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.
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?
Here’s the neat part, the fight to make you stop having to write bulshit sentences is ENTIRELY seperate from the fight against AI
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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
The future of search engines will be forums where we create topics stating our search criteria and real people post results.
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, maybe 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.
-
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 could generate money for you.
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.
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.
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…
HA! Right?
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
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?”
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.
AI is here to stay whether we like it or not. The question is how do we manage it?
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.
flat earth 5g antivax has entered the chat
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 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’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
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.
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
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.
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.
Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.
UBI.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
Lol
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
You’re an artist, you can almost certainly find someone willing to pay for your services.
How many artists are you friends with? I know a fair number, and a minority are able to survive off their artwork alone.
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.
