Artificial Intelligence (Ai) and Studebakers - Pictures and Prose

[DEEPNHOCK]

This thread is about AI (artificial Intelligence) in both Print, pictures, and video.
If you create, see, or want to share how this relates to Studebakers.. This is thee place.

Rather than complain or deride the technology, let's see and share the experience.. Good or Bad.
Maybe there is something good out there. Or, lets find the pitfalls and expose them.

What is Bard?
(copy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bard is a conversational generative artificial intelligence chatbot developed by Google. Initially based on the LaMDA family of large language models (LLMs), it was later upgraded to PaLM and then to Gemini. Bard was developed as a direct response to the meteoric rise of OpenAI's ChatGPT, and was released in a limited capacity in March 2023 to lukewarm responses before expanding to other countries in May.

LaMDA was developed and announced in 2021, but was not released to the public out of an abundance of caution. OpenAI's launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 and its subsequent popularity caught Google executives off-guard and sent them into a panic, prompting a sweeping response in the ensuing months. After mobilizing its workforce, the company launched Bard in February 2023, with the chatbot taking center stage during the 2023 Google I/O keynote in May.

[DEEPNHOCK]

While at Bard, you just type in the request you want....
For example: "create a picture of a Studebaker Hawk"
Hit "enter" and Bard will create an image.
Yes it is artificial. No, it is not perfect.
But it is interesting. It can be creative, too.



Or...
" create a picture of a green 1961 Studebaker Hawk"



Sure, it isn't historically perfect.
But it is interesting.

[Lark Hunter]

I'm not a fan of A.I. for the reason that, at the heart of it, the product is essentially an amalgamation of works plagiarized from... H.I. (Human Intelligence)?

Putting that aside for this discussion, I will say that I'm impressed how well the two Hawks are rendered compared to what I was seeing less than a year ago posted at Curbside Classic. You can still see "melted" wheel centers, what looks like vestigial lamps on the bottom of the Borgward Isabella headlight rings on the first car. Still, it's a Hawk that you'd see coming at you on a magic mushroom trip, a not a genericized Studesmobile Lada CordobaregalLTD Amerilark.

[StudeRich]

So this "A.I. Thing" gathers info from Internet Sites and compiles a Picture from info it finds?

Interesting, it got little things wrong like yearly changed Parking Lights, wrong year rear fender fin, but does look close.

I guess the only purpose of it is to save the cost of Human Labor and it will eliminate some.

[bezhawk]

I like how the side grilles don't wrap around on the edge of the fender under the headlights. Much like 53-54 grilles. Also the smooth hood on the 1st pic is nice.

[aardvark]

Ya notice, nobody is driving either vehicle and the wheels don't look like they're spinning?
The plagiarizing is quite offensive Someone originated those images) and the downsides and dangers are not yet realized.
I won't participate in false representations of Cars, Politicians, science data or anything else.

[Rafe Hollister]

Being there is no driver in either car, wheels not spinning would be accurate. Parked on highway? Not so much.
Rage Hollister

[Rafe Hollister]

Wow! No driver in either car. Studebaker had self driving cars in the 50s! They really were ahead of their time!

[DEEPNHOCK]

So this "A.I. Thing" gathers info from Internet Sites and compiles a Picture from info it finds?

Interesting, it got little things wrong like yearly changed Parking Lights, wrong year rear fender fin, but does look close.

I guess the only purpose of it is to save the cost of Human Labor and it will eliminate some.

====================

I tend to agree with your sentiment. Here is an explanation and a closing comment that shows a gray area...
Jeff

https://www.csail.mit.edu/news/3-questions-how-ai-image-generators-work

(copy)
Although seemingly nascent, the field of AI-generated art can be traced back as far as the 1960s with early attempts using symbolic rule-based approaches to make technical images. While the progression of models that untangle and parse words has gained increasing sophistication, the explosion of generative art has sparked debate around copyright, disinformation, and biases, all mired in hype and controversy. Yilun Du, a PhD student in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and affiliate of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), recently developed a new method that makes models like DALL-E 2 more creative and have better scene understanding. Here, Du describes how these models work, whether this technical infrastructure can be applied to other domains, and how we draw the line between AI and human creativity.

Q: AI-generated images use something called “stable diffusion” models to turn words into astounding images in just a few moments. But for every image used, there’s usually a human behind it. So what’s the the line between AI and human creativity? How do these models really work?

A: Imagine all of the images you could get on Google Search and their associated patterns. This is the diet these models are fed on. They’re trained on all of these images and their captions to generate images similar to the billions of images it has seen on the internet.

Let’s say a model has seen a lot of dog photos. It’s trained so that when it gets a similar text input prompt like “dog,” it's able to generate a photo that looks very similar to the many dog pictures already seen. Now, more methodologically, how this all works dates back to a very old class of models called “energy-based models,” originating in the '70’s or '80’s.

