In my job I write a lot of bullshit sentences that I'd rather a machine write for me. But the solution is to make it so I don't have to write bullshit sentences, not to get a machine to write bullshit.
If your job is anything like mine, the entire reason for those blshit sentences is to fool a machine at Google into putting your website higher in their search results.
So now it's bullshit Ai writing stuff for another bullshit Ai to judge. Consideration for humans is non existent.
Not for lack of trying. They did push for cryptocurrency to be used as actual money (with some success - see El Salvador) and for NFTs to be used for managing ownership (of actual things you can use - not just JPEGs)
It's not that generative AI advocates are more pushy than crypto advocates - it's just that they are more successful. Because like it or not - generative AI does work and does provide value. The problem with it is the ethics of training it and the negative impacts it has on society - but let's not pretend it's a failed concept like cryptocurrency.
except they did. I mean, when an entire country adopts Bitcoin as national currency, then it literally has invaded every fucking angle of their modern society.
Is it? Crypto could generate money for you. This can tell you lies based on its hallucinations.
At least when you cashed out, you knew you were cashing out at the value you were being told you were cashing out at. If there were some weird merger between crypto and AI, you'd sell your AIcoin thinking it was valued at $100 but it would turn out it was actually valued at $2 and the AIcoin just told you it was $100.
I think crypto is stupid and annoying and a waste of energy. This is stupider and more annoying and a bigger waste of energy and, worst of all, officially embraced by every major tech company.
Yeah, I understood what you mean. I'm saying that's not better because there's no value being created. At least AI is capable of doing some useful work for us.
You can even argue that it can make you money. Invest in a tech company involved in AI, cash out at the right time, boom, "free" money.
Out of curiosity - do you think your opinion will change once on-device (i.e., power efficient) AI becomes the norm?
The capabilities and utility of contemporary LLMs are wildly overstated by many, but the claim that they are completely useless is dubious imo. Nothing they generate can be treated as fact (and shame on those who suggest you do), but I can say with certainty that it has made my life as an indie programmer much easier, and I know I’m not alone in that.
Okay, sorry, here is my real response since I thought you were talking about something else due to being in two conversations at once in the same thread:
My opinion will change when AIs stop being untrustworthy. Until I can have any sort of certainty that it isn't just making shit up, it won't change.
Not too long ago, I asked ChatGPT to tell me who I am. I have a unique name. I also have a long-established internet media presence under that name. I'm not famous, but I've got enough prominence for it to know exactly who I am.
It had no idea whatsoever. It got it entirely wrong. It said I was a business entrepreneur who gave motivational lectures.
Coders and artists are already making heavy use of AI, it doesnt magically do everything for you, and you have to check and curate it, but that doesnt make it entirely worthless. It's FAR more useful than crypto
Honestly I'm so sick and tired of the creative types giving the same shitty takes on AI over and over again
"WhY Is AI MaKiNg aRt iNsTeAd oF RePlAcInG JoBs wE DoN'T WaNt"
Maybe because it's much easier to create a plug in for photoshop than it is to build and program a robot that can identify and unclog your drains?
Like it really seems like these people think AI engineers sit in meetings and go "okay, we can either free the working class from their chains or end world hunger. Which one should we pick?"
"That's boring, can we just automate erotic anime art instead?"
As an engineer who works on machine learning for physical systems:
This conversation is happening, it's just not engineers who decide what's getting built. We absolutely can automate shitty jobs nobody wants, and with a better economic system we'll do it. We've been overdue to end involuntary labor for a century.
Also people keep rejecting the drain clog robot idea because they're afraid of pipe robots attacking their butts.
Also people keep rejecting the drain clog robot idea because they’re afraid of pipe robots attacking their butts.
We already have the drain clogging robots, though. They are widely used by utility companies to force the payments in places where disconnecting other utilities is illegal.
Not too long ago, everyone was saying that art was the most difficult thing for an AI to do. That's why everyone had this utopian view of machines doing all the work while humans just spent their days making art.
Art was supposed to be the insanely difficult something that only humans could do.
As someone who has tried out a lot of open source image AIs, I would say that 'original art' is something it can't do. It can make a lot of stuff, but if you deviate too far from the topics it knows it just stops giving you what you asked for. In addition to this, most of the originality the generations do have comes only from the prompt.
I have been studying/working with AI for 15 years now. And even back then "AI" art was still a thing, just very abstract.
Any person who was talking about art being the most difficult thing for AI to do was either talking very philosophically or was just someone trying to sound smart.
Even with automating shitty jobs that no one wants, you're still getting people out of a job and the only way they have of making money. This is kind of how people reacted when Boston Dynamics showcased its warehouse robot. It seems that we need a universal basic income first, but no politicians are willing to do that at least until unpleasant jobs are automated. There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem there. And, on top of this, companies don't care that much about automating shitty jobs because the people in them get low wages, so they don't cost the company much to employ.
when we invented cars and got rid of horses in NYC, did we weep for the people whose job it was to shovel horse shit off the streets every day?
OH THOSE POOR HORSESHIT SHOVELLERS. REPLACED BY THAT HORRIBLE NEW TECHNOLOGY. Now we're burning fossil fuels and have rubber micro plastics in our food and water! We should never have had ICE cars. They took our jobs!
I mean, yes. The wiki page for technological unemployment has some good examples, like the mechanised loom being disastrous for artisan weavers.
The big thing is that the effects of new technology causing mass job loss are felt far more severely when the economy is in a bad state. A particular Australian news outlet bragged last year about producing "thousands" of news articles using generative AI. The outlet in question is garbage, but the journalists who lost their jobs (or were never hired) aren't living in a prosperous economic environment where starting an outlet of their own is in any way feasible.
Sure, the whole industry is far from being replaced, but if you have the misfortune of dedicated a good chunk of your life to learning a particular skill only for it to be made redundant due to new technology, you have every right to be afraid and uncertain about the future as long as the safety nets we have are completely inadequate.
Maybe because it’s much easier to create a plug in for photoshop than it is to build and program a robot that can identify and unclog your drains?
they also say this like these people wouldn't get incredibly fucked over. You're an artist, you can almost certainly find someone willing to pay for your services. A plumber who has no job? Probably not.
How many artists are you friends with? I know a fair number, and a minority are able to survive off their artwork alone.
i think that's just true of most things for most people at this point.
Regardless, i still think art is one of the few places where people will pay for nice art just to have the human experience portion of the art. Like being able to shit it out of an AI is cool, but it will never compare to a proper commission.
I used to think AI was a helpful tool, but now I see it is scraping absolute garbage because people are absolute garbage, so now the AI output will be absolute garbage, just exponentially faster.
I'm very conflicted about this. I'd reckon that the majority of us working on these AI and robotics systems do so to try to make the world a better place; so that maybe one day people won't have to slave away in warehouses all day and pee in bottles because they can't take the time to use the bathroom. Those good intentions always get corrupted by corporations and greed. So do we stop trying to push the envelope? Do we not try to make the world a better place for fear that it'll be corrupted? I really just don't know
Regulations are supposed to help keep corruption and greed driven bad actors from running rampant and misusing new technology.
The problem isn't innovation. It's the extremely wealthy people throwing their money into lobbying against any regulations that would limit how they're allowed to utilize new technology like AI. Can't have things like ethics getting in the way of raking in all that money.
In the US this problem is pretty extreme because we have corporations funding our politicians via things like super PACs. It supposedly doesnt influence any politicians decisions, but we all know it must. People don't throw around that much money during election time for shits and giggles. Somebody is getting something out of it somewhere.
is it really corpo corruption?
majority of ai art 'enthusiasts' do so in the guise of 'democratizing' art but they harrass artist by scraping their work and dming them that they will be out of jobs and will die poor.
Lmao, the majority of AI Artists use the fucking programs in peace and wish assholes like you would stop yelling at us that our creative outlet isnt real art and its stealing, which it really fucking isnt.
The amount of DnD players that will shit on AI art and then go download their next character off Pinterest where they conveniently dont have to think about wether or not the person who hosted the image stole said art, is far closer to theft than AI art is
You're right. I have no idea how to do that, though. One could argue that the solution to that problem would also serve as the solution to the problem of people losing their jobs to automation/AI.
The answer is ethics, and refusing to work on topics that are contrary to ethics. can you really complain about corporations corrupting everything if you are the one enabling them by letting them corrupt you?
the difficulty here is that not everyone is able to make that choice. people who want to be ethically driven in their work also have to maintain employment to meet their needs, and may be assigned work they might personally choose not to do.
i feel fortunate to have employment in line with my ethics and values, including that i work for a non-profit. if i lose this job, i may not have the option to wait for something similar when there is rent to pay.
Yes? I've got bills to pay and literally every job I can find is unethical. I'd rather seize the factors of production than try to find a nicer capitalist.
Very often scientific breakthroughs lead to horrible unforseen outcomes (I doubt the first people to create a recipe for black powder forsaw the havoc it'd cause) - but y'all should've seen this coming.
Automation always leads to less workforce being needed pretty much without exception. Thousands of craftsmen were put out of work by industrial machines, replaced with women and children paid dirt poor wages. Automobiles ended the era of horse and buggy (not so great an ending for the horses at large). Shorthand stenographers were put out of jobs by the type-writer. Computer was a job title before it was something that fit in your pocket.
Bottom line: If you invent something that automates X - everyone who does X will begin to lose their jobs to your automation.
Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.
It is so funny to see that AIBros are exactly like Creeptobros/NFTBros of their time. Saying that "you're gonna miss out", "you're luddites" and all that jazz. So what's next? They gonna tell me "have fun staying poor" too? Lmfao.
Just like the former, they are completely okay with stealing from others, cuz they are literally worthless without the data they have hoarded outta so many people.
They should keep going, so that more people will see them for what they truly are. :P
Lol it's hilarious watching the Lemmy community tie themselves in cognitively dissonant knots trying to decide whether they hate AI more or whether they hate capitalist ownership and hoarding of information more.
You guys all go off just as hard at the piracy community here, right?
Me when I steal from thousands of artists for anime ass looking eyy-ayy image I worked so hard to find the right prompt for (those capitalists were hoarding information and now I, clearly the good guy in this scenario, am freeing em)
And if I send that image to a friend and make them spill their lunch laughing, and then they don't send it to anyone and that's the end of its effect, what harm have I caused the world?
Why should those artists be able to prevent me from recreating their art? What if I don't use AI but use photoshop and different digital tools and complex algorithms to make that meme? Why is that different from AI?
Information should not be hoarded, and capitalist systems of restrictions and ownership are the wrong way to manage it. Full Stop. The fact that AI is exposing what a lie IP is, is not AI's fault as a technology.
And if I send that image to a friend and make them spill their lunch laughing, and then they don’t send it to anyone and that’s the end of its effect, what harm have I caused the world?
I'm sure we weren't talking about private sharings before. Moving the goalposts much?
What if I don’t use AI but use photoshop and different digital tools and complex algorithms to make that meme? Why is that different from AI?
