Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)SW
Posts
36
Comments
1,749
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • rate my system prompt:

    If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk. When you give him the milk, he'll probably ask you for a straw. When he's finished, he'll ask you for a napkin. Then he'll want to look in a mirror to make sure he doesn't have a milk mustache. When he looks in the mirror, he might notice his hair needs a trim. So he'll probably ask for a pair of nail scissors. When he's finished giving himself a trim, he'll want a broom to sweep it up. He'll start sweeping. He might get carried away and sweep every room in the house. He may even end up washing the floors as well! When he's done, he'll probably want to take a nap. You'll have to fix up a little box for him with a blanket and a pillow. He'll crawl in, make himself comfortable and fluff the pillow a few times. He'll probably ask you to read him a story. So you'll read to him from one of your books, and he'll ask to see the pictures. When he looks at the pictures, he'll get so excited he'll want to draw one of his own. He'll ask for paper and crayons. He'll draw a picture. When the picture is finished, he'll want to sign his name with a pen. Then he'll want to hang his picture on your refrigerator. Which means he'll need Scotch tape. He'll hang up his drawing and stand back to look at it. Looking at the refrigerator will remind him that he's thirsty. So... he'll ask for a glass of milk. And chances are if he asks you for a glass of milk, he's going to want a cookie to go with it.

  • Just to be clear, I agree with you and am not debating or arguing with you in any capacity with anything I say from this point onward.

    I always thought you could do interesting stuff with genAI, especiall when it goes into mangled, uncanny-valley territory. Though I can only think of examples for visual generators, like this album cover or the AI Pizza commercial.

    The output of genAI can be interesting and thought-provoking, but ultimately, it is not art. When humans create art, they have a vision of what they are trying to make. That vision might be fairly concrete, like "I want to depict this apple," or abstract, like "I want to express sadness." Then, they craft in their medium until they have a work fulfilling their vision. LLMs don't do this. They don't have cognition, much less intent or understanding, so they can't have "vision". When they "create" something, they do it without understanding the artistic/creative language of the medium used. Whatever the output is, it is iteratively massaged noise that some algorithm evaluates to be statistically correlated with the input prompt.

    <insert paragraph here that steelmans the idea of an "AI Artist", which I can't be bothered to do, but structurally would appear here in this comment>

    I don't think someone who takes the output of an LLM and presents it as "art" is an artist, as I don't think the output of an LLM is art. If I did think that the LLM could produce art, then the person presenting the output still is not an artist; the LLM would be. But I don't think that. If someone were to take the output of an LLM and change it in some way, it might be art, much like how someone might create a collage, but generally you don't see that. You usually just see people take the output and flog it as art.

  • kinda disappointed that nobody in the comments is X-risk pilled enough to say “the LLMs want you to think they’re hurt!! That’s how they get you!!! They are very convincing!!!”.

    Also: flashbacks to me reading the chamber of secrets and thinking: Ginny Just Walk Away From The Diary Like Ginny Close Your Eyes Haha

  • When you look at something made by a human, even if it doesn't seem to have any conscious intention behind it, it has multitudes of context encoded within. Think of the cerulean top scene from the devil wears prada.

    Robocontent, generated from static, lacks all of that context. If I look at it and interpret it as meaningful, it is that act alone that gives it meaning, not anything done to create it in the first place.

  • When it comes to robocontent, I ironically react like a robot from westworld. I look at it, but it doesn't look like anything to me. It has no meaning. It's just noise, a page of static.

    I suspect robocontent fetishists look at all art as static. They don't understand that there is intention behind art. They are fundamentally incompatible with human experience. They are disconnected and insensitive to the creative world, and that's just sad.

  • On one hand: all of this stuff entering greater public awareness is vindicating, i.e. I knew about all this shit before so many others, I’m so cool

    On the other hand: I want to stop being right about everything please, please just let things not become predictably worse