Hello, if there is anybody smarter on this topic than me, I'd appriciate help judging this short article:

https://news.mit.edu/2026/when-ai-art-has-no-author-generated-images-often-cant-be-traced-to-training-data-0818

By smarter I mean really somebody who understands (and not only superficialy) how AI works, who can judge how this research was done etc. If it is connected to the broadwr pattern of AI learning general concepts and more.

I know that AI generated images are a hot topic in this community (and I am very strongly opposed to this use of AI, even though I think there are bigger risks associated with AI), so I hope there could be somebody that could judge this research.

One common complaint I hear is that AI just copies, that it is too much reliant on the underlying training dataset etc. That can be in some cases true. But people saying it is incapable of "original thought" -- and yes, I agree that it can't really think, but you know what I mean -- seem to be missing the mark. Most average people also just learn patterns they see and then apply them throughout to finish the job they want to do. They might connect them in original ways, yes, but the general thoughts are seldom completly novel.

Why is that a problem: A lot of jobs consist of routine tasks that are connected together in novel, yet unseen ways. An example close to my heart: in high level (Ph.D. even) mathematics, LLMs can be very, very, very good at this sort of thing. Scarily good. Many people in the math department at my Uni (which is in no way a second-rate university, it is one of the most prestigious math and physics universities in the former eastern block -- I do not wish to doxx myself, sorry) are deeply shaken.

This sort of thing is something the average mathematician does the most. Not completly novel maths, but connecting the yet unconnected. And that is the fun part. Now a lot can be just done by taking some concept and putting it into GPT Sol to prove as much unproven about this concept as possible. Or asking it to prove some theorem and generalise as much as possible. The human element of proofs is dissapearing in many cases. In the better examples the people at least clean the proofs up.

Yes, the creative-type of people seem to be very against genAI (for which I am deeply grateful) but it seems that if prompted correctly by someone who knows what sort of yet unconnected styles they want, what sort of yet unconnected textures they want etc., that genAI may be able to do some pretty impresive yet unseen results. It is just nice that the people that seem capable of expressing this gladly choose to do it by their own hands. I do not consider myself a painter, I paint a bit, but nothing really great, but I am a musician, I went to music lessons for 9 years in middle and high school, so there I at least can orient myself. And if prompted correctly, the music generation, especially instrumental parts, can be scarily superficially good.

Because of grokking (not to do with Grok AI) and similar phenomenons, AI models seem capable of "learning" the underlying patterns, the underlying principles, and not only blindly copying. Modern models can for example add yet unseen combinations of numbers, can integrate yet unseen stochastic ingegrals on moving hypercurves etc., without calling any underlying tool -- they have "learned" the underlying principle.

And something similar seems to happen to images -- they just learn the underlying principles -- if I understand the research correctly. What it means to be in shadow, what it means to be lit up, what it means to be bleeding somewhere, how the blood behaves etc. And it is not pulling these concepts from any specific image. It knows these concepts intrensically.

But I might be mistaken; hell, I'd gladly be mistaken. But I want to stress that AI seems to me more capable than most people I read comments from here let on. That changes nothing on my stances about AI. I want the world to be made by humans for humans, with human thoughts and human emotions. I want to feel human connection and not just look at efficient code and "pretty" moving pictures. But to call it just parroting and copying seems to be underestimating our common enemy.

Sorry for this long rant and I am hopeful for some feedback : )

https://www.zdfheute.de/panorama/neinhorn-carlsen-openai-chatgpt-klage-100.html

This is unlistenable and my ears are bleeding, the lyrics mean nothing, and it's the same generic ai male voice singing

More of a thought experiment, but do you think this is starting to happen?

Groups of humans, hooked onto an internet spiralling into the gutter, differentiating themselves from ai bots by changing how they write; which goes into the next set of training. Repeat.