Simple, it is focusing on ONE specific artwork, instead of millions. Oh, and also it is more energy efficient.
Why should those artists be able to prevent me from recreating their art?
Information should not be hoarded, and capitalist systems of restrictions and ownership are the wrong way to manage it.
And btw, you aren't "recreating" anything when you input a few words into your "eyy-ayy". You aren't spending any effort to do so, it is all computer's doing. So you cannot claim it as "yours". Full stop.
The fact that AI is exposing what a lie IP is, is not AI’s fault as a technology.
I'm sure these fanart makers that your "eyy-ayy" is so eager to steal from were really owning those IPs. So did those people who were drawing original stuff. Fair use is a myth, wake up sheeple!11!!! Lmfao.
I'm sure we weren't talking about private sharings before.
Based on what? You brought up stealing information like it's a bad thing, I pointed out that information shouldn't be legally restricted from use when it costs nothing to be used.
Simple, it is focusing on ONE specific artwork, instead of millions.
No, the algorithms that Photoshop lets me use to manipulate images are the same algorithms used by everyone else, everywhere around the world. Try trillions, not millions.
Oh, and also it is more energy efficient.
Yeah, use your CPU to decode a 4K video stream and tell me how much power you use.
There's a reason companies like Apple and Microsoft have been pushing NPUs.
Lmfao no one is "hoarding" "information" in the case of drawings. You want to recreate their art so damn much? You absolutely can! Here is the actual tool you need to do so!
Yes, you literally are in the same paragraph. You are telling me that I am not allowed to recreate them, unless I use the exact same specific tool that the original artist used. I presume I'm also not allowed to take any art classes that the original artists wouldn't have been exposed to either right? Why can't I recreate the painting using chalk? Or ASCII art? Why do you get to decide how I can recreate it?
And how is you telling me I can't recreate it, not hoarding information?
And btw, you aren't "recreating" anything when you input a few words into your "eyy-ayy". You aren't spending any effort to do so, it is all computer's doing. So you cannot claim it as "yours". Full stop.
Same as every Photoshop and After Effects tool based on algorithms right?
Or more precisely, what's different about being assisted by advanced computational photometry algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend, and being assisted by advanced machine learning algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend?
Based on what? You brought up stealing information like it's a bad thing, I pointed out that information shouldn't be legally restricted from use when it costs nothing to be used.
Artworks are not "information", and you surely can access em, viewing and downloading and all.
You are telling me that I am not allowed to recreate them, unless I use the exact same specific tool that the original artist used
The idea was to "use the tools artists are using" but you managed to reinterpret it as "you can only use the one single tool the artist uses". :V
I presume I'm also not allowed to take any art classes that the original artists wouldn't have been exposed to either right? Why can't I recreate the painting using chalk? Or ASCII art?
Why do you get to decide how I can recreate it?
No one is saying thay you cannot recreate it, I'm just stating the matter of fact that you aren't recreating anything when you enter a prompt on a text box.
You want to be treated like an artist and not a thief? Put in the effort. It is simple as that.
Same as every Photoshop and After Effects tool based on algorithms right?
Or more precisely, what's different about being assisted by advanced computational photometry algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend, and being assisted by advanced machine learning algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend?
See above, entering prompt on a text box is NOT the same as using the tools given on a drawing/photo editing program.
Also there are lots of tutorials on how to use these so called "PhD requiring tools" out there lol. Once again, put in the effort.
Artworks are not "information", and you surely can access em, viewing and downloading and all.
Lmao, bro, how do you think that digital art got to your computer? Over the art super highway that we built seperate from the rest of the internet?
The idea was to "use the tools artists are using" but you managed to reinterpret it as "you can only use the one single tool the artist uses". :V
And what makes a large language model algorithm different from an advanced Photoshop algorithm?
Your restrictions are arbitrary and based on nothing.
No one is saying thay you cannot recreate it, I'm just stating the matter of fact that you aren't recreating anything when you enter a prompt on a text box.
Literally by the definition of the story being discussed, yes you are. You are recreating an or many artists' styles and using those to create a new image.
You want to be treated like an artist and not a thief? Put in the effort. It is simple as that.
...said every dumb old fart about musicians using computers to sample other songs
It turns out they were wrong and you can create new art from pieces of existing art.
See above, entering prompt on a text box is NOT the same as using the tools given on a drawing/photo editing program.
LMFAO bro, you can't just scream "I DECLARE THEYRE NOT THE SAME" like you're Michael Scott and expect it to be true. Name what makes using one algorithm different from the other, don't worry we'll wait.
Also there are lots of tutorials on how to use these so called "PhD requiring tools" out there lol. Once again, put in the effort.
I said it takes a PhD to understand the underlying algorithm, as in you and most people using those tools would never ever be able to come up with that algorithm on your own; as in, youre getting assistance from a highly advanced algorithm running on the most complex machines ever made, but you think that's fine and art, but using a slightly different algorithm is suddenly stealing and can't be art.
Again, your distinction is junk. People call you a luddite because you are one. You're railing against an algorithm like it's evil instead of just a new piece of technology that can be used for bad, or good.
A horse looks at a car something something. The technology is here to stay and has it's uses, the tech industry will get bored of it's limitations and a new thing will come along for us to scream at. AI has practical applications but I don't think you should dismiss it entirely on principle. I think it's about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
I think it's about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
If that was happening, I think we’d probably be fine with it. But it just appears almost everywhere, uninvited, as half-baked and soaked in mile-high promises.
I'm more frustrated by the haste with which it's implemented. I've seen (secondhand) instances of this Google search AI spitting out results that are either flat-out wrong (e.g., presenting fan theories as fact in response to a question about warhammeer 40k), or actively harmful (e.g., recommending self harm in response to a search for "how do I stop crying")
You can and should dismiss LLM's on principle though, because these are nothing. They're fancy Markov generators, one step up from the auto-correct in your keyboard.
They're fun for researching problems and trying to further our efforts towards developing artificial intelligence, but the only thing techbros are selling is a new monkey to regurgitate the data it's been fed. The monkey doesn't know if the data is actually useful, or even if it is true, but to the techbros it "approximates a conversation" and therefore is good enough to replace jobs. AI might be cool eventually, but we are still lightyears away from anything that can think.
People who criticize AI seem to fall into 3 camps:
Bandwagon jumpers who just see people they like criticizing AI and regurgitate what they hear.
People who reject it out of principle because it would break their world view to consider the possibility that human beings could just be machines with no free will.
People who reject it because theyve seen capitalism use previous advances in automation to enrich the working class and entrench their power.
Largely agree but I think there are one it two more camps.
People who feel threatened to irrelevance as artists trying to use art as their primary means to make money
People who realize that CEOs and higher up people in companies actually do intend to replace human workers as soon as they can, even before it's properly viable.
I'm pro AI, but I largely see the AI backlash as inventing complex moral justification to oppose it when the core issues are it's impact on the livelihood of artists under capitalism.
Obviously AI art is just as valid as human art, and there is nothing inherently special about human creations. We are actually just biological machines and our behavior and output is easily emulatable.
I would just tend to group those as two sub camps under the third, anti-capitalist, camp that I mentioned, but I can see reason them to put them on the same hierarchical level.
Most of the problems with AI are with it accelerating the already ongoing effects of capitalism.
I'm not sure you're right. Many companies ditch AI because not only is it useless, it's downright dangerous because AI chat bots are very confident in their answers, even though they're wrong most of the time.
I was excited at first, but now it's a useless gimmick. And it fucks up journalism.
But I do wanna keep the AI denoiser in Lightroom though, that shit is amazing!
it's super easy with AI chat bots, they're literally just fucking wrong. It wouldn't make a difference whether an AI told you something incorrect, or a person did, you would be equally as likely to fall for it, unless that person was like "take this with a grain of salt, i'm probably wrong" and even then you'd likely forget they say that and peddle the same bullshit a few years down the road.
i think it is here to stay, i think it's focus is what's going to change. Having AI replace a lot of janitorial tasks can be a huge boon to productivity. It's also a pretty great librarian for internal documentation. And it also probably makes c suite fuckers happy, because they no longer have to write emails.
Its here to stay because free versions are here already on the internet for anyone to use, and people are already using it like crazy because its an amazingly powerful tool. Even once its fad uses die off, it'll continue to be used in the areas it excels in
I want AI for exactly one thing: helping me put my own thoughts into words. A GPT-3 machine trained in 2021 it's perfectly good enough for that. For everything else, I want simple if-this-then-that programming.
I've found AI useful just for programming examples. I think it's a decent programming resource especially when working in an unfamiliar language.
Outside of that it's right now a net negative in almost every case where I've seen it used. Google results are already polluted by AI-generated hallucinated crap and the bots will feast on their own excrement until it dominates the entire internet.
Let's be honest about the two reasons why the industry is pushing it. Number one, it has the potential to replace human workers at low cost and therefore is attractive to the investor class. Number two, tech investment is down in a high interest rate business climate and after the dud of VR the tech companies need a new buzzword to attract capital.
They are certainly not cramming it into your OS because they think you will actually find it useful.
Says the guy posting on an obscure, overly complicated version of a web forum primarily dedicated to Linux and other fringe technology and ideologies from a non-mainline instance lol
It’s really just mocking the people who think anyone really cares. This is a tidal wave that’s gonna wipe away everyone who doesn’t embrace it. The genie is out of the bottle, love it or hate it, it’s a tool that’s only going to get more powerful. And it doesn’t care if you hate it, it’ll still come for the lowest hanging fruit in every industry
So if that’s your job, it’s time to level up your skills, and embrace the technology in order to use it to your benefit. The people who are going to benefit are highly skilled people who can use the tools to be even better. The ones who are gonna be wiped out are the lowest skill people who fight it
Well yeah, improve your skills, make yourself more valuable, and earn more money. Is that controversial? You might not like it but that’s just the way the world works bud
I'm almost 50. I've got a child. I have limited energy. Expecting me to create a whole new skillset every decade is not reasonable when you get to my age.
"That's just the way it works" could be said of every unjust thing in human history from slavery to voting rights... and I would suggest that the idea that the world should conform to whatever corporations want is pretty damn unjust.
If it were up to me, there would be some sort of UBI, paid into by corporations that replace their employees with AI/robots/whatever, that would support people who have lost their jobs due to automation (and then maybe everyone else after ramp up). I hope that someone young like you can run for office one day and make it happen
The good news is, the barrier to learning how to use these very simple AI tools is extremely low. Not even close to learning how to code.
Just, unjust, right, wrong - who gives a shit man? The world trudges on and doesn’t care how you feel about it. You either get on the train or get run over by it.
For the umpteenth time if it’s requiring human generated input, it’s not AI. A human is still at the wheel telling a computer what to do even if it’s doing evil bidding. It is but a program that still had a bunch of lines put in BY A HUMAN to start the algorithm. Cons are still conning.
Too many people making wild techno phobe assumptions and missing the point they are still being fucked over by another human. Not a computer. Pinning it on as AI as if we’re powerless is misinformation to what is actually happening.
I'm sorry but this sounds a lot like "guns don't kill people".
