Apparently this guy wrote and published an illustrated children's book with the help of ChatGPT and Midjourney over the course of a weekend.
(does that link work? my VPN's not connecting today, so I can't check).
ChatGPT
- Thread starter Roboramma
- Start date
Apparently this guy wrote and published an illustrated children's book with the help of ChatGPT and Midjourney over the course of a weekend.
(does that link work? my VPN's not connecting today, so I can't check).
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Maybe they can make it add footnotes with links to the sources?
Like everything in Wikipedia is supposed to be backed up with citations (in principle, if not always in practice).
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
The link works for me.
I wonder who owns the copyright? I assume, not the AI or those who programmed the AI? Just as those who invented the camera and made the camera don't own any part of the rights to photographs taken with the camera, even though their work and ideas had something to do with the final result.
The AI-produced art learns from example from human artists, who derive no benefit therefrom. ("Art" here including both illustrations and the written word. ETA: and music too.)
Last edited:
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Yeah, that feels a little bit hand-wavy to me. I don't think it's the same thing as a human artist gathering inspiration from looking at other people’s works. A human artist might take inspiration from the works of others, but if all they do is mimic another artist's style, they won't get much recognition for originality. They have to add their own creative features. I guess the net benefit is higher to humanity, arguably. A novice, with assistance from AI, could create something like a children's book or many other things I guess that they wouldn't be able to create on their own.
It's a little bit like a performance-enhancing drug. If you are a sports fan, do you really care how an athlete achieves their mastery? Like Barry Bonds (baseball player) cheated, but he attained a level of hitting prowess that had never been seen before or since (at least in some statistical categories such as home runs, slugging percentage and on-base percentage). Should it be celebrated or condemned because he used performance-enhancing drugs to achieve that result? AI or technology in general is sort of like that: it can enable people to do things that they could not otherwise achieve.
As do human artists.
I think I can call myself an artist - I have in the past made part of my living from being an artist - but what I was doing was what the AI produced for the book illustrator i.e. art on demand and to a spec. I really don't see a difference. You'd get a brief something like "A portrait of a political leader with a moustache and have him look something like Dan Dare from the original Eagle comic strips and in the style of a western wanted poster." And off you'd go. There's no issue with copyright in such commercial work - the copyright is (usually) assigned to the person paying.
All we are seeing is "automation" of another category of human work, I'm surprised how quickly it is happening, I thought the next major automation was going to be in "experts" such as medical professionals - I suppose there is an inherent and understandable resistance in that field but we need to get past that as quick as possible.
One of the experts in Photoshop that I follow on his Youtube channel had a great tip for how to use nascent image AI when removing something from a photo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK1lsnWEbj8 Is that "cheating"? Is that somehow wrong because you aren't "drawing"? I don't see that as anymore "not art" than every other piece of technology a modern artist has access to.
Out of curiosity I just shoved that "Politician brief" without any editing into Midjourney to see what it would make of it.
I don't think that's a bad first stab.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,787
Is it time for an AI Art debate in the philosophy forum?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,015
It is impressive. I watched a Starcraft2 player who asked it for pvp strategy and it came up with something reasonably workable.
Given that the bot is in no way programmed for that.
Given that the bot is in no way programmed for that.
Mike Helland
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2020
- Messages
- 5,244
Given that it's just a language bot and not a wolfram alpha type thing, this is understandable, but kinda funny:
Can you explain the distance modulus in cosmology?
In cosmology, the distance modulus is a way of expressing the distance to a celestial object in terms of its apparent brightness. It is defined as the difference between the apparent magnitude of the object and its absolute magnitude. The absolute magnitude of an object is the brightness it would have if it were viewed from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years), while the apparent magnitude is the actual brightness of the object as it is viewed from Earth. The distance modulus is often used in conjunction with the concept of the luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to an object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.
What's the difference between intrinsic luminosity and absolute brightness?
Intrinsic luminosity is the amount of light or electromagnetic radiation that an object emits, and it is an inherent characteristic of the object. Absolute brightness, on the other hand, is the apparent brightness of an object as it would be seen from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years). It is a measure of the object's intrinsic luminosity that takes into account the distance at which the object is being viewed.
