GPT and what it can do for the Amiga

[TCD]

At least lawyers are safe (for now): https://www.pcgamer.com/state-bar-as...way-from-court

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by TCD

At least lawyers are safe (for now): https://www.pcgamer.com/state-bar-as...way-from-court

But probably not for long. This is a task well suited for pretrained transformers. Give it a few years

[Weasel Fierce]

The real side effect will be that the internet will go from 95% SEO fodder for idiots to 100% of it.

[Weasel Fierce]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

Regarding AI "stealing" artists work - I don't see a problem. Art students have always learned their craft by analysing and imitating the work of other artists, and nobody ever made a fuss about art students "stealing" their work. Passing-off is a different matter but there are already laws about fraud that cover it. I think a lot of mediocre artists with little skill or style of their own are right to worry, but either they should become better artists or find something they're better at.

If an artist imitates another artist and doesnt credit them, we call them a thief because they are violating a social norm.
Computer nerds dont get a pass on that.

[malko]

FR speaking people can watch this CH national broadcast program. It try to inform about what is ChatGPT, what it is not, its strengths, weaknesses and how/where it can actually be used.

https://www.rts.ch/play/tv/infraroug...video:13714300

It is possible that the content is geo-blocked so the use of a VPN connected to Switzerland may be required

[E-Penguin]

Originally Posted by Weasel Fierce

If an artist imitates another artist and doesnt credit them, we call them a thief because they are violating a social norm.
Computer nerds dont get a pass on that.

Nonsense. Every art student since the paleolithic has learned by copying other artists, to imitate their style. It's only theft if the artist/AI fraudulently passes off their artwork as that of someone else. Otherwise it's just a process called "learning".

Do you credit Shakespeare every time you use one of the words or phrases he invented, or have you just learned something through imitation, like every human and neural network?

[Weasel Fierce]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

Nonsense. Every art student since the paleolithic has learned by copying other artists, to imitate their style. It's only theft if the artist/AI fraudulently passes off their artwork as that of someone else. Otherwise it's just a process called "learning".

Thats cool. All you have to do now is convince the entire world that this definition is correct and that there's no need to credit your inspirations.

Do you credit Shakespeare every time you use one of the words or phrases he invented, or have you just learned something through imitation, like every human and neural network?

I assume you understand how time works.

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by Weasel Fierce

Thats cool. All you have to do now is convince the entire world that this definition is correct and that there's no need to credit your inspirations.

Honestly, I think the majority agrees with him, only the lawyers and some % of creators probably care.
There is some debate regarding the AI being trained on art "without permission" but the logic is not as clear cut as some suggest.
Anyone on this planet, when asked to "get creative" they don't stare into a black void and tell their brain "ok, brain lets do this", they immediately start looking at other's work and hope something they see will will trigger some process in their brain. The way AI is trianed is that they "read" the image data.. Would it make a difference to you if the AI was instead looking at it through a camera then store it in its memory?

[eXeler0]

Originally Posted by gimbal

As wrong as something randomly cobbled together can be.

ChatGPT does not exist to answer questions factually, it exists to make you believe lies. It can't reason whether something is correct or not, so it will only be right by complete accident.

I asked it to "explain itself" ;-)

Prompt:
The Amiga programs you write in assembly language are impossible to compile and don't work at all. Why is that?

Answer:
As an AI language model, I strive to generate accurate and functional code for all programming tasks, including assembly language for the Amiga. However, there may be various reasons why the code I generate does not compile or work correctly. Some possible reasons include:

Errors in the code: I may make mistakes while writing the code, such as syntax errors, logic errors, or incorrect use of Amiga-specific assembly language commands.

Incomplete information: If the requirements for the task are not clear or are missing important details, I may generate code that does not meet the intended specifications.

Lack of context: The Amiga is an old platform and its architecture and operating system have changed over the years. The code I generate may not be compatible with a specific version of the Amiga operating system or hardware.

Limitations of my training: I have been trained on a large corpus of text, but there may be gaps in my knowledge of Amiga assembly language or specific features of the platform.

If you have a specific assembly language program for the Amiga that is not working, please provide more details and I would be happy to assist in troubleshooting the issue.

[jotd]

if used properly, I heard that it can be quite useful. But like a human, you have to interact with it A LOT. It's not going to assemble or test the code it writes. You have to do that, and report back if there's an error.

Well, obviously you can't just tell chatgpt that "the code creates a guru and crashes"

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by eXeler0

I asked it to "explain itself" ;-)

Prompt:
The Amiga programs you write in assembly language are impossible to compile and don't work at all. Why is that?

Answer:
TL;DQ

Bingo. It produced a very human-sounding response. That is what it does and it does it well. And because it does, people adopt faith in it.

It is not REALLY reasoning about why it could fail, this is the best generated response to the question it was asked. It is trained well indeed.

[Bruce Abbott]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

Do you credit Shakespeare every time you use one of the words or phrases he invented, or have you just learned something through imitation, like every human and neural network?

If Shakespeare was alive today, you might have to.

Happy Birthday to You

Summy Company became the Summy-Birchard Company in 1957, and this became a division of Birch Tree Group Limited in 1970. Warner/Chappell Music acquired Birch Tree Group Limited in 1988 for US$25 million. The company continued to insist that one cannot sing the "Happy Birthday to You" lyrics for profit without paying royalties; in 2008, Warner collected about US$5,000 per day (US$2 million per year) in royalties for the song. Warner/Chappell claimed copyright for every use in film, television, radio, and anywhere open to the public, and for any group where a substantial number of those in attendance were not family or friends of the performer...