"AI" is doing tremendous damage right now to artists and many other population strata, no matter how you like to word it. I'm all for automation and I think "AI" can help humanity in many ways, but right now it's also being used to cheap out and hurt humanity at large. I don't think it's helpful at all to look away
everybody keeps saying this, but i don't think everybody realizes that any automation, at all, can have a negative effect. Yeah sure automating labor jobs would be nice, what are those people going to do now? Get a college degree? Good luck with that.
We survived the automation and industrialization of farming, we'll survive this.
They dont give a fuck about tradesmen or cashiers or burger flippers... They're upset because they thought they were magically above everyone and that capitalism wasnt going to effect them, and now that capitalism is effecting them, they dont want to fight capitalism, they want to ban the tool that capitalism is using to effect them, even though because of the power of the internet, said tool is available to them and to anyone who wants to use it for free, and so they cant treat their patrons like moneybags that they not so secretly looked down on before
Except their shit ISNT being hit first. We've had like a generation now of jobs being taken away with no new ones provided, except, this time, in this specific case, us commoners actually get a powerful new tool out of it. And it's the tool you guys are shitting on FAR MORE than the capitalists taking jobs. You wanna give us some boycotts to join? Hell yeah, you'll probably get a lot of AI Artists and ChatGPTers to join you in that. But no, they wanna just shit on us and call us thieves instead
from their perspective it's being hit first, not everyone has omnipotence unfortunately, so this is expected. You see the same thing everytime you interact with republicans who are ok with people losing their jobs and careers over shit being shutdown, but bitch and cry the second you even mention the potential that it could happen to them.
Same shit probably happens with liberals as well, because everyone is a sore fucking loser, including me.
If a person rapes you you don’t blame their genitalia. You blame the person.
and that’s my point. Blaming a machine is sidestepping the criminal who’s manipulating the machine to rip off people. You’re guilty of your own rule for derailing from the real culprit and ignoring the human thief. They rely on that.stop enabling it.
AI is just a tool. It's like a computer. Right now it's possibilities look limitless, but soon we will know the limitations and it will just be another tool in our toolbox. It will drive some people out of jobs... mostly for the betterment of society, but the disruption will be hard for anyone who is working one of those jobs, so there will be complaining. For example, is it really good for society to have people reading prearranged scripts off a screen at massive soul killing call centers?
As will all technological innovations there are advantages and disadvantages. Learn to adopt the advantages and look to fix or attack the disadvantages. IMHO, the biggest issues will be in privacy and monitoring, so we should be looking for laws and protections we look to put in place to shield ourselves from this.
If you don't like it, don't use it. But this will be like computers, robotics, and cell phones. If you go full Luddite, you'll be left in the dust in both in culture and job prospects. This is change and change is scary, but the old adage of "adapt or die" still holds true.
AI art is real and good from a socialist viewpoint. AI in general is great tech and I love it, I want more of that and less of the corpos and the bourgeoise "b-b-but my IP!" artbros
I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's also an anti-socialist angle to the way it's being used right now. It further alienates the artist form the art, enabling the extraction of their labor by the owners of the algorithms.
If the source code and data sets of the AI were in the public domain, or as easy to access and modify as the art they take advantage of, it would be more compatible with socialism. As it stands AI is being leveraged as another tool of capitalist exploitation to funnel even more money into big tech stock valuations.
I mean, Stable Diffusion is open weight, the code is there too, so is the paper, and it is free as in free beer and incredibly easy to use thanks to the open source community. In the same vein, Mistral is a good fairly libre LLM.
I think the problem is that when people hear AI they think DALL-E and ChatGPT whereas to me that's just weird corporate alternatives.
The way people interact with technology has been so commercialised and basically repackaged into less tech and more something akin to products for the average person and it's a damn shame. Crypto to them means something something NFT hot potato, to me it has always been about buying drugs and circumventing laws. To them - internet is ads, to me the internet is how I avoid ads that I see way more of IRL. Algorithmic content in my internet browsing experience is basically non-existent.
As a result there's a cultural divide there where us slightly more tech-savvy folks live in a completely different world where for us it quite literally really isn't the case. I'm happy to reach across that divide and educate so we can actually modernize the left because no matter what - this isn't going away.
But I think a lot of artbros don't really want to learn or discuss this, and when you have irrational, baseless reasons for hating AI art like blatant falsehoods i.e. "it's all just theft look at this totally not img2img example of my art!!!" or cultish nonsense about "souls" or "culture" or "spirit" or "human spark" or whatever other spook du jour, it's impossible to argue.
This is made even worse by the fact that at least from what I've seen, currently proposed regulations will only lock in corporate control on the models by ensuring that only those with the capital can meet those regulations or pay fines for not meeting them, and the artbros pushing for them without understanding anything about tech play right into the corpos hands.
It's ironic, the same types in my xp will often will joke about some unhinged code monkey on the orange website thinking he knows everything about politics just because he is the smarterest programmer in all of JS bootcamp, yet they fail to see that by repeating the silly theft and appeals to nature etc. arguments they are playing into the same trap of ignorance in that they don't fully understand the tech they're drawing conclusions about.
I see AI art as mostly a toy. As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific. The thing with intellectual property is that currently, its necessary so that artists can be paid for their work, but it last way too long. I'd be in favor of limiting to twenty years since publication. This would allow artists to monetize their work, even handsomely, if they produce something outstanding, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.
I'm not a graphical artist personally but I'd imagine that even those who can draw don't always have the skill to lay it out exactly as in their head either.
I mess around with music a bit as a hobby and I feel like it took me years to learn how to actually carry an idea from my head all the way to a track without it changing simply because I lacked the skill to express what I wanted, and even still it sometimes isn't quite right.
“Financially incentivised”? As in, the people who make a living creating original art? The people whose work is being taken without compensation and fed into a mindless program to plagiarise their work?
Those bastards?
Artists aren’t some rich elite that you are winning one over on here. They are individuals who have been told for years that ‘exposure’ is the best payment. They are people, not companies. They have worked hard to develop their skills.
Their ‘financial incentive’ is wanting to be paid for their hard work? Fuck those guys right?
ai will not help real artists except for perhaps generating references. calculators are of great use to mathematicians because they are tools that do not steal their jobs, but instead make said jobs easier.
But they don’t learn when you train them. They mashup what they have been fed, and shit out an approximation of your request each time. When you type “in the style of xyz”, the system doesn’t remember who xyz is. It does a search for data on xyz, and copies it.
If these models were learning, you wouldn’t still need paragraph long prompts every time you wanted to plop out another plastic-skinned anime chick with fucked-up flipper hands and huge bazoongas. It would have learned how to make that shit by now.
Honestly, I'm having a ton of fun with generative A.I. as a marketing producer. It's allowing me to play in new ways and realize ideas that I would have never had the time or resources to execute otherwise. It's given me the confidence to explore entirely new mediums and workflows that have bled over into my personal art.
Despite your fun little loopholes, piracy by definition is theft. Find a different word for it if you’d like, but you can’t redefine the term because you don’t like what it implies.
Also… you cherry-picked your definition:
An act of robbery on the high seas, also an act resembling such robbery
unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
Miriam Webster is where I got my definition from. You absolutely cherry picked. You only included the part that made your point for you and left out the part that made mine:
I feel like this is where the "piracy is [not] theft" message breaks down. The question most people care about isn't whether or not it's definitively theft, but rather whether it's ethical or not.
ok so technically the definition of art isn't really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is "that it isn't human" and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that's why "ai art" is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn't matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it's art, it's art. It's technically just that simple.
I also wouldn't classify it as theft, considering that's pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they're all pretty similar? There's a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it's funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it's working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let's go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it's hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
ok so technically the definition of art isn’t really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is “that it isn’t human” and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that’s why “ai art” is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn’t matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it’s art, it’s art. It’s technically just that simple.
I also wouldn’t classify it as theft, considering that’s pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they’re all pretty similar? There’s a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it’s funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it’s working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let’s go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it’s hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
:P
I technically didn't steal this content because I added a ":P" to it. Nobody can really define what plagiarism is so therefore it's all good!
I will never understand why Americans insist on simping so hard for billion dollar companies. Is it the lead in the drinking water? Is it the lack of healthcare? Is is the terrible state of their education? Truly baffling.
Is this directed at me?
1: Not American
2: My use of AI helps zero corporations in any way as I installed the programs, for free, on my computer and use open source checkpoints, loras, and nodes to run them
A whole fuckload of the hate towards AI is completely uniformed and based on gut feelings and shit thats just plain wrong. If you hate artists losing their jobs, attack the capitalists, not the commoners ALSO losing their jobs that have found a new tool that has greatly improved their lives
Edit: Wow, you added so many big words! Did momma forget your sauce again?
Hey, you’re an expert: do you think the uptick in the number of sticky-fingered midwesterners around here is a sign that Lemmy’s finally reaching a wider, less technical audience?
Sounds like she's worried someone will make an AI specifically trained on feminist literature and talking points to do her tweeting for her so she has the time to actually go to therapy and deal with her issues.
welcome to the internet, we have racism, racism, a bit more racism, sexism, probably some more sexism, threats, lots of threats, and a few more threats. And that one guy trying to be helpful.
Lmao at all the luddites angry at a new open source piece of tech who are using a niche open source forum to yell at the clouds for being left behind by technology
Edit: All the downvotes in the world wont stop me from using AI gen, nor will it stop you from being left behind
2nd Edit: Keep feeding my block list knuckle draggers, it hasnt had fuel like this since I started blocking Tankies
The Luddite comparison is rather unfair. AI will have its applications, but it's largely turning into the next tech bro buzzword being inappropriately shoehorned into everything, just like companies were trying to do with crypto and block chain everything a couple of years back. Now, everywhere you turn is cramming it in by default, whether it's actually helpful or not. Outlook suddenly started irritating attempts at "assisting" my email writing, when I search for stuff, I get previews with generic AI summaries rather than letting me see a snippet of the actual content, and on and on. AI art will be matter of taste, I suppose, but AI evangelists have taken a novelty and worn out its welcome faster than redditors beating the dead horse of a joke into the ground.
If companies weren't constantly overselling its current capabilities and putting it in things it has no business being in, you would probably have a much less negative reaction to it. I'll wait another few years to see what it actually shakes out to be useful for, but in the meantime, I don't really want to hear about the latest and greatest AI-enabled toaster that uses cloud technology to predict when you want toast and to burn images based on voice prompts into your toast, while using a loaf-based block chain to identify which of your roommates should have used the heel of the loaf but skipped it.
Nuanced arguements with AI doesnt happen. A lot of the tech is currently being used as the next tech bubble yes, but it already has found legitimate and powerful use outside that as well. My luddite comment is more of a response to whenever I bring up its legit use I get comments like "Enjoy your tendies bootlicker" Luddites were a group that became synonymous with being left behind by technology because they went and burned down lace making factories during the advent of machines that could mass produce lace, and as such they are a VERY accurate comparison to the fuckers saying everything ai makes is garbage and theft.
