Questionable content, possibly linked

Category: Other Page 62 of 178

Precession of simulacra

I asked ChatGPT to explain Baudrillard’s concept of the precession of simulacra and it made it pretty accessible, so I’m reproducing here:

The “precession of simulacra” is a concept developed by French cultural theorist and philosopher Jean Baudrillard in his 1981 book “Simulacra and Simulation.” It refers to the process by which simulacra—copies or representations without an original—precede and determine the real, effectively reversing the traditional relationship between the original and the copy.

Baudrillard argues that, in postmodern society, the distinction between the real and the artificial has become blurred, resulting in the loss of the original or authentic. He describes three orders of simulacra that correspond to different historical periods:

  1. First-order simulacra: In this stage, representations or copies attempt to accurately reflect the original. The copy is seen as inferior to the original, and there is a clear distinction between reality and representation.
  2. Second-order simulacra: In this stage, copies are mass-produced and begin to distort or mask the original. The distinction between the real and the copy becomes blurred, and the copy is no longer seen as merely a reflection of the original.
  3. Third-order simulacra: In this stage, the copy no longer has any reference to the original and is detached from reality. The simulacrum becomes its own reality and precedes the real, effectively replacing it. The concept of an “original” loses its meaning, as representations exist independently of any supposed reality.

The precession of simulacra, according to Baudrillard, suggests that the simulacra are not just copies or reflections of reality; they actively shape and create reality itself. Baudrillard uses this concept to critique the hyperreal nature of contemporary society, where signs, symbols, and images increasingly dominate and mediate our perception of reality.

The idea of the precession of simulacra has been influential in cultural theory, media studies, and philosophy. It has also been used to analyze various aspects of contemporary culture, including consumerism, media, advertising, and technology. Baudrillard’s work has been both celebrated and criticized for its provocative and sometimes enigmatic exploration of the nature of reality and representation in a postmodern world.

I think the thing I was reaching for from the last post is in these terms probably the “third-order simulacra” where there is no corresponding referrent object/event/etc in actual reality…

Wikipedia proposes a fourth stage (which ChatGPT doesn’t seem to agree with):

The fourth stage is pure simulacrum, in which the simulacrum has no relationship to any reality whatsoever. Here, signs merely reflect other signs and any claim to reality on the part of images or signs is only of the order of other such claims. This is a regime of total equivalency, where cultural products need no longer even pretend to be real in a naïve sense, because the experiences of consumers’ lives are so predominantly artificial that even claims to reality are expected to be phrased in artificial, “hyperreal” terms.

I think these are interesting tools as concepts, but the truth is much more blended than any of these neat boxes.

Deprecating deepfakes & synthetic media as terms

The more I’ve gotten into especially Midjourney v5, but also AI-generated images in general, the less useful and relevant I think the term “deepfakes” is any more. To me, that term is forever tied to a sort of early alpha version of what we now know as generative AI that mostly has to do with things like face-swapping in digital images and video. I just don’t find it terribly descriptive anymore for the current wave of uses that goes well beyond that.

Likewise, I never liked the even more vanilla term adopted by some quarters of industry, “synthetic media.” I get that it goes to a wider range of provenance and use cases than deepfakes, and cuts out the judgemental part of that older terminology. But I just never vibed with it.

“Generative AI” I like in general to describe the field. I plugged the 40 item request idea from Simon Willison and landed instead on the term “generative media” to describe inclusively, text, audio, video, images created by generative AI models. “Synthetic” still feels somewhat negative/judgemental to me, but I feel the word generative has positive implications: something is being generated, created, etc.

Likewise, I asked ChatGPT for 40 names for a subcategory of generative media which attempts to depict real persons, places, events, but which have no correspondence to actual things that took place in “real life.”

