AI PBs
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
Have a sketch you want to turn into a detailed digital drawing of a space ship on a strange alien planet? You can spend 6 hours doing that or you can have the A.I. do it in seconds.Want the ship to have rusted metal plating? You can spend an hour painting in tiny, detailed, rust patches or you can lightly sketch them in and have flux add more detail the rust. You can make art with coloured pencil which the A.I. will understand than translate over into any style of art you want.
do you understand that artists…like doing art?? like that’s the thing – when you use generative AI, you’re not making art; you’re generating images.
artists like making art. the point of technology, like @Evilgrayson said, was to be able to make mundane stuff in life easier so that they’d have more time to make art. what are we making more time for now, if technology is making the art?
you’re literally skipping over the good part. you’re skipping over the act of creation.
but, of course, you don’t care about that. you don’t care about art, and you don’t care about artists, despite the fact that your life is probably full of enrichment from artists of all different types. you don’t respect the work of the countless people who make life bearable and beautiful.
so yeah, i’m done.
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
You are looking at this as if it’s taking away from artists when it makes you magnitudes more productive.
As a reminder of what professional artists have actually said for themselves:
More than half of respondents (57%) do not consider their area of creative work to be a sustainable career, and 72% believe that their work opportunities as a creator have been negatively impacted by generative AI. While 14% thought that there had been an increase in their earnings which they could attribute to the developments of generative AI technologies, 86% said that such developments had caused a decrease in their earnings. When it comes to feelings about how generative AI might impact creators, 11% are more optimistic than a year ago, 20% are neutral, but 69% are more pessimistic.
-
@Evilgrayson I agree with you 100% on the morals. It’s just another way for the rich to take every last opportunity from the rest of us, but until we learn a better way than capitalism, this is what it we have to work with so I’m adapting because I want my crumb of the pie to be big enough to live on.
-
Yes, A.I. is making it next to impossible to make a living as an artist, but it’s doing that to a lot of industry and it’s only going to get exponentially worse until it gets better, but here’s the thing, it will get better.
One of the very core concepts of capitalism is that you have to have a consumer base with money to buy the shit your robots are making.
It’s a race to the bottom, I agree. But when we reach that bottom there will be no choice but to implement some kind of universal income where people will be paid simply to exist because if they are not there will be no consumers left to buy anything. Also there will be no politicians left because we will have murdered them all.
When we talked about the promise of AI freeing us from menial labor, this is what that looks like. This is a stepping stone towards that future.
It’s going to be a painful and probably violent next few steps because capitalism is very slow to adapt and people who have resources do not want to give up anything to the people who have not. But it will change.
Even the smartest economists in the world have warned that we need to get ahead of it and start implementing some kind of new system before the total collapse of capitalism happens.
You look at this as greedy people taking away your opportunity to make a living off of doing the things that you want, but I see this as a greedy people dooming themselves to the destruction of the very capitalism that they bade their entire value as a human being on.
Just try and hold on, try to adapt during the transition and let them destroy themselves.There is an old Russian proverb, “When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt them. It is rude.”
-
@RedRocket said in AI PBs:
There is an old Russian proverb, “When your enemy is making a mistake, do not interrupt them. It is rude.”
ETA: Though undoubtedly the underlying idea is as old as people.
-
@Pavel
He stole it from Russia. Trust me, all wisdom comes from Russia. My Babushka would not lie to me. -
Why do I feel like I am reading a homework assignment from doomer accelerationist kindergarten
-
-
@Pavel There’s not even internal consistency, forget about citations.
-
Reality_is_often_disappointing.jpg
There’s not even internal consistency, forget about citations.
You’re just not patient enough to see the big picture. We are all trapped on this train. It’s going to crash wether we like it or not. Just sit back and enjoy the tea while you still have service.
It’s going to suck for a while but long after you and I are dead that bright future will happen. Just not for us.
-
-
@Pavel There’s only so much you can do with a string of disjointed statements.