You dont have to wait years to see its actual use cases, AI gen is a powerful tool for people to access creative freedom who had previously been gatekeeped by skill levels, and I have English as a Second Language coworkers that tell me that ChatGPT has helped them practice their english conversation skills in private like no other program has before, and have heard a lot of talk from programmers that it has greatly sped up their coding workflow.
Edit: This is why I've gone back to just laughing at the idiots angry they're being left behind, any time I actually address any non made up concerns, people just downvote and verbally throw their own feces like the dumb monkeys that they are
I'm gonna need context on why you quoted that. Are you amplifying it? Or are you mocking it? There's no info to guess tone and meaning on
Edit: Or downvote me I guess, that gives context too
2nd Edit: Whoever responded to me, I've already deemed your opinion worthless due to earlier comments and cannot see what you've said because I blocked you, I can only see "1 more reply ->".
I'd say have a nice day, but I probably wouldnt mean it
Because it can only do that through theft of intellectual property. Also, just because you like using something that will obviously and quickly be used to tighten the shackles around your ankles, doesn't mean that others have to enjoy their chains or lick boots.
Using technology to make a post complaining about technology. The very platform being used contributes to "tech bro capitalism" but AI is crossing the line? What a weird take.
This is like pointing at someone who took a bus to a climate science convention to talk about the problems with air travel and saying "wow, you used mass transit to complain about mass transit"
So what, Luddite? Make it even harder to transition to a non-capitalist world? Banning AI will make it harder, it's much easier to transition to a post scarcity world when the tech to do so already exists and is accepted.
I would encourage you to read up on who the Luddites really were. In short, textile workers who were being forced into underpaid and very dangerous work making cheap shit. They broke some machines and wrote some threatening letters to try and achieve a ban on child labour and a minimum wage. Then the government responded with executions and penal transportation.
When people complain about AI (including the above screenshot), it’s almost always just complaints about Capitalism. Yeah, big corporations are pushing AI hard. Yes, they are trying to replace workers with AI. These are not AI problems, they are Capitalism problems. People do know it’s okay to criticize Capitalism instead of just the things that Capitalism abuses, right?
And it’s like they don’t see the ways that AI can help in the fight against Capitalism by empowering individuals.
Plus, AI is not solely the providence of corporations… and even if they are in the lead on advancements, they won’t be able to keep it locked down, either. There are community AI projects and open source/weight/etc models… and they are also advancing quickly. The libraries that interact with the models are almost all open source, too.
And while people complain about corporations scraping peoples data for training they neglect to consider that we, the community, can scrape corporate data as well… that’s ALL fair use. Attacking, diminishing, or destroying fair use benefits rich corporations infinitely more than it benefits us plebs and community efforts. “License your training data” is something only deep pockets can achieve. If I want to train something and have to pay for training data (which, btw won’t ever be reproduced/redistributed)… I can’t do that, you can’t do that… 99.999% can’t do that.
The fear of Capitalists replacing us all with software has somehow managed to make people miss the forest for the trees. AI isn’t the enemy - not any more than the cotton gin, the telephone, or the internet - Capitalism is.
No, that’s valid… but it’s also a problem with all cloud technology in general. As models shrink and run locally more often instead of giant, dedicated data centers, that will improve. Right now brute force is how the bigger, cutting-edge models (e.g. ChatGPT) operate.
Oh, we are fucked. But I also won’t pretend that mostly solar-powered data centers, which don’t emit greenhouse gases, are in any way a remotely meaningful contributor to our climate crisis.
If a bull is bucking around in my house, I’m not going to worry about the faucet slowly dripping in the bathroom. I want to deal with the bull, first.
Luddites were 100% on the right side of history, as they were complaining not about technology but about the way it was being used as leverage against the lower classes. Your opinion of them is the result of an easy smear campaign, from the same people that are wielding technology now against you with your blessing.
Ah, cool. So then you will be coding me a neutral network framework in about 2 seconds then? C# please, object oriented and with proper comments to indicate what it's doing.
Wow, you're super slow. This whole "not ai" thing sucks.
The only part that annoys me about that complaint is that it's not "stealing." I think it's very reasonable for artists to ask for compensation if their works are used in the creation of a commercial product, but it never has and never will be theft. Equating copyright infringement with theft is entertainment industry anti-piracy propaganda, and Hollywood really doesn't need you to be their unpaid spokesperson.
If you're an independent artist who wants to be compensated when your art is used in AI training, then do yourself the favor of understanding what you actually need to ask for. Specifically, legislation to clarify that incorporation of copyrighted materials into an AI training data set is a protected use under copyright law and requires compensation, and/or that AI image models should be established as derivative works of the images in their training. That's the legislative change they should be pushing for rather than inaccurately claiming "theft" and "stealing art."
Stealing art is when you have a painting and I don't, and then I take it, and now I have a painting and you don't. It has nothing to do with AI. Artists who oppose AI would be better advocates for themselves if they offered their criticism in accurate terminology.
Whats extra funny is the online DnD community that will parrot the art theft point seconds before they jump back onto Pinterest to TOTALLY NOT STEAL the art of their next DnD character
You fucking moron, they aren't using that art for financial gain. That's the fucking difference. You will never listen to any actual grievances though because you don't care who or what it harms, only that you get cool new gadgets. Eat shit you cunt bag.
It's not about what the people use the AI for, you incompetent prick. Who owns the AI? They make money from it providing a service to people. That service is stealing the abilities of real people who no longer get paid for their services.
A child could understand this but as I said you will never even try to because you simply don't give a shit about anyone or anything but your own enjoyment.
So you fully embrace AI generated journalism? AI art devoid of any emotions and skill? Shitty answers to prompts that just create more problems than solving them? AI has a long fucking way to go before it can really benefit humankind.
Ai generated journalism just made shitty journalism easier. The same shitty "top 10 whatever" sites were posting a similar level of pointless drivel 10 years ago but now they can produce more of them, I guess?
As someone with very limited artistic skill, I think your opinion of AI art is gatekeeping. Sorry not everyone can pick up a pencil and put down the exact image they want to see. For me, it's just another tool of creativity that also happens to lowers
the barrier to entry. You'll find very different ability in producing specific results among users, too. I've gotten a bunch of people at work to join me in coming up with prompts and it's fascinating to see how different people come up with different ideas, and how some definitely understand how to work with image generators better than others.
Not sure what you mean by shitty answers. Ever asked a human the answer to something? They often get things wrong too. I've definitely googled something many times only to find misinformation and bad results. This isn't exclusive to LLMs.
I agree with your last statement though. It's a great tool that has only been broadly publically available in its current form for less than a few years now. Certainly there's a long way to go. I just think all the doomers in these comment chains are simultaneously not giving its current capabilities enough credit, but also vastly overestimating the impacts AI generation will have societally.
Thanks for the well explained answer, I appreciate the tone of your post :)
I'm fairly shit at art myself but have made respect for people who have a mental picture and can transfer that into whatever medium they're using. AI art is easy to detect at this point and it just doesn't do it for me.
The thing with shitty answers is that the answers that come after a prompt sound feasible but very often it's absolute nonsense and plan unusable.
I appreciate the technology behind AI and it's fairly impressive where we're at now. But it has a very long way to go before it really becomes a benefit to humanity.
Let's talk again after your job is automated away, with no possibility for you to "skill up" because unlike in the 70s, this time the automation trend is starting from the top positions and the arts.
Sorry man, my job is not under threat by ai. The human element to what I do currently can't be replaced.
I certainly use it to help me get my job done faster though.
The threat to "the arts" is not real. Corporate, soulless art might be a less lucrative field for an artist in the future due to image generation capabilities, which is definitely an unfortunate consequence of its development, but real art still has a human value that can't be replaced by ai.
That said, I'd consider image generation to be just another tool of creative expression. Ask 10 people in a room to come up with an image with any of the image generators and you'll see vastly different levels of creativity in their prompts.
The average internet hate train is just targeting this change this time around. It's exhausting seeing internet posters see something changing and decide to target that one thing until they get bored because their manufactured rage doesn't actually produce anything.
In my job I write a lot of bullshit sentences that I'd rather a machine write for me. But the solution is to make it so I don't have to write bullshit sentences, not to get a machine to write bullshit.
But if you don't write more bullshit sentences, who's going to pay for AI to summarize by getting rid of your bullshit sentences?
If your job is anything like mine, the entire reason for those blshit sentences is to fool a machine at Google into putting your website higher in their search results.
So now it's bullshit Ai writing stuff for another bullshit Ai to judge. Consideration for humans is non existent.
Here's the neat part, the fight to make you stop having to write bulshit sentences is ENTIRELY seperate from the fight against AI
Man never thought I’d miss crypto but here we are.
As bad as it is, this is still a step up from crypto.
At least the crypto bros were idioting among themselves and not invading every fucking angle of modern society.
Not for lack of trying. They did push for cryptocurrency to be used as actual money (with some success - see El Salvador) and for NFTs to be used for managing ownership (of actual things you can use - not just JPEGs)
It's not that generative AI advocates are more pushy than crypto advocates - it's just that they are more successful. Because like it or not - generative AI does work and does provide value. The problem with it is the ethics of training it and the negative impacts it has on society - but let's not pretend it's a failed concept like cryptocurrency.
except they did. I mean, when an entire country adopts Bitcoin as national currency, then it literally has invaded every fucking angle of their modern society.
Strongly disagree as unlikely as it sounds, crypto was much less annoying
This is more useful than crypto
Is it? Crypto could generate money for you. This can tell you lies based on its hallucinations.
At least when you cashed out, you knew you were cashing out at the value you were being told you were cashing out at. If there were some weird merger between crypto and AI, you'd sell your AIcoin thinking it was valued at $100 but it would turn out it was actually valued at $2 and the AIcoin just told you it was $100.
I think crypto is stupid and annoying and a waste of energy. This is stupider and more annoying and a bigger waste of energy and, worst of all, officially embraced by every major tech company.
Crypto moves money from one hand to another. It doesn't create value in and of itself.
That's not what I mean. I mean it can personally increase someone's net worth, especially if they check out at the right time.
Yeah, I understood what you mean. I'm saying that's not better because there's no value being created. At least AI is capable of doing some useful work for us.
You can even argue that it can make you money. Invest in a tech company involved in AI, cash out at the right time, boom, "free" money.
Out of curiosity - do you think your opinion will change once on-device (i.e., power efficient) AI becomes the norm?
The capabilities and utility of contemporary LLMs are wildly overstated by many, but the claim that they are completely useless is dubious imo. Nothing they generate can be treated as fact (and shame on those who suggest you do), but I can say with certainty that it has made my life as an indie programmer much easier, and I know I’m not alone in that.
Okay, sorry, here is my real response since I thought you were talking about something else due to being in two conversations at once in the same thread:
My opinion will change when AIs stop being untrustworthy. Until I can have any sort of certainty that it isn't just making shit up, it won't change.
Not too long ago, I asked ChatGPT to tell me who I am. I have a unique name. I also have a long-established internet media presence under that name. I'm not famous, but I've got enough prominence for it to know exactly who I am.