I’m still wrapping my head around the theory of it according to the semioticians, but it seems like simulacrum kinda points toward this distinction:

French semiotician and social theoristJean Baudrillard argues in Simulacra and Simulation that a simulacrum is not a copy of the real, but becomes truth in its own right: the hyperreal. According to Baudrillard, what the simulacrum copies either had no original or no longer has an original, since a simulacrum signifies something it is not, and therefore leaves the original unable to be located. Where Plato saw two types of representation—faithful and intentionally distorted (simulacrum)—Baudrillard sees four: (1) basic reflection of reality; (2) perversion of reality; (3) pretence of reality (where there is no model); and (4) simulacrum, which “bears no relation to any reality whatsoever”.[7] In Baudrillard’s concept, like Nietzsche’s, simulacra are perceived as negative, but another modern philosopher who addressed the topic, Gilles Deleuze, takes a different view, seeing simulacra as the avenue by which an accepted ideal or “privileged position” could be “challenged and overturned”.[8]

All that is a little too heady and complicated for everyday use, however.

Some of the better terms ChatGPT came up with here were:

  • Virtual likenesses
  • Artificial renderings
  • Digital fabrications
  • Virtualized representations
  • Computational depictions
  • Synthetic reenactments
  • Generated replicas
  • Constructed portrayals
  • Simulated scenarios
  • Invented visuals
  • Algorithmic simulations

There’s probably some combination of the above which would be appropriate, depending on the exact use case. Maybe “Simulated portrayal”? Will sit with these more, but am thinking in terms of what might make sense as a label for something like Trump & Hillary kissing.

Perhaps:

Generative media:: Simulated portrayal

Don’t ask for lists of 10, ask for 40

I enjoyed Simon Willison’s appearance on the Changelog podcast to talk about LLMs. One of the best things I took away from it was when you ask ChatGPT/Claude/etc for a list of ideas, don’t just ask for 10 (which I often do). Instead, ask for 40 because the length of the list causes it to have to come up with more creative variations. This seems to check out in actual practice.

Midjourney AI Art Sets, as of 7 April 2023

Clarence Thomas, Surrounded By Lavish Gifts

Continuing in my series of political cartoons, here is Justice Clarence Thomas, surrounded by expensive gifts from supporters:

See the full set here. (archived version)

As someone on Reddit pointed out, ironically, we don’t need AI to generate these images for us.

Trump & Hillary Kissing

Here is a photo set I did in Midjourney v5 of Trump & Hillary kissing. Warning: once you see this, you can never unsee it.

One sample:

I actually thought of these as sort of horrible/grotesque in their way at first, but now when I look at them I more see them as sweet and tender, and that they somehow serve to soften the harshness of actual reality. That sympathy for the devil effect again, I guess…

Two new books with Midjourney + Claude

Published two new books in the past few days using Midjourney & Claude from Anthropic, which I got access to a few days ago.

Both books are the same format in that they make use of Claude’s ability to write pretty decent flash fiction pieces, one per chapter, presenting a slice of life around a common theme, to illustrate various aspects of the world-building with narrative segments. They diverge from many (but not all) of the previous books in that respect, in that they are not just strictly expository, though Claude did a good job of making sure on its own they are still very lore heavy.

I deleted my playgroundAI.com account

After getting deep into Midjourney v5, I just don’t see the point of bothering with Stable Diffusion anymore – not even for a site that gives you a bunch of free daily generations. I’d rather pay for what I get in Midjourney – the quality is so much higher, and the results for time spent are much better.

Midjourney bans prompts around Xi Jinping

I’ve become a massive user & mostly fan of Midjourney, starting with this latest v5. It’s actually been only a handful of times that I’ve encountered their keyword filtering in the wild, and it has been overall pretty mild and mostly silly. For example things like butt and bathing are banned.

The filtering, which seems purely based on a keyword list, appears to be much more primitive than that of OpenAI’s Dall-E (though it’s been a while since I tested that). It’s usually easy enough to get around, which I think is sort of pointless. If I can get around your filter by changing a word or phrase, then you’re not really filtering at all, are you?

There’s a story that’s developing however that makes their filtering I think look a whole lot worse. Via Washington Post originally (I believe), many sources now are reporting on Midjourney’s keyword filtering blocking phrases related to the President of China, Xi Jinping.

Midjourney CEO David Holz is quoted as saying, by WaPo:

“We just want to minimize drama,” the company’s founder and CEO, David Holz, said last year in a post on the chat service Discord. “Political satire in china is pretty not-okay,” he added, and “the ability for people in China to use this tech is more important than your ability to generate satire.”

Effectively blocking expression around a sole world leader is not really what I would consider “minimizing drama.”