In energy-based models, an energy landscape over images is constructed, which is used to simulate the physical dissipation to generate images. When you drop a dot of ink into water and it dissipates, for example, at the end, you just get this uniform texture. But if you try to reverse this process of dissipation, you gradually get the original ink dot in the water again. Or let’s say you have this very intricate block tower, and if you hit it with a ball, it collapses into a pile of blocks. This pile of blocks is then very disordered, and there's not really much structure to it. To resuscitate the tower, you can try to reverse this folding process to generate your original pile of blocks.

The way these generative models generate images is in a very similar manner, where, initially, you have this really nice image, where you start from this random noise, and you basically learn how to simulate the process of how to reverse this process of going from noise back to your original image, where you try to iteratively refine this image to make it more and more realistic.

In terms of what's the line between AI and human creativity, you can say that these models are really trained on the creativity of people. The internet has all types of paintings and images that people have already created in the past. These models are trained to recapitulate and generate the images that have been on the internet. As a result, these models are more like crystallizations of what people have spent creativity on for hundreds of years.

At the same time, because these models are trained on what humans have designed, they can generate very similar pieces of art to what humans have done in the past. They can find patterns in art that people have made, but it’s much harder for these models to actually generate creative photos on their own.

If you try to enter a prompt like “abstract art” or “unique art” or the like, it doesn’t really understand the creativity aspect of human art. The models are, rather, recapitulating what people have done in the past, so to speak, as opposed to generating fundamentally new and creative art.

Since these models are trained on vast swaths of images from the internet, a lot of these images are likely copyrighted. You don't exactly know what the model is retrieving when it's generating new images, so there's a big question of how you can even determine if the model is using copyrighted images. If the model depends, in some sense, on some copyrighted images, are then those new images copyrighted? That’s another question to address.

[Bob Andrews]

I’m sure AI is a scary subject to a lot of people here. This is the club of people who are still unwilling to learn and understand about unwilling to learn and understand about smart phones and Facebook lol.

My view on AI is that it will be like most things: there will be great, helpful, uses for it, and there will be bad, downright dangerous uses for it. It will all depend on the individual taking the time to learn about it and finding out how to use it to improve their life.

Actually, that same description would fit electricity. And water. And social media.

[Buzzard]

I find it interesting that both images chose the pillarless hardtop style and what about those Japanese mirrors on the front fenders of the green one?
Bill
PS: At least for the Studebaker uninitiated, it gives a representation of what our brand was all about.

[aardvark]

So Google A!I just in the last week got called out for it's inaccurate portrayals of images like the Pope, Vikings and Founding Fathers. Not a white person in any image. Mostly black/asian. am indian. and so on. Now i'm not racist or a homophobe but wouldn't a little accuracy be in order when AI is generating images and other issues it's tasked to do? Why the Political, Racial, and Other inaccurate leanings. This is also true in the writings AI is generating.
It dilutes or tries to change History which directly effects our Children, grandchildren, and their understanding of things History Science Political leanings and I could go on. I'm old enough to not be fooled but the Youth are victims.
The 2 Studie images being falsified with no drivers and wheels not looking to be spinning is just the tip of the iceberg and a form of misinformation as well as plagerised from someone else's source materials.

Glad Google has been called out on their leanings... Who's next? Why does it have to be this way?

[DEEPNHOCK]

Very good summation. Ai, while interesting, has a very dark side.
What could be used for wonderous things can also be used for terrible things.
We were told the same thing about radio, then television, and then the Internet.
Better to understand it than follow the Ostrich Effect.

So Google A!I just in the last week got called out for it's inaccurate portrayals of images like the Pope, Vikings and Founding Fathers. Not a white person in any image. Mostly black/asian. am indian. and so on. Now i'm not racist or a homophobe but wouldn't a little accuracy be in order when AI is generating images and other issues it's tasked to do? Why the Political, Racial, and Other inaccurate leanings. This is also true in the writings AI is generating.
It dilutes or tries to change History which directly effects our Children, grandchildren, and their understanding of things History Science Political leanings and I could go on. I'm old enough to not be fooled but the Youth are victims.
The 2 Studie images being falsified with no drivers and wheels not looking to be spinning is just the tip of the iceberg and a form of misinformation as well as plagerised from someone else's source materials.

Glad Google has been called out on their leanings... Who's next? Why does it have to be this way?

[aardvark]

Thanks.
I'm not really concerned about the use of Ai in things like Photo Manipulation, but instead my concerns are more directed to it's use in the Medical and Pandemic fields as well as manipulating peoples speeches in Vid's and other arenas.
On the Med arena. it could be used nefariously in making things like the Pandemic horribly worse.... or the collective info could combine all efforts to solving things like Cancers. (Cancer should have already been eradicated except in a few scenario's..but theres too much profit in the disease.)
Then just 2 days ago I heard of (didn't see it) Biden talking in a perfect cognitive state. (sorry but I've seen cognitive degradation first hand and He's going thru it) That then enters into Election Manipulation.
After seeing the Google's form of Ai in action, it concerns the hell out of me. It tells me nothing of Ai can easily be trusted. It needs controlled and an "off switch" ready and available on some of these sources to be able to be thrown.