It had no idea whatsoever. It got it entirely wrong. It said I was a business entrepreneur who gave motivational lectures.
idk bro that sounds like saying search engines aren't useful cuz you couldn't google yourself..
I’m sorry?
Coders and artists are already making heavy use of AI, it doesnt magically do everything for you, and you have to check and curate it, but that doesnt make it entirely worthless. It's FAR more useful than crypto
crypto doesn't generate money. It generates numbers that you can sell for money.
HA! Right?
Every time someone asked me if they should worry about AI i've always replied that they should only worry about humans, especially the rich ones.
this could not be stated better.
Honestly I'm so sick and tired of the creative types giving the same shitty takes on AI over and over again
"WhY Is AI MaKiNg aRt iNsTeAd oF RePlAcInG JoBs wE DoN'T WaNt"
Maybe because it's much easier to create a plug in for photoshop than it is to build and program a robot that can identify and unclog your drains?
Like it really seems like these people think AI engineers sit in meetings and go "okay, we can either free the working class from their chains or end world hunger. Which one should we pick?"
"That's boring, can we just automate erotic anime art instead?"
"Mike you're a genius"
As an engineer who works on machine learning for physical systems:
This conversation is happening, it's just not engineers who decide what's getting built. We absolutely can automate shitty jobs nobody wants, and with a better economic system we'll do it. We've been overdue to end involuntary labor for a century.
Also people keep rejecting the drain clog robot idea because they're afraid of pipe robots attacking their butts.
I'd like to say that no matter what direction we go into the future, I am definitely not okay with a pipe robot attacking my butt.
You just gotta open your mind, man
And your butt
We already have the drain clogging robots, though. They are widely used by utility companies to force the payments in places where disconnecting other utilities is illegal.
Lol
Not too long ago, everyone was saying that art was the most difficult thing for an AI to do. That's why everyone had this utopian view of machines doing all the work while humans just spent their days making art.
Art was supposed to be the insanely difficult something that only humans could do.
It still is. It mixes and matches shit together but real art is something it can't do.
Humans are the same though.
All art is derivative, nothing is truly original.
"If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe." ~Carl Sagan
As someone who has tried out a lot of open source image AIs, I would say that 'original art' is something it can't do. It can make a lot of stuff, but if you deviate too far from the topics it knows it just stops giving you what you asked for. In addition to this, most of the originality the generations do have comes only from the prompt.
This is the explanation that artists that don't work with AI use, but it's not actually how generative AI works.
No real art
thanks ! phew
I have been studying/working with AI for 15 years now. And even back then "AI" art was still a thing, just very abstract.
Any person who was talking about art being the most difficult thing for AI to do was either talking very philosophically or was just someone trying to sound smart.
Even with automating shitty jobs that no one wants, you're still getting people out of a job and the only way they have of making money. This is kind of how people reacted when Boston Dynamics showcased its warehouse robot. It seems that we need a universal basic income first, but no politicians are willing to do that at least until unpleasant jobs are automated. There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem there. And, on top of this, companies don't care that much about automating shitty jobs because the people in them get low wages, so they don't cost the company much to employ.
when we invented cars and got rid of horses in NYC, did we weep for the people whose job it was to shovel horse shit off the streets every day?
OH THOSE POOR HORSESHIT SHOVELLERS. REPLACED BY THAT HORRIBLE NEW TECHNOLOGY. Now we're burning fossil fuels and have rubber micro plastics in our food and water! We should never have had ICE cars. They took our jobs!
TOOK ER JERBS!!!
I mean, yes. The wiki page for technological unemployment has some good examples, like the mechanised loom being disastrous for artisan weavers.
The big thing is that the effects of new technology causing mass job loss are felt far more severely when the economy is in a bad state. A particular Australian news outlet bragged last year about producing "thousands" of news articles using generative AI. The outlet in question is garbage, but the journalists who lost their jobs (or were never hired) aren't living in a prosperous economic environment where starting an outlet of their own is in any way feasible.
Sure, the whole industry is far from being replaced, but if you have the misfortune of dedicated a good chunk of your life to learning a particular skill only for it to be made redundant due to new technology, you have every right to be afraid and uncertain about the future as long as the safety nets we have are completely inadequate.
I am still not shedding a tear for those poor out of work shit shovellers.
they also say this like these people wouldn't get incredibly fucked over. You're an artist, you can almost certainly find someone willing to pay for your services. A plumber who has no job? Probably not.
How many artists are you friends with? I know a fair number, and a minority are able to survive off their artwork alone.
i think that's just true of most things for most people at this point.
Regardless, i still think art is one of the few places where people will pay for nice art just to have the human experience portion of the art. Like being able to shit it out of an AI is cool, but it will never compare to a proper commission.
Also, screwing up art has less severe repercussions than, oh... almost anything else.
Edit: I'm not insulting artists, I'm insulting the competence of AI. Fuck-ups with AI art don't kill people.
I'd say "inb4 the AI cultists invade this thread" but it looks like I'm already too late
Where do they dig these people up
Bold of you to assume they're people.
Good point bleep bloop am
röbotRobertMove over, "Russian shills"!
Yeah I know. Still.
I mean, it was a tech luddite on a niche tech forum that started this if we wanna reduce our opposition to a nuanceless paper enemy
"Scraper"
A scraper scrapes. A scrapper scraps.
I used to think AI was a helpful tool, but now I see it is scraping absolute garbage because people are absolute garbage, so now the AI output will be absolute garbage, just exponentially faster.
AI:
I bet AI would have spelled it right
I'm very conflicted about this. I'd reckon that the majority of us working on these AI and robotics systems do so to try to make the world a better place; so that maybe one day people won't have to slave away in warehouses all day and pee in bottles because they can't take the time to use the bathroom. Those good intentions always get corrupted by corporations and greed. So do we stop trying to push the envelope? Do we not try to make the world a better place for fear that it'll be corrupted? I really just don't know
Regulations are supposed to help keep corruption and greed driven bad actors from running rampant and misusing new technology.
The problem isn't innovation. It's the extremely wealthy people throwing their money into lobbying against any regulations that would limit how they're allowed to utilize new technology like AI. Can't have things like ethics getting in the way of raking in all that money.
In the US this problem is pretty extreme because we have corporations funding our politicians via things like super PACs. It supposedly doesnt influence any politicians decisions, but we all know it must. People don't throw around that much money during election time for shits and giggles. Somebody is getting something out of it somewhere.
is it really corpo corruption? majority of ai art 'enthusiasts' do so in the guise of 'democratizing' art but they harrass artist by scraping their work and dming them that they will be out of jobs and will die poor.
Which like, you think this is news to any artist? Everyone is already passing around the same $20, lol.
Lmao, the majority of AI Artists use the fucking programs in peace and wish assholes like you would stop yelling at us that our creative outlet isnt real art and its stealing, which it really fucking isnt.
The amount of DnD players that will shit on AI art and then go download their next character off Pinterest where they conveniently dont have to think about wether or not the person who hosted the image stole said art, is far closer to theft than AI art is
I think we probably need to stop having massive corpos that force people to piss in bottles, seems like the correct answer to me.
You're right. I have no idea how to do that, though. One could argue that the solution to that problem would also serve as the solution to the problem of people losing their jobs to automation/AI.
yeah idk either, talking about it seems like the best way to figure it out to me though.
And yeah it would probably snowball to a more productive and healthier workforce.
The answer is ethics, and refusing to work on topics that are contrary to ethics. can you really complain about corporations corrupting everything if you are the one enabling them by letting them corrupt you?
the difficulty here is that not everyone is able to make that choice. people who want to be ethically driven in their work also have to maintain employment to meet their needs, and may be assigned work they might personally choose not to do.
i feel fortunate to have employment in line with my ethics and values, including that i work for a non-profit. if i lose this job, i may not have the option to wait for something similar when there is rent to pay.
i think it's worth making the effort, though.
Yes? I've got bills to pay and literally every job I can find is unethical. I'd rather seize the factors of production than try to find a nicer capitalist.
They’re working to make a profit. They couldn’t give a shit about what effect it has on the world.
I guess you know me better than I know myself. Thanks for the info.
Very often scientific breakthroughs lead to horrible unforseen outcomes (I doubt the first people to create a recipe for black powder forsaw the havoc it'd cause) - but y'all should've seen this coming.
Automation always leads to less workforce being needed pretty much without exception. Thousands of craftsmen were put out of work by industrial machines, replaced with women and children paid dirt poor wages. Automobiles ended the era of horse and buggy (not so great an ending for the horses at large). Shorthand stenographers were put out of jobs by the type-writer. Computer was a job title before it was something that fit in your pocket.
Bottom line: If you invent something that automates X - everyone who does X will begin to lose their jobs to your automation.
Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.
UBI.
It is so funny to see that AIBros are exactly like Creeptobros/NFTBros of their time. Saying that "you're gonna miss out", "you're luddites" and all that jazz. So what's next? They gonna tell me "have fun staying poor" too? Lmfao.
Just like the former, they are completely okay with stealing from others, cuz they are literally worthless without the data they have hoarded outta so many people.
They should keep going, so that more people will see them for what they truly are. :P
Lol it's hilarious watching the Lemmy community tie themselves in cognitively dissonant knots trying to decide whether they hate AI more or whether they hate capitalist ownership and hoarding of information more.
You guys all go off just as hard at the piracy community here, right?
And if I send that image to a friend and make them spill their lunch laughing, and then they don't send it to anyone and that's the end of its effect, what harm have I caused the world?
Why should those artists be able to prevent me from recreating their art? What if I don't use AI but use photoshop and different digital tools and complex algorithms to make that meme? Why is that different from AI?
Information should not be hoarded, and capitalist systems of restrictions and ownership are the wrong way to manage it. Full Stop. The fact that AI is exposing what a lie IP is, is not AI's fault as a technology.
I'm sure we weren't talking about private sharings before. Moving the goalposts much?
Simple, it is focusing on ONE specific artwork, instead of millions. Oh, and also it is more energy efficient.
Lmfao no one is "hoarding" "information" in the case of drawings. You want to recreate their art so damn much? You absolutely can! Here is the actual tool you need to do so!
And btw, you aren't "recreating" anything when you input a few words into your "eyy-ayy". You aren't spending any effort to do so, it is all computer's doing. So you cannot claim it as "yours". Full stop.
I'm sure these fanart makers that your "eyy-ayy" is so eager to steal from were really owning those IPs. So did those people who were drawing original stuff. Fair use is a myth, wake up sheeple!11!!! Lmfao.
Based on what? You brought up stealing information like it's a bad thing, I pointed out that information shouldn't be legally restricted from use when it costs nothing to be used.
No, the algorithms that Photoshop lets me use to manipulate images are the same algorithms used by everyone else, everywhere around the world. Try trillions, not millions.
Yeah, use your CPU to decode a 4K video stream and tell me how much power you use.
There's a reason companies like Apple and Microsoft have been pushing NPUs.