How do you convert distance modulus to luminosity distance?
The distance modulus and the luminosity distance are related by the following equation:
luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)
This equation can be used to convert the distance modulus of an object to its luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to the object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.
Is 10^(distance modulus/5+1) also valid?
No, the correct equation for converting the distance modulus to the luminosity distance is:
luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)
The equation you provided, 10^(distance modulus/5+1), is not correct because it does not correctly account for the difference between the apparent magnitude and absolute magnitude of the object. The distance modulus is defined as the difference between these two quantities, so it must be added to 5 in order to obtain the luminosity distance.
Does (x+5)/5 = x/5+1?
No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. In general, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression (x+5)/5 is not equal to x/5+1, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the second expression, while in the first expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5.
x/5+1 = x/5 + 5/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the addition of 1 to the expression x/5 is equivalent to adding 5/5 to the same expression, because both operations result in the same final value. This is because 1 and 5/5 are both equivalent to the number 1, so adding either of these to x/5 will produce the same result.
x/5 + 5/5 = (x+5)/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is equivalent to the expression (x+5)/5, because both expressions represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Because the order in which arithmetic operations are performed does not affect the result, the two expressions are equivalent.
x/5+1=x/5 + 5/5=(x+5)/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expressions x/5+1 and (x+5)/5 are equivalent, because they both represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Additionally, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is also equivalent to (x+5)/5, because it represents the same operation. Because all three expressions are equivalent, they can be used interchangeably in any mathematical expression.
So x/5+1 = (x+5)/5
No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. As I mentioned earlier, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression x/5+1 is not equal to (x+5)/5, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the first expression, while in the second expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5. These two expressions are not equivalent, and cannot be used interchangeably in mathematical expressions.
Can you explain the distance modulus in cosmology?
In cosmology, the distance modulus is a way of expressing the distance to a celestial object in terms of its apparent brightness. It is defined as the difference between the apparent magnitude of the object and its absolute magnitude. The absolute magnitude of an object is the brightness it would have if it were viewed from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years), while the apparent magnitude is the actual brightness of the object as it is viewed from Earth. The distance modulus is often used in conjunction with the concept of the luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to an object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.
What's the difference between intrinsic luminosity and absolute brightness?
Intrinsic luminosity is the amount of light or electromagnetic radiation that an object emits, and it is an inherent characteristic of the object. Absolute brightness, on the other hand, is the apparent brightness of an object as it would be seen from a distance of 10 parsecs (32.6 light-years). It is a measure of the object's intrinsic luminosity that takes into account the distance at which the object is being viewed.
How do you convert distance modulus to luminosity distance?
The distance modulus and the luminosity distance are related by the following equation:
luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)
This equation can be used to convert the distance modulus of an object to its luminosity distance, which is a measure of the distance to the object based on its observed brightness and intrinsic luminosity.
Is 10^(distance modulus/5+1) also valid?
No, the correct equation for converting the distance modulus to the luminosity distance is:
luminosity distance = 10^((distance modulus + 5)/5)
The equation you provided, 10^(distance modulus/5+1), is not correct because it does not correctly account for the difference between the apparent magnitude and absolute magnitude of the object. The distance modulus is defined as the difference between these two quantities, so it must be added to 5 in order to obtain the luminosity distance.
Does (x+5)/5 = x/5+1?
No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. In general, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression (x+5)/5 is not equal to x/5+1, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the second expression, while in the first expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5.
x/5+1 = x/5 + 5/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the addition of 1 to the expression x/5 is equivalent to adding 5/5 to the same expression, because both operations result in the same final value. This is because 1 and 5/5 are both equivalent to the number 1, so adding either of these to x/5 will produce the same result.
x/5 + 5/5 = (x+5)/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is equivalent to the expression (x+5)/5, because both expressions represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Because the order in which arithmetic operations are performed does not affect the result, the two expressions are equivalent.
x/5+1=x/5 + 5/5=(x+5)/5
Yes, this is a valid mathematical statement. In this case, the expressions x/5+1 and (x+5)/5 are equivalent, because they both represent the same mathematical operation: dividing the sum of x and 5 by 5. Additionally, the expression x/5 + 5/5 is also equivalent to (x+5)/5, because it represents the same operation. Because all three expressions are equivalent, they can be used interchangeably in any mathematical expression.