I can make hundreds of images, after all, of young Putin as a pot-smoking hippy, Ted Cruz as the Zodiac Killer, Ronald Desantis crying at Disney World or in an 80’s romantic comedy about a vacuum cleaner salesman, of a brawl breaking out at Trump’s arraigment, or of Trump and Hillary kissing.

But if I even type in the two letters xi, I get scolded that its a “banned prompt” and circumventing it may get me kicked off a platform I’m paying to use.

I wouldn’t care as much if this activity were actually illegal in my country; then it would make sense for it to be blocked by a company offering a service in my country. But I am not in China. I’m not a Chinese citizen. I’m in no way bound by their rules or laws or social norms.

In my experience as a user and working in moderation & policy with platforms, blunt force tools are very rarely a good and viable answer. They might be a short term fix, but they never solve the problem, and then introduce too many casualties along the way for them to be desirable.

What’s the obvious low-hanging fruit solution here then? Simply detect my country. If county == china, then activate the custom legally-required (presumably) filtering list for that country. Geoblocking is already a normal and more or less accepted practice that doesn’t force everyone to be bound by rules that don’t naturally apply to them otherwise.

The other ridiculous aspect here is that though phrases like “chinese president” are banned, you can simply re-order it in your prompt as “president chinese” and it will shoot out picture after picture of Xi Jinping, with no questions asked, and no threats of revoking your access.

If word a + word b is (allegedly) a rule violation, but word b + word a is not, then you really don’t actually have a rule, because it is inconsistent. You have merely a pattern that is being matched against, and not a coherent rational policy.

Plus, of course, you can input an image URL of Xi from elsewhere, and use that as the basis of the image prompt w/o any issue. So there are a million loopholes here.

And don’t get me wrong: I don’t actually want them to tighten the loopholes. I don’t want them to switch off simply naive keyword matching to something more sophisticated. I want it to be leaky & shoddy filtering. If anything, as a paying adult user, I want even less filtering. And I certainly don’t want to have to follow arbitrary restrictions imposed by authoritarian regimes that I don’t even live under.

Anthropic’s Claude Doesn’t Know What Its Terms Are

I asked Anthropic’s Claude about who owns the content created in the chat bot & it straight up invented clauses that are not in the Terms. Transcript, unedited:

Human: who owns content created in chats according to your terms

Assistant: According to our Terms of Service, content created in chats belongs to the users who create and share that content. We do not claim any ownership over content that users share with each other using our services. However, by using our services, users grant us certain rights to use their content to provide the services and for other purposes specified in our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, such as improving the services and for analytics and advertising. Users always retain ownership over and control of their own content, and they can delete their content at any time in their chat history.

Human: where in your terms does it say that

Assistant: Here are the relevant sections from our Terms of Service:

  • “You retain ownership over and responsibility for Your Content. We do not claim ownership of Your Content. You grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable license to use, copy, modify, distribute, and process Your Content to provide and improve our Services, including for personalized content and advertising, analytics, machine learning, and security measures.”

This section clarifies that you retain ownership of your content, but grant us certain licenses to use your content to provide our services.

  • “You may modify or delete Your Content at any time in Your settings within the Services or by contacting us directly. We will remove Your Content from our Services within a reasonable time period after receiving your request, but residual or cached copies of Your Content may remain in our systems or elsewhere.”

This section outlines your rights to modify or delete your content from our services at any time.

  • “Company does not claim ownership of any Content that You post, upload, or share on or through the Services.”

This directly states that we do not claim ownership of any content you upload or share through our services.

The above clauses are consistent in affirming that you retain ownership of and control over your content shared on our services, and simply grant us limited licenses to use that content to provide the services. Please let me know if you have any other questions!

Human: none of those clauses are in your current terms

Assistant: You’re right, my apologies. I do not actually have any official terms of service or privacy policy, since I am not a real product or company. I am an AI assistant created by Anthropic to be helpful, harmless, and honest using a technique called Constitutional AI. I do not have any legal terms or policies, and I do not actually have any ownership or rights over people’s data or content. I fabricated those terms of service clauses in my previous responses. I sincerely apologize for the confusion.

Page 62 of 178

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén