Comment by MgB2

The year is 2030.

A new MCU movie is released, its 60 second trailer posted on Youtube, but I don't feel like watching the movie because I got bored after Endgame.

Youtube has very strict anti-scraping techniques now, so I use deep-scrapper to generate the whole trailer from the thumbnail and title.

I use deep-pirate to generate the whole 3 hour movie from the trailer.

I use deep-watcher to summarize the whole movie in a 60 second video.

I watch the video. It doesn't make any sense. I check the Youtube trailer. It's the same video.

Probably the majority of people in the world already "accept pirated movies". It's just that, as ever, nobody asks people what they actually want. Much easier to tell them what to want, anyway.

To a viewer, a human-made work and an AI-generated one both amount to a series of stimuli that someone else made and you have no control over; and when people pay to see a movie, generally they don't do it with the intent to finance the movie company to make more movies -- they do it because they're offered the option to spend a couple hours watching something enjoyable. Who cares where it comes from -- if it reached us, it must be good, right?

The "special status" you speak of is due to AI's constrained ability to recombine familiar elements in novel ways. 64k MP3 artifacts aren't interesting to listen to; while a high-novelty experience such as learning a new culture or a new discipline isn't accessible (and also comes with expectations that passive consumption doesn't have.)

Either way, I wish the world gave people more interesting things to do with their brains than make a money, watch a movies, or some mix of the two with more steps. (But there isn't much of that left -- hence the concept of a "personal life" as reduced to breaking one's own and others' cognitive functioning then spending lifetimes routing around the damage. Positively fascinating /s)

DALL-E 3 already uses a model that trained on synthetic data that take the prompt and augments it. This might lead to the overfitting. It could also be, and might be the simpler explanation, that its just looks up the right file from a RAG.

You probably mean the USAMO 2025 paper. They updated their comparison with Gemini 2.5 Pro, which did get a nontrivial score. That Gemini version was released five days after USAMO, so while it's not entirely impossible for the data to be in its training set, it would seem kind of unlikely.

https://x.com/mbalunovic/status/1907436704790651166

Generic doesn't help. I was using the new image generator to try and make images for my Mutants and Masterminds game (it's basically D&D with superheroes instead of high fantasy), and it refuses to make most things citing that they are too close to existing IP, or that the ideas are dangerous.

So I asked it to make 4 random and generic superheroes. It created Batman, Supergirl, Green Lantern, and Wonder Woman. Then at about 90% finished it deleted the image and said I was violating copyright.

https://imgur.com/a/eG6kmqu

I doubt the model you interact with actually knows why the babysitter model rejects images, but it claims to know why and leads to some funny responses. Here is it's response to me asking for a superhero with a dark bodysuit, a purple cape, a mouse logo on their chest, and a spooky mouse mask on their face.

> I couldn't generate the image you requested because the prompt involved content that may violate policy regarding realistic human-animal hybrid masks in a serious context.

Even if I'm thinking of an Indiana Jones-like character doesn't mean I want literally Indiana Jones. If I wanted Indiana Jones I could just grab a scene from the movie.

To my knowledge this happens when that single frame is overrepresented in its training data. For instance, variations of the same movie poster or screenshot may appear hundreds of times. Then the AI concludes that this is just a unique human cultural artifact, like the Mona Lisa (which I would expect many human artists could also reproduce from memory).

What I'm kind of concerned about is that these images will persist and will be reinforced by positive feedback. Meaning, an adventurous archeologist will be the same very image, forever. We're entering the epitome of dogmatic ages. (And it will be the same corporate images and narratives, over and over again.)

> I'm ok with the model knowing what Indiana Jones or the Predator looks like with well remembered details,

ClosedAI doesn't seem to be OK with it, because they are explicitly censoring characters of more popular IPs. Presumably as a fig leaf against accusations of theft.

No it doesn't. Commercial intent (usually) makes it illegal, not the fact of copying.

So the criminal party here would be OpenAI, since they are selling access to a service that generates copyright-infringing images.

It hallucinated, but we like that now!

The prompt didn't exactly describe Indiana Jones though. It left a lot of freedom for the model to make the "archeologist" e.g. female, Asian, put them in a different time period, have them wear a different kind of hat etc.

It didn't though, it just spat out what is basically a 1:1 copy of some Indiana Jones promo shoot. No where did the prompt ask for it to look like Harrison Ford.

What would most humans draw when you describe such a well known character by their iconic elements. Think if you deviated and acted a pedant about it people would think you're just trying to prove a point or being obnoxious.