So x/5+1 = (x+5)/5
No, this is not a valid mathematical statement. As I mentioned earlier, the order in which arithmetic operations are performed matters, and changing the order can change the result. In this case, the expression x/5+1 is not equal to (x+5)/5, because the division by 5 is performed before the addition of 1 in the first expression, while in the second expression the division by 5 is performed after the addition of 5. These two expressions are not equivalent, and cannot be used interchangeably in mathematical expressions.
Lukraak_Sisser
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2009
- Messages
- 6,015
I've played with it a bit more and it's reasonably competent at answering high school chemistry questions, provided it does not have to solve chemical equations on its own.
It's fun to see how far we have gotten so far.
It's fun to see how far we have gotten so far.
I Am The Scum
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,787
I saw a screenshot showing that Chatgpt failed the bat and ball riddle. If I'm understanding how this works, it's basically just repeating the types of answers that most people give to certain types of questions, which would include common misconceptions. (yes, I'm oversimplifying a bit)
Makes me wonder how it would respond to the Monty Haul problem, or Newcomb's paradox.
Makes me wonder how it would respond to the Monty Haul problem, or Newcomb's paradox.
novaphile
Quester of Doglets
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand the result falls right into the centre of the uncanny valley!
Some of those images gave me involuntary shudders.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
WHAT THE HELL??
Why do these ******** want a PHONE NUMBER before I can interact with it?
No god-damned way am I going to give up my phone number to an unknown entity.
Why do companies insist on privacy violations like this?
And is the legal in the EU? (Maybe someone who's less concerned for their privacy can ask ChatGPT this question.)
Why do these ******** want a PHONE NUMBER before I can interact with it?
No god-damned way am I going to give up my phone number to an unknown entity.
Why do companies insist on privacy violations like this?
And is the legal in the EU? (Maybe someone who's less concerned for their privacy can ask ChatGPT this question.)
The Atheist
The Grammar Tyrant
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 36,364
To stop 'bots clogging up their bandwidth.
You have a phone that tracks you 24/7 and are shy about giving a phone number to a reasonably reputable organisation.
Seems legit.
How is it a privacy violation? That's incoherent.
It asks you to provide information. You chose not to. No violation.
And if you do give the information voluntarily, it's obvious not a violation.
Are you new to this internet thing?
Yes.
Also they can tell where you are. It won't let me use it because I've got a Chinese phone number. Makes sense, though.
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
They're already asking for a verified email address and they have a damned Google RECAPTCHA to fight that. I had to go through those two hoops even before I got the phone number prompt.
Non sequitur. I could challenge you to show I have such a device. Further, the details of said tracking are available only to people who can issue subpoenas.
And How do I know this company is reputable? Is it because they have a web site?
Theranos looked like a reputable outfit before it crashed and burned.It's known as PII, or personally identifiable information. The phone number unambiguously ties the account to me, even if I wanted to be anonymous by connecting through a VPN.
There is no legitimate business reason for them to know my phone number. Therefore even asking for it is a violation of privacy.
There is no need to be insulting. Just because you don't seem to care about a lot of things doesn't mean other people aren't. There is far too much tacking of stuff on the web as it is, and I see no reason to hand PII to unverified third parties on a silver platter.
Citation needed. My understanding of the GDPR is unless there is a legitimate reason to have the information it is not legal to ask for it or store it. Canada has similar legislation, but it's not as tough. The USA seems to think people have no right to privacy.
Last edited:
Entirely legal in the EU and even in the UK non-EU fortress of solitude.
I used one of my google accounts to log in so wasn't asked for anything else.