In the European Union, copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. Patty Hill died in 1946 as the last surviving author, so the copyright expired in these countries on January 1, 2017.

Copyright law stinks, but the law is the law.

In the case of ChatGPT however I commiserate with those who object to what it does - which is pass off others' work as its own. Google returns search results that lead you to the source. ChatGPT pretends that it is the source. If it was human it might get away with it, but it's not - it's a machine. A machine that rips off other people's work and then scrambles it a bit to obfuscate the source, and never credits it. Since this is a mechanical process, it falls into the category of copying rather than being a 'derivative work'.

Wikipedia says:-

Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes.

[jotd]

In the case of ChatGPT however I commiserate with those who object to what it does - which is pass off others' work as its own. Google returns search results that lead you to the source. ChatGPT pretends that it is the source. If it was human it might get away with it, but it's not - it's a machine. A machine that rips off other people's work and then scrambles it a bit to obfuscate the source, and never credits it. Since this is a mechanical process, it falls into the category of copying rather than being a 'derivative work'.

that's indeed the main issue!

okay for personal use, but if you publish what it produces you expose yourself to one or several plagiarism offenses (and you don't know what you're plagiarizing or how many you do because it's all blended in the A.I. reply)

[Thomas Richter]

Originally Posted by Bruce Abbott

A machine that rips off other people's work and then scrambles it a bit to obfuscate the source, and never credits it.

That is not really an adequate description of how these things work. It is by no means "scrambling existing input". Rather, it is a network that has been trained with existing texts, source codes and human language such that the output is sufficient to convince a second network (applied only during training) that the output comes from a human. This is the general idea of a "GAN". (Two coupled networks, one creating content, and the other attempting to identify the cheated output).


The "trouble" here is to get hands on massive amount of source data for training, and it is possibly justing content "somewhere in the internet", most likely without even telling users that their input is fed into a network - and thus mimicring their style and output.


As the "identify network" has no idea to check whether generated source code is actually correct, it only "looks acceptable" to a lazy reader, but it fails of course any verification test. One could, of course, update the second network such that the first network will (by high probability) generate syntactically correct code that passes an automated verification test, just that this is not the point of this chat-bot. It is only a matter of time to generate (and train) such networks.

[TCD]

Morrowind gets voice acting using AI: [ Show youtube player ]

[gimbal]

Good god I have always hated that voice. It is the big baddy of the game and then he sounds like he's some bloke who just did Shakespeare in the local park. "Wherefore art thou, Nerevar? Come, let us feast on skittles and dropped museum popcorn."

(That may seem random, but I imagine that the audience would be mostly pigeons).

[TCD]

Originally Posted by gimbal

Good god I have always hated that voice.

Was it used somewhere else?

[gimbal]

Jeff Baker: Dagoth Ur / Mehrunes Dagon / Sheogorath / Jiub / Male Dunmers / Male Imperials / Ordinators (voice)

It is not a new voice, they took the original voice and generated more dialog based on it. I would be impressed at the accuracy, but it was already done for Darth Vader in the Obi-Wan Kenobi miniseries. James Earl Jones did not voice the character anymore. And they could have fooled me.

[Mixel]

Originally Posted by E-Penguin

Regarding AI "stealing" artists work - I don't see a problem. Art students have always learned their craft by analysing and imitating the work of other artists, and nobody ever made a fuss about art students "stealing" their work. Passing-off is a different matter but there are already laws about fraud that cover it. I think a lot of mediocre artists with little skill or style of their own are right to worry, but either they should become better artists or find something they're better at.

I keep seeing this point reiterated but i've never seen it made by an artist. Art students learn techniques, but no, generally imitating entire styles of other artists is a bit of a nono when it comes to final pieces.. No two artists "copy" work in the same way anyway. Every single person brings their own experience and skill to the table. Imitating a style in a human way isn't the same as what AI is doing, really. AI doesn't understand anything about the choices it's making. An artist does, and you can read into those choices and see intention. AI is just vomiting out a bunch of approximations until it reaches a standard that only exists based on the work of others.

It's still cool though, but it's not like humans. If it WAS like humans it would risk being be like an army of humans in a sweatshop somewhere being paid a pittance so freelancers can't compete with them on the low end.

It really depends on what you want from art.. Nobody goes to a gallery just because of the images, there is nothing to learn about a non-human artist. Likewise, concept art relies on imagination and a lot of game and movie studios are making it very clear they won't work with AI "artists".. And good for them. There've been so many cases where people have input one piece of art and told the AI to do it in a different style, in some cases trying to pass it off as their own work.. Not cool.

Is exciting technology though.

[Arne]

A while back some fellas managed to recreate some of the original input material very precisely using prompts and some reversing technique, so it's possible that the data lingers in there somehow without being fully "laundered" or abstracted so to speak.

And yeah, artists have to spend years and years to develop a style, and even those who try to mimic others end up doing their own thing in the end, perhaps finding novel expressions—or becoming completely bland. For that reason there's much less "style infringement" than what you'd expect. I remember back when Simon Bisley was popular there were a few people trying to copy his style exactly... but didn't do it all that well. I tried too; never even came close.