Yes, you literally are in the same paragraph. You are telling me that I am not allowed to recreate them, unless I use the exact same specific tool that the original artist used. I presume I'm also not allowed to take any art classes that the original artists wouldn't have been exposed to either right? Why can't I recreate the painting using chalk? Or ASCII art? Why do you get to decide how I can recreate it?
And how is you telling me I can't recreate it, not hoarding information?
Same as every Photoshop and After Effects tool based on algorithms right?
Or more precisely, what's different about being assisted by advanced computational photometry algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend, and being assisted by advanced machine learning algorithms that you need a PhD to comprehend?
Artworks are not "information", and you surely can access em, viewing and downloading and all.
The idea was to "use the tools artists are using" but you managed to reinterpret it as "you can only use the one single tool the artist uses". :V
No one is saying thay you cannot recreate it, I'm just stating the matter of fact that you aren't recreating anything when you enter a prompt on a text box.
You want to be treated like an artist and not a thief? Put in the effort. It is simple as that.
See above, entering prompt on a text box is NOT the same as using the tools given on a drawing/photo editing program.
Also there are lots of tutorials on how to use these so called "PhD requiring tools" out there lol. Once again, put in the effort.
Lmao, bro, how do you think that digital art got to your computer? Over the art super highway that we built seperate from the rest of the internet?
And what makes a large language model algorithm different from an advanced Photoshop algorithm?
Your restrictions are arbitrary and based on nothing.
Literally by the definition of the story being discussed, yes you are. You are recreating an or many artists' styles and using those to create a new image.
...said every dumb old fart about musicians using computers to sample other songs
It turns out they were wrong and you can create new art from pieces of existing art.
LMFAO bro, you can't just scream "I DECLARE THEYRE NOT THE SAME" like you're Michael Scott and expect it to be true. Name what makes using one algorithm different from the other, don't worry we'll wait.
I said it takes a PhD to understand the underlying algorithm, as in you and most people using those tools would never ever be able to come up with that algorithm on your own; as in, youre getting assistance from a highly advanced algorithm running on the most complex machines ever made, but you think that's fine and art, but using a slightly different algorithm is suddenly stealing and can't be art.
Again, your distinction is junk. People call you a luddite because you are one. You're railing against an algorithm like it's evil instead of just a new piece of technology that can be used for bad, or good.
The future of search engines will be forums where we create topics stating our search criteria and real people post results.
okay
AI scrappers
Ironically enough, the rules of the competition specifically state the robot can't be autonomous.
A horse looks at a car something something. The technology is here to stay and has it's uses, the tech industry will get bored of it's limitations and a new thing will come along for us to scream at. AI has practical applications but I don't think you should dismiss it entirely on principle. I think it's about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
If that was happening, I think we’d probably be fine with it. But it just appears almost everywhere, uninvited, as half-baked and soaked in mile-high promises.
I'm more frustrated by the haste with which it's implemented. I've seen (secondhand) instances of this Google search AI spitting out results that are either flat-out wrong (e.g., presenting fan theories as fact in response to a question about warhammeer 40k), or actively harmful (e.g., recommending self harm in response to a search for "how do I stop crying")
You can and should dismiss LLM's on principle though, because these are nothing. They're fancy Markov generators, one step up from the auto-correct in your keyboard.
They're fun for researching problems and trying to further our efforts towards developing artificial intelligence, but the only thing techbros are selling is a new monkey to regurgitate the data it's been fed. The monkey doesn't know if the data is actually useful, or even if it is true, but to the techbros it "approximates a conversation" and therefore is good enough to replace jobs. AI might be cool eventually, but we are still lightyears away from anything that can think.
People who criticize AI seem to fall into 3 camps:
Largely agree but I think there are one it two more camps.
People who feel threatened to irrelevance as artists trying to use art as their primary means to make money
People who realize that CEOs and higher up people in companies actually do intend to replace human workers as soon as they can, even before it's properly viable.
I'm pro AI, but I largely see the AI backlash as inventing complex moral justification to oppose it when the core issues are it's impact on the livelihood of artists under capitalism.
Obviously AI art is just as valid as human art, and there is nothing inherently special about human creations. We are actually just biological machines and our behavior and output is easily emulatable.
I would just tend to group those as two sub camps under the third, anti-capitalist, camp that I mentioned, but I can see reason them to put them on the same hierarchical level.
Most of the problems with AI are with it accelerating the already ongoing effects of capitalism.
Us: "We don't have any time to pursue creativity because we're too busy working!"
Execs: "There, now we've created AI to pursue creativity for you so you can work more!
Us: "..."
Execs: "... That is what you wanted, right?"
Feel free, this is a forum
I'm not sure you're right. Many companies ditch AI because not only is it useless, it's downright dangerous because AI chat bots are very confident in their answers, even though they're wrong most of the time.
I was excited at first, but now it's a useless gimmick. And it fucks up journalism.
But I do wanna keep the AI denoiser in Lightroom though, that shit is amazing!
Humans are pretty confident when they're wrong too.
But people with a certain level of education can see through bullshitters easily. With AI chat bots it's not all that easy.
it's super easy with AI chat bots, they're literally just fucking wrong. It wouldn't make a difference whether an AI told you something incorrect, or a person did, you would be equally as likely to fall for it, unless that person was like "take this with a grain of salt, i'm probably wrong" and even then you'd likely forget they say that and peddle the same bullshit a few years down the road.
Humans are stupid.
I gotta start running my bullshit through an AI filter
flat earth 5g antivax has entered the chat
i think it is here to stay, i think it's focus is what's going to change. Having AI replace a lot of janitorial tasks can be a huge boon to productivity. It's also a pretty great librarian for internal documentation. And it also probably makes c suite fuckers happy, because they no longer have to write emails.
Its here to stay because free versions are here already on the internet for anyone to use, and people are already using it like crazy because its an amazingly powerful tool. Even once its fad uses die off, it'll continue to be used in the areas it excels in
I want AI for exactly one thing: helping me put my own thoughts into words. A GPT-3 machine trained in 2021 it's perfectly good enough for that. For everything else, I want simple if-this-then-that programming.
I've found AI useful just for programming examples. I think it's a decent programming resource especially when working in an unfamiliar language.
Outside of that it's right now a net negative in almost every case where I've seen it used. Google results are already polluted by AI-generated hallucinated crap and the bots will feast on their own excrement until it dominates the entire internet.
Let's be honest about the two reasons why the industry is pushing it. Number one, it has the potential to replace human workers at low cost and therefore is attractive to the investor class. Number two, tech investment is down in a high interest rate business climate and after the dud of VR the tech companies need a new buzzword to attract capital.
They are certainly not cramming it into your OS because they think you will actually find it useful.
I don't like AI. I don't like technology really. My life was just fine before the webz.
Says the guy posting on an obscure, overly complicated version of a web forum primarily dedicated to Linux and other fringe technology and ideologies from a non-mainline instance lol
I mean yeah, you may have a point or two. lol This is the cool part about it though.
no
I don't like cars but I still drive because it still brings me more in life than if I didn't!
Yeah well good luck, it's bere, and it's to stay.
Nudifiers are pervasive so do expect unexpected nudes and full out porn from your wife, your mother and your little daughters.
Microsoft and Google and Apple are all going all AI on EVERYTHING so either install Linux, or live with it.
AI bad!
This is correct in more than one way
It’s really just mocking the people who think anyone really cares. This is a tidal wave that’s gonna wipe away everyone who doesn’t embrace it. The genie is out of the bottle, love it or hate it, it’s a tool that’s only going to get more powerful. And it doesn’t care if you hate it, it’ll still come for the lowest hanging fruit in every industry
So if that’s your job, it’s time to level up your skills, and embrace the technology in order to use it to your benefit. The people who are going to benefit are highly skilled people who can use the tools to be even better. The ones who are gonna be wiped out are the lowest skill people who fight it
This has big "if you don't want to be poor, learn to code" vibes.
Reminds me of "have fun staying poor" - crypto-speak for "I've lost this argument but you'll be sorry".
Well yeah, improve your skills, make yourself more valuable, and earn more money. Is that controversial? You might not like it but that’s just the way the world works bud
I'm almost 50. I've got a child. I have limited energy. Expecting me to create a whole new skillset every decade is not reasonable when you get to my age.
"That's just the way it works" could be said of every unjust thing in human history from slavery to voting rights... and I would suggest that the idea that the world should conform to whatever corporations want is pretty damn unjust.
If it were up to me, there would be some sort of UBI, paid into by corporations that replace their employees with AI/robots/whatever, that would support people who have lost their jobs due to automation (and then maybe everyone else after ramp up). I hope that someone young like you can run for office one day and make it happen
The good news is, the barrier to learning how to use these very simple AI tools is extremely low. Not even close to learning how to code.
Just, unjust, right, wrong - who gives a shit man? The world trudges on and doesn’t care how you feel about it. You either get on the train or get run over by it.
Sorry... who gives a shit about what is just or unjust? Most people.
As far for the barrier being extremely low, that's why the pay will also be extremely low.
Lol, that's some tech bro bullshit. AI isn't doing shit. It's useless in the absolute majority of use cases.
For the umpteenth time if it’s requiring human generated input, it’s not AI. A human is still at the wheel telling a computer what to do even if it’s doing evil bidding. It is but a program that still had a bunch of lines put in BY A HUMAN to start the algorithm. Cons are still conning.
Too many people making wild techno phobe assumptions and missing the point they are still being fucked over by another human. Not a computer. Pinning it on as AI as if we’re powerless is misinformation to what is actually happening.
I'm sorry but this sounds a lot like "guns don't kill people".
"AI" is doing tremendous damage right now to artists and many other population strata, no matter how you like to word it. I'm all for automation and I think "AI" can help humanity in many ways, but right now it's also being used to cheap out and hurt humanity at large. I don't think it's helpful at all to look away
everybody keeps saying this, but i don't think everybody realizes that any automation, at all, can have a negative effect. Yeah sure automating labor jobs would be nice, what are those people going to do now? Get a college degree? Good luck with that.
We survived the automation and industrialization of farming, we'll survive this.
They dont give a fuck about tradesmen or cashiers or burger flippers... They're upset because they thought they were magically above everyone and that capitalism wasnt going to effect them, and now that capitalism is effecting them, they dont want to fight capitalism, they want to ban the tool that capitalism is using to effect them, even though because of the power of the internet, said tool is available to them and to anyone who wants to use it for free, and so they cant treat their patrons like moneybags that they not so secretly looked down on before
i'd like to think that they do.
They're just spooked by the fact that their shit is being hit first, and aren't responded how they should, but rather, how they feel they should.
Except their shit ISNT being hit first. We've had like a generation now of jobs being taken away with no new ones provided, except, this time, in this specific case, us commoners actually get a powerful new tool out of it. And it's the tool you guys are shitting on FAR MORE than the capitalists taking jobs. You wanna give us some boycotts to join? Hell yeah, you'll probably get a lot of AI Artists and ChatGPTers to join you in that. But no, they wanna just shit on us and call us thieves instead
from their perspective it's being hit first, not everyone has omnipotence unfortunately, so this is expected. You see the same thing everytime you interact with republicans who are ok with people losing their jobs and careers over shit being shutdown, but bitch and cry the second you even mention the potential that it could happen to them.
