I dunno man … assume a model trained on the complete corpus of arts leading up to the Renaissance. What kind of randomness lands you at Hieronymus Bosch? Would AI be able to come up with Gonzo Journalism or modal music?
A brief glance at the history of human ingenuity in the arts really puts generative AI in perspective.
I think AI in this case is doing exactly what it’s best at: Automating unbelievably boring chores on the basis of past “experiences”. In this case the boring chore was “Draw me [insert character name] just how I know him/her”.
Too many people mistakenly assume generative AI is originative or imaginative. It’s not. It certainly can seem that way because it can transform human ideas and words into a picture that has ideally never before existed and that notion is very powerful. But we have to accept that, until now, human creativity is unique to us, the humans. As far as I can tell, the authors were not trying to prove generative AI is unimaginative, they were showing just how blatant copyright infringement in the context of generative AI is happening. No more, no less.
Although this surely does not completely explain the situation, I also have a feeling these sorts of hires surely account for a substantial number of layoffs.
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my own actions!
I love that this headline let’s ole Bill sound like a zoned out stoner college freshman.
Gird your loins, people running Friendica instances!
Wow I gotta stop hanging out exclusively in Rust communities. When I read the headline I was expecting much more drama.
This point is actually acknowledged in the study findings under “Strengths and Limitations”:
A limitation is that the information we collected did not allow us to separate educational screen time from other types of screen time. Doing so may have helped us in examining the association between screen time and child development while considering both positive and negative aspects of screen time.
The original data used in the study did not allow this differentiation but these findings can be used as a starting point for further research.
I do not understand the amount of uninformed objections to the presented results in a number of comments here … you can’t just discount the results of a peer-reviewed study with some generic knee-jerk interjection off the top of your head. Read the original article here. It details which covariates were considered and how they were taken into account. Income bracket, educational background, gender, … all this shit is not new to researchers.
Don’t get me wrong: JAMA Pediatrics being a reputable journal shouldn’t lull you into complacency, but JFC, just because you don’t agree with the findings of a study doesn’t mean you have to dismiss it completely on first glance.
Regarding your last sentence: Are you suggesting insincere motives behind this study?
There is an argument to be made about how studies like this underpin technology averse boomers trying to vilify modern social life. OTOH, studies like this, correctly implemented, are utterly important. It wouldn’t be the first time science has proven something very popular (e.g. smoking) is actually also very harmful.
Fair point.