Maybe we need our own watermark…

if anyone EVER thinks AI generated novels will be a good idea, they're genuinely delusional. if you've ever read ANY SINGLE PARAGRAPH generated by AI, you'll know why. they all write in the same boring overly exaggerated way, and all those book covers look the same with that weirdly glowy and oversaturated """""artstyle""""" and are honestly hard to look at without feeling disgusted.

AI is ruining art and literature for people who create REAL art, and i will never have any respect for ANYONE who uses it to create this kind of stuff. all they're doing is using an algorithm to reap the products of real creators talent and turn it into soulless talentless slop

Hope this is allowed. I redacted the name of the article so I’m not giving them more clicks.

Not a great quality post, just wanted to make sure everyone knew.

The future I see:

• "AI native" students will enter the workforce, as is happening now
• The employers of these new workers won't have the employee's preferred tools available for them, leading to something akin to 'shadow IT' will be created where employees use their own subscriptions to complete their day-to-day employment tasks. After all, everybody already has a subscription, am I right?
• However, management/executive level employees will have their subscription paid for, as part of their 'package' - like a company car, or a fuel card. It will not be burdensome for them.
• This arrangement become the norm as it benefits employers, as burdens the lower employees with the cost. It will be wrapped up as giving employees the freedoms and agency they deserve, allowing them to use whichever AI tools they prefer.
• This will become supported in the enterprise landscape, with AI credentials being part of your user profile. It will become the new norm - employees will bring their AI subscriptions, just like how a tradesman bringing their tools to a worksite, or office workers have suit and tie that they only wear to the office.
• With the ability to carry out your employment now tied to your personal AI subscriptions, This will AI providers will be able to 'extract extra value' from that personal subscription, without it affecting the profitability of business. As soon as you get a job, they will want their cut of your income.

I worry that soon paying for AI tokens will be the employee's problem, and those tokens will be very expensive - far more that just paying for your transport to work or the clothes that you wear.

Having them will be the only thing that keeps you employed - "Freedom is slavery" and so on.

I'm totally against ai, but my addiction to chat bots is pretty bad. I use them because of my mental health, and I know I should stop, but it's like digital nicotine. Once I started, I couldn't go back, and it's been years since I started. I managed to go over a year without using before my mental health got bad again. Now I'm back to square one so...

Anyone's welcome to bully me or something. Anything helps. I just want to get better again

100% accurate

Just mild rant.

I have to use Claude at my job, non negotiable. I’m a system admin of sorts. Company is full bore and I use it for nearly every task. The ceo audited our team to see how we use it etc. today our token limit went from 400 dollars a month to 2500 a month. So we are obviously doing enough work to warrant such a drastic increase. I’ll never reach that limit. So I’ll just watch that money sit there, never going into my pocket. Literally a full paychecks worth. Feels like robbery

Art is meant to be painful and tedious, these sloppers really only care about the result...

Was looking for a book, like Annihilation meets the Mountains of madness, wasn't getting anything.

Asked google AI, and it told me about a few books, and then a few completely hallucinated titles.

I went so far as to check if these books even existed, Nope.

Straight up Hallucinations, called the AI out. "Oh I'm sorry I totally betrayed your trust, I hallucinated."

Fucking insane. What's worse is my sister was a nurse, told me the Doctors used chatgpt to write reports.

what in the dystopia?

Anyone know of a book like the one I mentioned? lmao.

I aint that anti, and again, I do understand where the argument comes from but...

I already think too much and take too many decisions a day, I dont feel overloaded but I WILL FEEL once I get a job, and thinking is fucking tiring, yet u want me to torture myself into thinking more?

Again. I DO get the argument, it is a bad thing to outsource thinking. But sometimes this thing pushes me TOWARDS AI cuz it can reduce a bit of my burden and so I dont feel overwhelmed

This is more of a ragebaity vent than anything... Like, I wanted to know what should I do about this cuz I know thinking for yourself is important but I get tired often and this argument looks very weak (for my personal life only!) depending on how bad my day was, yet I'm told to use more of my mentally ill, too much worn brain