Same shit probably happens with liberals as well, because everyone is a sore fucking loser, including me.
While a fair point, it doesnt really take away from the point that they are acting more in self interest than public interest
Oh we doing that now? Shitty Metaphors? Ok.
Let’s do it.
If a person rapes you you don’t blame their genitalia. You blame the person.
and that’s my point. Blaming a machine is sidestepping the criminal who’s manipulating the machine to rip off people. You’re guilty of your own rule for derailing from the real culprit and ignoring the human thief. They rely on that.stop enabling it.
AI is just a tool. It's like a computer. Right now it's possibilities look limitless, but soon we will know the limitations and it will just be another tool in our toolbox. It will drive some people out of jobs... mostly for the betterment of society, but the disruption will be hard for anyone who is working one of those jobs, so there will be complaining. For example, is it really good for society to have people reading prearranged scripts off a screen at massive soul killing call centers?
As will all technological innovations there are advantages and disadvantages. Learn to adopt the advantages and look to fix or attack the disadvantages. IMHO, the biggest issues will be in privacy and monitoring, so we should be looking for laws and protections we look to put in place to shield ourselves from this.
If you don't like it, don't use it. But this will be like computers, robotics, and cell phones. If you go full Luddite, you'll be left in the dust in both in culture and job prospects. This is change and change is scary, but the old adage of "adapt or die" still holds true.
I can't fucking use Acrobat Reader to view a .pdf without having whater their AI shit is shoved in my face
Adobe Reader has been pretty mid for a long time. You might want to check out Foxit Reader, better performance and more free features.
I have that on my phone actually, I hadn't thought about replacing adobe on the pc though. thanks for the suggestion I actually might just do that
With this sort of reasonable and logical take, you know the luddites are going to hate it.
They just want to be upset. The beautiful thing is they're going to stay upset because they're too inept to do anything about it.
No
AI art is real and good from a socialist viewpoint. AI in general is great tech and I love it, I want more of that and less of the corpos and the bourgeoise "b-b-but my IP!" artbros
I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's also an anti-socialist angle to the way it's being used right now. It further alienates the artist form the art, enabling the extraction of their labor by the owners of the algorithms.
If the source code and data sets of the AI were in the public domain, or as easy to access and modify as the art they take advantage of, it would be more compatible with socialism. As it stands AI is being leveraged as another tool of capitalist exploitation to funnel even more money into big tech stock valuations.
I mean, Stable Diffusion is open weight, the code is there too, so is the paper, and it is free as in free beer and incredibly easy to use thanks to the open source community. In the same vein, Mistral is a good fairly libre LLM.
I think the problem is that when people hear AI they think DALL-E and ChatGPT whereas to me that's just weird corporate alternatives.
The way people interact with technology has been so commercialised and basically repackaged into less tech and more something akin to products for the average person and it's a damn shame. Crypto to them means something something NFT hot potato, to me it has always been about buying drugs and circumventing laws. To them - internet is ads, to me the internet is how I avoid ads that I see way more of IRL. Algorithmic content in my internet browsing experience is basically non-existent.
As a result there's a cultural divide there where us slightly more tech-savvy folks live in a completely different world where for us it quite literally really isn't the case. I'm happy to reach across that divide and educate so we can actually modernize the left because no matter what - this isn't going away.
But I think a lot of artbros don't really want to learn or discuss this, and when you have irrational, baseless reasons for hating AI art like blatant falsehoods i.e. "it's all just theft look at this totally not img2img example of my art!!!" or cultish nonsense about "souls" or "culture" or "spirit" or "human spark" or whatever other spook du jour, it's impossible to argue.
This is made even worse by the fact that at least from what I've seen, currently proposed regulations will only lock in corporate control on the models by ensuring that only those with the capital can meet those regulations or pay fines for not meeting them, and the artbros pushing for them without understanding anything about tech play right into the corpos hands.
It's ironic, the same types in my xp will often will joke about some unhinged code monkey on the orange website thinking he knows everything about politics just because he is the smarterest programmer in all of JS bootcamp, yet they fail to see that by repeating the silly theft and appeals to nature etc. arguments they are playing into the same trap of ignorance in that they don't fully understand the tech they're drawing conclusions about.
I see AI art as mostly a toy. As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific. The thing with intellectual property is that currently, its necessary so that artists can be paid for their work, but it last way too long. I'd be in favor of limiting to twenty years since publication. This would allow artists to monetize their work, even handsomely, if they produce something outstanding, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.
Although if you personally can't draw, and therefore can't actually put your idea on the canvas exactly as you think of it, it isn't that far off from commissioned art once you learn how to use inpainting.
You iterate each part until you end up with the results you are happy with.
I'm not a graphical artist personally but I'd imagine that even those who can draw don't always have the skill to lay it out exactly as in their head either.
I mess around with music a bit as a hobby and I feel like it took me years to learn how to actually carry an idea from my head all the way to a track without it changing simply because I lacked the skill to express what I wanted, and even still it sometimes isn't quite right.
AI art is just as much theft as piracy is, its not and the only morons who say it is are financially incentivised to make that claim.
“Financially incentivised”? As in, the people who make a living creating original art? The people whose work is being taken without compensation and fed into a mindless program to plagiarise their work? Those bastards?
Artists aren’t some rich elite that you are winning one over on here. They are individuals who have been told for years that ‘exposure’ is the best payment. They are people, not companies. They have worked hard to develop their skills.
Their ‘financial incentive’ is wanting to be paid for their hard work? Fuck those guys right?
This is akin to mathematicians saying fuck calculators.
ai will not help real artists except for perhaps generating references. calculators are of great use to mathematicians because they are tools that do not steal their jobs, but instead make said jobs easier.
Calculator: 2+2=4
AI: 2+2={4,5,13,52,....}
AI techbros: Wassa problem? It's givin u an answer, innit? Just as good as a calculaduh.
But its not plagiarism. Its just training. In terms of information its no different from a human just seeing an art piece.
But they don’t learn when you train them. They mashup what they have been fed, and shit out an approximation of your request each time. When you type “in the style of xyz”, the system doesn’t remember who xyz is. It does a search for data on xyz, and copies it.
If these models were learning, you wouldn’t still need paragraph long prompts every time you wanted to plop out another plastic-skinned anime chick with fucked-up flipper hands and huge bazoongas. It would have learned how to make that shit by now.
This sentence is so not how those AI models work, that it leads me to believe you don't actually know enough about them to be having this discussion.
Honestly, I'm having a ton of fun with generative A.I. as a marketing producer. It's allowing me to play in new ways and realize ideas that I would have never had the time or resources to execute otherwise. It's given me the confidence to explore entirely new mediums and workflows that have bled over into my personal art.
It's like a cover band trying to replace the real deal by writing "original" songs that are suspiciously derivative.
I agree. Neither is AI art
By definition- it is.
Despite your fun little loopholes, piracy by definition is theft. Find a different word for it if you’d like, but you can’t redefine the term because you don’t like what it implies.
Also… you cherry-picked your definition:
An act of robbery on the high seas, also an act resembling such robbery
unauthorized use of another's production, invention, or conception especially in infringement of a copyright
If you can't own it you can't steal it.
Yeah… I’ve heard that tired argument before also. Some companies aren’t ALL companies. So this falls apart when nuance and common sense is applied.
Good luck getting bamboozled!
Miriam Webster is where I got my definition from. You absolutely cherry picked. You only included the part that made your point for you and left out the part that made mine:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piracy
I feel like this is where the "piracy is [not] theft" message breaks down. The question most people care about isn't whether or not it's definitively theft, but rather whether it's ethical or not.
A big difference with piracy is that typically that's not large companies profiting off the work of countless individuals, but the other way around.
Thats not what makes piracy not theft you dingus, its that its literally not, in any legal sense, theft
I don't think they're disagreeing with your central point.
ok so technically the definition of art isn't really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is "that it isn't human" and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that's why "ai art" is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn't matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it's art, it's art. It's technically just that simple.
I also wouldn't classify it as theft, considering that's pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they're all pretty similar? There's a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it's funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it's working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let's go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it's hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
ok so technically the definition of art isn’t really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is “that it isn’t human” and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that’s why “ai art” is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn’t matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it’s art, it’s art. It’s technically just that simple.
I also wouldn’t classify it as theft, considering that’s pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they’re all pretty similar? There’s a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it’s funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it’s working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let’s go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it’s hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
:P
I technically didn't steal this content because I added a ":P" to it. Nobody can really define what plagiarism is so therefore it's all good!
did you expect me to be mad about the fact that you copy and pasted my schizophrenic ramblings?
Also plagiarism is explicitly defined in academia, so i would suggest you tuck your tail between your legs and be quiet.
You didnt steal it, but you also didnt really add anything
Just like every piece of AI-generated slop!
damn
Lmao, someones salty at how others choose to spend their own time and energy
I will never understand why Americans insist on simping so hard for billion dollar companies. Is it the lead in the drinking water? Is it the lack of healthcare? Is is the terrible state of their education? Truly baffling.
Is this directed at me? 1: Not American 2: My use of AI helps zero corporations in any way as I installed the programs, for free, on my computer and use open source checkpoints, loras, and nodes to run them
A whole fuckload of the hate towards AI is completely uniformed and based on gut feelings and shit thats just plain wrong. If you hate artists losing their jobs, attack the capitalists, not the commoners ALSO losing their jobs that have found a new tool that has greatly improved their lives
I'm sure. Enjoy your nuggies!
Edit: Wow, you added so many big words! Did momma forget your sauce again?
Hey, you’re an expert: do you think the uptick in the number of sticky-fingered midwesterners around here is a sign that Lemmy’s finally reaching a wider, less technical audience?
this comment smells of cope bro
Probably could have used AI to rewrite that to make it easier to read.
Unlikely, ai would just have removed meaning
It would have condensed the essence of that text to a sentence or 2. Because it if fuller of necessary drivel than a SEO website.
Sounds like she's worried someone will make an AI specifically trained on feminist literature and talking points to do her tweeting for her so she has the time to actually go to therapy and deal with her issues.
Found the bear
You're saying you would choose to spend time with this person if you were to have to choose between them and a random man in the woods?
Well, then I hope you know better than to provoke him unless you want to be his dinner.
Thinly veiled threat ?
welcome to the internet, we have racism, racism, a bit more racism, sexism, probably some more sexism, threats, lots of threats, and a few more threats. And that one guy trying to be helpful.
navyseal_copypasta.txt
Don't threaten me with a good time
Lmao at all the luddites angry at a new open source piece of tech who are using a niche open source forum to yell at the clouds for being left behind by technology
Edit: All the downvotes in the world wont stop me from using AI gen, nor will it stop you from being left behind
2nd Edit: Keep feeding my block list knuckle draggers, it hasnt had fuel like this since I started blocking Tankies
Yeah no.
