Absolutely nothing, because they all give fucking useless results. Hallucinates, is confidently wrong, and isn't even grammatically competent (depending on the model). Not even good for a draft, because I'd have to completely rewrite it anyway.
LLMs are only as good as the guys training it (who are mostly morons), and the raw data they train on (which is mostly unaudited random shit).
And that's just regular language. Coding? Hah!
Me: Generate some code to [do a thing].
LLM: [Gives me code]
Me: [Some part] didnt work.
LLM: Try [this] instead.
Me: That didn't work either.
LLM: Try [the first thing] again.
Me: ... that still doesn't work...
LLM: Oh, sorry. Try [the second thing again].
Me: ...
Loop continues forever.
One time I found out about a built-in function that I didn't know about (in LLM generated code that didn't work), and read the manual for it, and rewrote the code from scratch to get it working. Literally the only useful thing it ever gave me was a single word (that it probably found on Superuser or StackExchange in the first place).
Your opinion is exactly what they're aiming for. Just waiting for people to become complacent enough for them to take over without any resistance at all.
Chrome isn't a bad option because it's not a good browser. Their goal is to make the best browser possible so that everyone switches to it.
It's a bad option because if everyone uses a single browser, the developer of that browser owns all decisions about how the internet is allowed to be built. That isn't a good thing. Not when Microsoft tried to do it, and not while Google is trying to do it.
If Google takes over development of all browsing options (including the ones that depend on it's base code, like Edge), web-based tech will stagnate due to lack of competition (and so, a lack of the need to innovate), and privacy will disappear (even more than it already has). And good luck blocking ads in a browser that doesn't allow the addons to function.
Google has proven itself to be a company that doesn't just kill competition, but also it's own projects if they don't perform the way they want. They don't care about proper copyright protection or enforcement, they don't care about privacy, and they don't care about you (no corporation does).
Benjamin Schreiber was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison in 1996, after clubbing a man to death with the handle of a pickaxe and leaving his body outside a trailer. Schreiber had conspired with the man’s girlfriend to murder him.
I've been using a private domain for literally 100% of my logins for decades. Refuse to use SSO. Never had a service tell me that my email was invalid.
Well done; you missed the point entirely, slung some useless mud, and figured out a way to turn it into self- praise. You should run for office.
Everyone stop what you're doing at look over here at... "TokenBoomer"... they'll get to the bottom of this, on a web forum, deep in a thread with... Hey! 5 boosts! We're almost there, I can feel it.
It was a hypothetical, I was just using myself as an example. Here's one that's not hypothetical:
I'm already a practiced in 3D modelling, UV unwrapping, texturing, lightning, rendering, compositing, etc. I could recreate a painting, pixel for pixel, in 3D space.
If I just hit render, is that my art now? It took a lot of research to learn how to do this, I should be able to make money on that effort, right?
I can do that millions of times and get the same result. I can set it on a loop and get as many as I want. It's the same as copying the first render's file, it just takes longer.
Now I decide to change the camera angle. Almost the entire image is technically different now, but the composition is the same. The colors, the subjects, relative placement in the scene, all the same, but it's not really the same image anymore. Is it mine yet?
I can set the camera to a random X,Y,Z position, and have it point at a random object in the scene (so it never points off into blank space). Are those images mine? It's never the same twice, but it still has the original artist's style of subjects and lighting. I can even randomize each subjects position, size, hue, direction, add a modifier that distorts them to be wobbly or cubic... I can start generating random objects and throwing them in too, let's call those "hallucinations", thats a fun word...
At what specific point in this madness does the imagery go from someone else's work to mine?
I absolutely can generate millions of unique images all day. Without using machine learning, based on work I recreated with my own human hands, and code I write uniquely from my experience and abilities. None of the work - artistically - is mine. I made no decisions on composition, style, meaning, mood, color theory, etc.
You may want to try to write these questions off, but I can tell you with certainty that other artists won't.
If you think you can reduce the solution to this problem (or even a proper description of the problem itself) into a quick reply on a web forum, you're part of the problem.
Honestly, everyone I've seen weigh in on this has fucked it up, on all sides, at all times, going all the way back.
Maybe a bunch of armchair geniuses should stay out of it, unless they're willing to drop what they're doing and go over there to help. Meddling from external parties is part of how this got so fucked up (over and over and over).
You can prompt an image genrater to just spit out the original art it trained on.
Imagine I had been classically trained as a painter. I study works from various artists. I become so familiar with those works - and skilled as a renderer of art in my own right - that I can reproduce, say, the Mona Lisa from memory with exacting accuracy. Should I be allowed to claim it as my art? Sign my name to it? Sell it as my own?
Now lets say we compare the original and my work at the micron level. I'm human, there's no way I can match the original stroke for stroke, bristle to bristle. However small, there are differences. When does the work become transformative?
Let's switch to an image generator. I ask for a picture of a smiling woman, renaissance style. The model happens to be biased to DaVinci, and it spits out almost exactly the same work as the Mona Lisa. Let's say as a prompt engineer, I've never heard of or seen the Mona Lisa. I take the image, decide "meh, good enough for what I need right now", and use it in some commercial product (say, a t-shirt). Should I be able to do that? What if it's not the Mona Lisa, it's a work from a living artist?
What if it's not an image? Say I tell some model to make a song and it accidentally produces Greenday's Basketcase (which itself is basically just a modified Pachelbel's Canon), can I put that on a record and sell it? Who's responsibility is it to make sure that a model's output is unique or transformative? Shit, look at all the legal cases where musicians are suing other musicians because the chord progression is similar in two songs; What happens when it's exactly the same because the prompt engineer for a music generation model isn't paying attention?
You might have noticed that I haven't referred to this technology as AI. That's because it's not. It's Machine Learning. It has no intelligence. It neither seeks to create beautiful, original art, nor does it intend to rip someone off. It has no plans, no aspirations, no context, no whims. It's a parrot, spitting out copies of things we ask it for. In general, these outputs are mixtures of various things, but sometimes they aren't. They just output some of the training data, because that's the output that - statistically - was the best match for the prompt.
As an artist myself, I don't fear machine learned models. I fear that these greedy fuckin' companies will warehouse any and every bit of data they can get their hands on, train their models on other people's work, never pay them a dime, and rip off the essence of their art without any regard for what will happen to the original artists after some jackass execs tell all their advertising/webdesign/programming/scriptwriting/etc departments to just ask the "AI" to "design" everything.
You can already see this happening with game studios. Writers went on strike over it.
Absolutely nothing, because they all give fucking useless results. Hallucinates, is confidently wrong, and isn't even grammatically competent (depending on the model). Not even good for a draft, because I'd have to completely rewrite it anyway.
LLMs are only as good as the guys training it (who are mostly morons), and the raw data they train on (which is mostly unaudited random shit).
And that's just regular language. Coding? Hah!
Me: Generate some code to [do a thing].
LLM: [Gives me code]
Me: [Some part] didnt work.
LLM: Try [this] instead.
Me: That didn't work either.
LLM: Try [the first thing] again.
Me: ... that still doesn't work...
LLM: Oh, sorry. Try [the second thing again].
Me: ...
Loop continues forever.
One time I found out about a built-in function that I didn't know about (in LLM generated code that didn't work), and read the manual for it, and rewrote the code from scratch to get it working. Literally the only useful thing it ever gave me was a single word (that it probably found on Superuser or StackExchange in the first place).