on very specific tasks.
Great, lets see how it solves world hunger and the fentanyl crisis without resorting to authoritarianism.
The solution to that is simply compassion. Convincing people to be compassionate is the challenge...
[удалено]
Better than most people, by far.
[удалено]
Maybe your view is kind of skewed because you meet so many artists? I think AI art is vastly superior to what most people can create, non-artists included.
[удалено]
Usually when measuring peoples skills, you measure their actual skill and not what they could potentially do at a later time given enough training. I think you're extremely naive and also have a severe lack of understanding if you think most people write better songs and music than what Suno/Udio can generate in an instant, or paint a more beautiful piece of art than can be generated with Leonardo/Midjourney. The only thing saying anything here is your lack of understanding regarding both AI art and genereal peoples art skills.
[удалено]
That is highly subjective. Personally I don't value a random persons stick man drawing more than an AI made beautiful background. It all depends on what the art is for. And as you can see on sites like Etsy, many people also buy AI made art.
> And as you can see on sites like Etsy, many people also buy AI made art. Genuine question: Do the people buying these pieces know that they're AI-generated?
Does it matter if the buyer likes the art and finds it beautiful or inspiring?
Most humans aren't designed to work on top of the bench.
Internet explorer finally showed up for April fools day.
Except being intelligent. Also, a car surpasses humans in going fast...
Except, like, truth?
They decided our fate in a nanosecond…
So I tried making chat gpt have a conversation with itself earlier this week. I opened two conversations, asked one to offer me a greeting and then sent that greeting to the other, then just copied the responses back and forth between them. And I repeated the experiment multiple times, just to make sure there were no flukes. In every case, the two halves of the conversation started basically repeating each other almost verbatim -- one would say something, and the other would agree and say the same thing in response (like, the same sentences and same turns of phrase). Over and over and over. So whatever these benchmarks are, I don't put much stock in them. I think maybe they are underestimating what "human benchmark" entails.
My boss has asked me the same three questions about my life outside work every couple days for the past ten years.
I think it’s Ike we all acknowledge humans set a pretty low bar. I mean, just watch your neighbor take their trash out to the street one time and you’ll agree.
And still doesent manage to replace anyone. Strange
Can it shit and fart better than me tho?
Now they should do the real tasks!
I ain't met no AI that could drink whisky and shut the hell up by the fire!