-
-
I’m confused. Is genAI a fun, harmless tool to be more efficient at creating art, or is it the catalyst for the race to the bottom, a “painful and violent” future for humanity? I feel like the original argument deviated a bit.
-
I’m confused. Is genAI a fun, harmless tool to be more efficient at creating art, or is it the catalyst for the race to the bottom, a “painful and violent” future for humanity? I feel like the original argument deviated a bit.
Because it has. Red rocket is just gish galloping and moving goalposts. Very little reason to engage them seriously, as they don’t seem interested in anything besides bad faith contrarianism (see: their other posts). Walls of weird, miserable nonsense.
-
@Yam Earnestly? Right now, it has elements of both. Though “creating art” might be a bit of a stretch, but “creating media” will do as a substitute: Philosophical arguments can and will continue on that point.
It can be a plaything used to make an image for a character you don’t care about enough to pay an artist to render for you, or construct an essay scaffold. It also can be a service used by malicious, incompetent, stupid (or all three), companies and institutions to replace human labour as a cost-cutting measure without care or understanding about the dangers such a replacement will have.
And this isn’t even mentioning the ethical qualms of using unknown, potentially IP-law violating information in training data, the intense energy costs that lead to environmental damage, or other as-yet unknown unknowns.
ETA: It is a complex and nuanced topic, many aspects of which will need to be decided in courts of law and other such places. Anyone speaking with absolute certainty on the topic (beyond certainty in their own opinions) should be looked upon with askance.
-
I’m here trying to figure out how AI image generation is gonna reduce menial labour for me. What is it gonna do? Make an image of someone doing my laundry???
-
@Juniper That’s part of the disconnect I think, at least if I take arguments at face value. At least one party to this argument views the actual “creating” part of “creating art” to be menial labour.
-
I’m confused. Is genAI a fun, harmless tool to be more efficient at creating art, or is it the catalyst for the race to the bottom, a “painful and violent” future for humanity? I feel like the original argument deviated a bit.
It can be both.
I think it is both. Especially since AI continues to grow and evolve.
I find AI exceptionally helpful and useful. It has saved me time, effort, and energy and has allowed me to finish menial task faster (work and fun related) so that I have more free time to enjoy other things. and it has allowed other enjoyable things to be even more enjoyable than they were before. To me, AI has been amazing and exciting.
I laugh at the people who complain about AI’s faults and errors. It is like criticizing a toddler for making errors on the bar exam. AI is still in its infancy and will continue to grow better at everything, for good or ill. Just like a child.
Remember dial up? How is internet now? Remember Pong? How’s that compare to Balder’s Gate 3? Knock it and get your jokes in now while you can. It’s just going to get better at everything by orders of magnitude. (Meanwhile, companies are also improving quantum computing at an alarming rate. Don’t even consider if these two paths meet…)
That being said…
I also think that it will bring more harm than good the more it evolves.
I think this, not because of what AI can do or will do, but because of what people will do with it. I don’t think the problem is AI. As with most things, the problem is people.
We don’t need AI to solve world hunger. We could do that, easily, already if the right people wanted to. They just don’t. The same issues of what people will do with power will only worsen with AI, but that isn’t the fault of the technology.
People are the worst. Plain and simple.
You can argue about the legality of what AI does all day long, but the law is a joke. If anything, we’ve learned over the last decade that the law is whatever the people in power decide it is. Laundering cartel money is a crime. The punishment is paying a fine that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the profits made from it. OpenAI is being sued by god knows how many people. Even if they all win (they won’t), is the punishment fine gonna shut down OpenAI? Even if it did (it won’t), would that even put a dent in the AI community considering how many other AI companies are out there and how many continue to be formed every month/week/day?
Again, the problem isn’t AI. The problem is people.
If AI can solve that problem, the world will be better off.
(And yes, I know that this is not a new conclusion. This is the plot of many a sci-fi movie. And for good reason. I’m just not sure that they got the hero/villain roles correct.)
-