Most of it is not open source, not available unless you sign your soul away to tech companies
Also this is not about being left behind, this is about crappy software being abused to yet again mine your data.
Stable Diffusion is completely open source, and none of you make the distinction on WHICH AI art you shit on, so nah, cant hide behind that
All of it’s garbage.
Takes garbage to know garbage!
Aw.
The Luddite comparison is rather unfair. AI will have its applications, but it's largely turning into the next tech bro buzzword being inappropriately shoehorned into everything, just like companies were trying to do with crypto and block chain everything a couple of years back. Now, everywhere you turn is cramming it in by default, whether it's actually helpful or not. Outlook suddenly started irritating attempts at "assisting" my email writing, when I search for stuff, I get previews with generic AI summaries rather than letting me see a snippet of the actual content, and on and on. AI art will be matter of taste, I suppose, but AI evangelists have taken a novelty and worn out its welcome faster than redditors beating the dead horse of a joke into the ground.
If companies weren't constantly overselling its current capabilities and putting it in things it has no business being in, you would probably have a much less negative reaction to it. I'll wait another few years to see what it actually shakes out to be useful for, but in the meantime, I don't really want to hear about the latest and greatest AI-enabled toaster that uses cloud technology to predict when you want toast and to burn images based on voice prompts into your toast, while using a loaf-based block chain to identify which of your roommates should have used the heel of the loaf but skipped it.
Nuanced arguements with AI doesnt happen. A lot of the tech is currently being used as the next tech bubble yes, but it already has found legitimate and powerful use outside that as well. My luddite comment is more of a response to whenever I bring up its legit use I get comments like "Enjoy your tendies bootlicker" Luddites were a group that became synonymous with being left behind by technology because they went and burned down lace making factories during the advent of machines that could mass produce lace, and as such they are a VERY accurate comparison to the fuckers saying everything ai makes is garbage and theft.
You dont have to wait years to see its actual use cases, AI gen is a powerful tool for people to access creative freedom who had previously been gatekeeped by skill levels, and I have English as a Second Language coworkers that tell me that ChatGPT has helped them practice their english conversation skills in private like no other program has before, and have heard a lot of talk from programmers that it has greatly sped up their coding workflow.
Edit: This is why I've gone back to just laughing at the idiots angry they're being left behind, any time I actually address any non made up concerns, people just downvote and verbally throw their own feces like the dumb monkeys that they are
I'm gonna need context on why you quoted that. Are you amplifying it? Or are you mocking it? There's no info to guess tone and meaning on
Edit: Or downvote me I guess, that gives context too
2nd Edit: Whoever responded to me, I've already deemed your opinion worthless due to earlier comments and cannot see what you've said because I blocked you, I can only see "1 more reply ->". I'd say have a nice day, but I probably wouldnt mean it
Because it can only do that through theft of intellectual property. Also, just because you like using something that will obviously and quickly be used to tighten the shackles around your ankles, doesn't mean that others have to enjoy their chains or lick boots.
I think that the problem you're facing is that while you're right about potential benefits of AI, you seem to completely ignore the downsides
Using technology to make a post complaining about technology. The very platform being used contributes to "tech bro capitalism" but AI is crossing the line? What a weird take.
This is you.
"Using technology to complain about technology"
This is like pointing at someone who took a bus to a climate science convention to talk about the problems with air travel and saying "wow, you used mass transit to complain about mass transit"
He didn't complain about all technology though.
The post doesn't say AI is bad, in fact it says it should be used for "dangerous inane things".
So what, Luddite? Make it even harder to transition to a non-capitalist world? Banning AI will make it harder, it's much easier to transition to a post scarcity world when the tech to do so already exists and is accepted.
I would encourage you to read up on who the Luddites really were. In short, textile workers who were being forced into underpaid and very dangerous work making cheap shit. They broke some machines and wrote some threatening letters to try and achieve a ban on child labour and a minimum wage. Then the government responded with executions and penal transportation.
When people complain about AI (including the above screenshot), it’s almost always just complaints about Capitalism. Yeah, big corporations are pushing AI hard. Yes, they are trying to replace workers with AI. These are not AI problems, they are Capitalism problems. People do know it’s okay to criticize Capitalism instead of just the things that Capitalism abuses, right?
And it’s like they don’t see the ways that AI can help in the fight against Capitalism by empowering individuals.
Plus, AI is not solely the providence of corporations… and even if they are in the lead on advancements, they won’t be able to keep it locked down, either. There are community AI projects and open source/weight/etc models… and they are also advancing quickly. The libraries that interact with the models are almost all open source, too.
And while people complain about corporations scraping peoples data for training they neglect to consider that we, the community, can scrape corporate data as well… that’s ALL fair use. Attacking, diminishing, or destroying fair use benefits rich corporations infinitely more than it benefits us plebs and community efforts. “License your training data” is something only deep pockets can achieve. If I want to train something and have to pay for training data (which, btw won’t ever be reproduced/redistributed)… I can’t do that, you can’t do that… 99.999% can’t do that.
The fear of Capitalists replacing us all with software has somehow managed to make people miss the forest for the trees. AI isn’t the enemy - not any more than the cotton gin, the telephone, or the internet - Capitalism is.
And the resource consumption? Is that made up?
No, that’s valid… but it’s also a problem with all cloud technology in general. As models shrink and run locally more often instead of giant, dedicated data centers, that will improve. Right now brute force is how the bigger, cutting-edge models (e.g. ChatGPT) operate.
Does our habitat have that time?
Oh, we are fucked. But I also won’t pretend that mostly solar-powered data centers, which don’t emit greenhouse gases, are in any way a remotely meaningful contributor to our climate crisis.
If a bull is bucking around in my house, I’m not going to worry about the faucet slowly dripping in the bathroom. I want to deal with the bull, first.
At least where I live, data centres are taking up green power that was supposed to go to households
User name checks out. I appreciate your veracity.
❤️
You put that much better than I could have, but I agree with you 100%.
Luddites were 100% on the right side of history, as they were complaining not about technology but about the way it was being used as leverage against the lower classes. Your opinion of them is the result of an easy smear campaign, from the same people that are wielding technology now against you with your blessing.
Nah man it’s just another grift ban the fuck out of it. It might be artificial but it isn’t very intelligent.
Ah, cool. So then you will be coding me a neutral network framework in about 2 seconds then? C# please, object oriented and with proper comments to indicate what it's doing.
Wow, you're super slow. This whole "not ai" thing sucks.
With llms there are 2 possibilities:
Love AI. Hope it bankrupts every artist so I no longer have to hear about them bitching about "stealing art"
I don't know if you've met many artists, but they pretty much were all bankrupt before AI came along.
The only part that annoys me about that complaint is that it's not "stealing." I think it's very reasonable for artists to ask for compensation if their works are used in the creation of a commercial product, but it never has and never will be theft. Equating copyright infringement with theft is entertainment industry anti-piracy propaganda, and Hollywood really doesn't need you to be their unpaid spokesperson.
If you're an independent artist who wants to be compensated when your art is used in AI training, then do yourself the favor of understanding what you actually need to ask for. Specifically, legislation to clarify that incorporation of copyrighted materials into an AI training data set is a protected use under copyright law and requires compensation, and/or that AI image models should be established as derivative works of the images in their training. That's the legislative change they should be pushing for rather than inaccurately claiming "theft" and "stealing art."
Stealing art is when you have a painting and I don't, and then I take it, and now I have a painting and you don't. It has nothing to do with AI. Artists who oppose AI would be better advocates for themselves if they offered their criticism in accurate terminology.
Whats extra funny is the online DnD community that will parrot the art theft point seconds before they jump back onto Pinterest to TOTALLY NOT STEAL the art of their next DnD character
You fucking moron, they aren't using that art for financial gain. That's the fucking difference. You will never listen to any actual grievances though because you don't care who or what it harms, only that you get cool new gadgets. Eat shit you cunt bag.
You're the fucking moron if you think the vast majority of AI Artists arent doing it for personal use. So lmao, cry more, your opinion is worthless
It's not about what the people use the AI for, you incompetent prick. Who owns the AI? They make money from it providing a service to people. That service is stealing the abilities of real people who no longer get paid for their services.
A child could understand this but as I said you will never even try to because you simply don't give a shit about anyone or anything but your own enjoyment.
I just hate that artists are one part in a large organization who are hell bent on building walls online
Man, anti-"ai" folks are so uppity. Get over yourself, internet poster.
So you fully embrace AI generated journalism? AI art devoid of any emotions and skill? Shitty answers to prompts that just create more problems than solving them? AI has a long fucking way to go before it can really benefit humankind.
Ai generated journalism just made shitty journalism easier. The same shitty "top 10 whatever" sites were posting a similar level of pointless drivel 10 years ago but now they can produce more of them, I guess?
As someone with very limited artistic skill, I think your opinion of AI art is gatekeeping. Sorry not everyone can pick up a pencil and put down the exact image they want to see. For me, it's just another tool of creativity that also happens to lowers the barrier to entry. You'll find very different ability in producing specific results among users, too. I've gotten a bunch of people at work to join me in coming up with prompts and it's fascinating to see how different people come up with different ideas, and how some definitely understand how to work with image generators better than others.
Not sure what you mean by shitty answers. Ever asked a human the answer to something? They often get things wrong too. I've definitely googled something many times only to find misinformation and bad results. This isn't exclusive to LLMs.
I agree with your last statement though. It's a great tool that has only been broadly publically available in its current form for less than a few years now. Certainly there's a long way to go. I just think all the doomers in these comment chains are simultaneously not giving its current capabilities enough credit, but also vastly overestimating the impacts AI generation will have societally.
Thanks for the well explained answer, I appreciate the tone of your post :)
I'm fairly shit at art myself but have made respect for people who have a mental picture and can transfer that into whatever medium they're using. AI art is easy to detect at this point and it just doesn't do it for me.
The thing with shitty answers is that the answers that come after a prompt sound feasible but very often it's absolute nonsense and plan unusable.
I appreciate the technology behind AI and it's fairly impressive where we're at now. But it has a very long way to go before it really becomes a benefit to humanity.
Let's talk again after your job is automated away, with no possibility for you to "skill up" because unlike in the 70s, this time the automation trend is starting from the top positions and the arts.
I sincerely hope it does start at top positions. CEOs are overpaid.
Sorry man, my job is not under threat by ai. The human element to what I do currently can't be replaced. I certainly use it to help me get my job done faster though.
The threat to "the arts" is not real. Corporate, soulless art might be a less lucrative field for an artist in the future due to image generation capabilities, which is definitely an unfortunate consequence of its development, but real art still has a human value that can't be replaced by ai. That said, I'd consider image generation to be just another tool of creative expression. Ask 10 people in a room to come up with an image with any of the image generators and you'll see vastly different levels of creativity in their prompts. The average internet hate train is just targeting this change this time around. It's exhausting seeing internet posters see something changing and decide to target that one thing until they get bored because their manufactured rage doesn't actually produce anything.