Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9238103" data-attributes="member: 177">We used to think that AI couldn't produce such complicated images at all.&nbsp; Declaration that such feats are impossible is... maybe not a good bet to make.Better to say that we can't do that... yet.&nbsp; But, again, short of cryptographic signing, in principle there's no digital asset that generative AI systems cannot create.&nbsp; There are only ones they haven't yet been trained to create.If you make such layers part of the training data, it is entirely possible to do.&quot;A long way&quot; doesn't mean what it used to.&nbsp; For the next couple of years, maybe this will suffice, but if there's sufficient money at stake, the technology will catch up sooner than we'd want it to.No, again, they'd need to start with data on how an artist works.&nbsp; Current generative AI is trained on only the end products, because those are easy to get off the internet.&nbsp; Feed it files with those histories, though, and it becomes a different ball game.Watch for image creation tools to start having terms that allow access to your data for &quot;diagnostic purposes&quot;...That is not fundamental to the technology.&nbsp; That is merely what we have trained it to produce.&nbsp; Note that producing art and producing text is not even fundamental to the technology.&nbsp; For example, back in the day, I did research in training neural networks to simulate high energy particle collisions for tuning data analysis tools at accelerators.&nbsp; Since the AI doesn't understand what it is doing, it also doesn't actually care what it is doing - what is fundamental to the technology is intake of digital data and output of things that are similar to that data.&nbsp; And that's about it, fundamentally speaking.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9238103, member: 177"] We used to think that AI couldn't produce such complicated images at all. Declaration that such feats are impossible is... maybe not a good bet to make. Better to say that we can't do that... yet. But, again, short of cryptographic signing, in principle there's no digital asset that generative AI systems [I]cannot[/I] create. There are only ones they haven't yet been trained to create. If you make such layers [I]part of the training data[/I], it is entirely possible to do. "A long way" doesn't mean what it used to. For the next couple of years, maybe this will suffice, but if there's sufficient money at stake, the technology will catch up sooner than we'd want it to. No, again, they'd need to start with [I]data[/I] on how an artist works. Current generative AI is trained on only the end products, because those are easy to get off the internet. Feed it files with those histories, though, and it becomes a different ball game. Watch for image creation tools to start having terms that allow access to your data for "diagnostic purposes"... That is not [I]fundamental[/I] to the technology. That is merely what we have trained it to produce. Note that [I]producing art[/I] and [I]producing text[/I] is not even fundamental to the technology. For example, back in the day, I did research in training neural networks to simulate high energy particle collisions for tuning data analysis tools at accelerators. Since the AI doesn't understand what it is doing, it also doesn't actually care what it is doing - what is fundamental to the technology is intake of digital data and output of things that are similar to that data. And that's about it, fundamentally speaking. [/QUOTE]

Verification