Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mandamelon t1_iwas367 wrote

Reply to comment by Sashinii in AI Drew This Gorgeous Comic Series, But You'd Never Know It by rpaul9578

but the works that any model produces are derived from existing art in a sense, yes? even if 'copy' is too strong a word let's not pretend that it's a totally distinct and novel thing. concerns about human artists being displaced are not unfounded

−5

Sashinii t1_iwasrga wrote

AI art and human art are equally as original.

Literally all jobs are going to become obsolete in the 2020's or the 2030's; AGI will accelerate progress in molecular nanotechnology research, leading to the creation of the nanofactory, which will enable post-scarcity.

10

red75prime t1_iwb4g33 wrote

If you have 1 kW universal nanofactory, the minimum estimate of the amount of time to produce, say, a sturdy steel shovel (or a pound of rice for that matter) is around an hour (one erased bit per atom at Landauer limit at room temperature and no other energy expenditure). The more realistic time is probably around 1000-10000 hours or a month to a year. Diamondoid shovel will be lighter (and can be built faster), but there still are limits on how light it can be (and you can't make lightweight diamondoid food). Rice that costs 1 - 10 megawatt-hours per pound is hardly sustainable.

Universal nanofactories are quite energy hungry due to amount of computations and operations required to place individual atoms.

See part 8.2 of http://crnano.r30.net/Nanofactory.pdf for example.

So I think that universal nanofactories will supplement instead of replacing traditional manufacture methods.

Specialized nanofactories can be more efficient (e.g. biological processes), so a nanofactory that churns out rice at reasonable energy cost (less than megawatt-hour per pound) is realizable, but not so versatile, apparently.

I'm sorry to rain on your parade, but it seems you need access to a megawatt-class power source (that's around 140x140meters or 460x460feet of solar panels) to enjoy a universal nanofactory which is not painfully slow.

Atomic "lego block" factories will probably be a suitable compromise: higher speed, less prone to abuse (building toxins and poisons, for example).

0

Rumianti6 t1_iwreiv5 wrote

You can't run from this, I will educate you. AI-generated imagery as it stands is a flat collage of input. Human artists also reproduce what is put into them. At this point I'd say they are the same, initially, but humans do it three-dimensionally. AI does it flat.

The human neural network is comparatively more detailed than AI as it stands currently, and human art reflects a three-dimensional trajectory through references of sociocultural, psychological, and spatial properties. It reflects a distinct form, and this is originality.

AI-generated art is inferior not because it is "merely" from an AI: they are qualitatively the same as us: but because it is one-dimensional replications of collages of actual originality.

I just dislike humans being elevated qua humans without dissecting that matter.

The truth is that AI art is no where near human art.

0

sumane12 t1_iwb1tiy wrote

But if an artist ever looks at a different artists work, he is being influenced by that work in much the same way an AI would be, the argument here is to say only art created by an artist blind from birth (who's also never heard, felt or taken in any data in anyway about someone else's art, or had any positive or negative feedback) could be considered original art

6

DerivingDelusions t1_iwek2vb wrote

Yes, the artist and the AI create original works. However, there is a difference in how ai vs humans can be inspired.

The difference between an artist and a neural network is that an artist can take inspiration and make it their own by incorporating their own ideas. A neural network actively tries to generalize work in order to reduce a cost function. The universal approximation theorem also tells us that neural networks approximate continuous functions, meaning they are following a predetermined pattern. In this case, inspiration for neural comes from generalizing other works (matching the distribution), which creates original works, but does not allow for the AI to incorporate its own unique ideas (since it’s mathematically not designed to)

1

sumane12 t1_iwg7h7z wrote

And if you can prove humans do not generalise from other work, or patterns found in nature or elsewhere, then you deserve a Nobel prize.

Ultimately our pattern recognition is the same in function as any AI (although may be programmed differently). We cannot extrapolate truly inspirational ideas, we are only able to merge key features of different patterns in a novel way. True inspiration is a fallacy.

1