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
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
deleted by creator
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.
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.
No real art
This is the explanation that artists that don’t work with AI use, but it’s not actually how generative AI works.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
deleted by creator
And are you done or not? Make up your mind.
I’m sorry?
crypto doesn’t generate money. It generates numbers that you can sell for money.
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
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.
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.
the system doesn’t remember who xyz is. It does a search for data on xyz, and copies it
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.
deleted by creator
I agree. Neither is AI art
deleted by creator
By definition- it is.
deleted by creator
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!
deleted by creator
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:
deleted by creator
-
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.
“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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- you ask it something that already exists and it gives you a goodish solution that you could have found as part of an existing open source project
- uou ask it something completely new and it gives you crap, and you won’t even notice because you have fired all the people that could have noticed
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.
okay
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.
As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific.
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 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.
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.
