AI PBs
-
@Trashcan It isn’t a misrepresentation. Its just a retelling. You’re saying the same thing I did, but with a different, antagonistic slant for no other reason than to be mean and nasty, presumably because I don’t agree with you.
You quoted the first part of what I wrote, then left out the rest.
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
In the meantime people were brutally and inhumanly pushed past their limits for generations with what we’d today consider abuses in order to feed the industrial machine. But here, today, AI isn’t playing out over decades, it’s evolving over months, across dozens of industries.
But if helps you to give a more detailed picture restating and supporting my points, then insult me anyway, you do you. That is definitely a pretty common response these days.
If your argument is that we should start the march against AI now so that in 70 years we might have a chance of winning the fight like we did during the Industrial Revolution, feel free. As I agreed, regulation is an option.
But the rest of my point remains that this isn’t a fight that will last 70 years and the same tactics won’t work because the circumstances are drastically different and the thing we’re trying to stop is moving much, much faster.
-
@Warma-Sheen
Thisit won’t work today.
is
But trying to regulate AI is like putting a rookie traffic cop on a Formula 1 track.
They can try to slow things down, but no one’s gonna listen.
by definition.
At this point it is highly unlikely, in any practical sense, that we can do anything about tech companies running rampant.
Disagreeing with you does not equate to insulting you. If your argument is not that there is nothing (in any practical sense) that we can do, so why bother, feel free to explain what it is.
-
I’m too lazy to quote, but there was something said by Mr. Probably An AI or At Least An AI Fanboy about how one of the things that makes something plagiarism is if it causes loss of profit for the person it’s stealing from.
AI has been doing precisely this to… basically every creative field. Visual art, writing, music, now video (remember that horror of a Coca-Cola ad??).
Additionally, the initial training of it utilized stolen works (books, art, film, etc.). The companies have admitted to this. The primary reason they are fighting back in court is because (as they’ve also admitted) to start over would be a massive loss of money for them.
It is theft. Plain and simple. And dude up there admitted it during his roundabout blatherings.
(Also, I hate the ‘but I can’t art’ arguments. Anyone can. Visual art is literally just practicing and training yourself. idgaf if you work 40 hours a week- so do many artists. Step away from the forums, the Fortnite, the RP for like, 30 minutes a day and you can art. Expensive? It can be but to start you literally just need paper and something to make marks with. You can go to Dollar Tree, spend $3, get a pack of printer paper and a box of pens or pencils.)
Now, that said: I am not a omg never touch AI for anything ever. It has its place as a tool (ChatGPT works well for me to brain dump into and then get it to organize my thoughts for me). But I am exhausted by people going ‘I spent 15 minutes typing in prompts my art is real and just as valid as your 80-hour painting!’.
Hell, people shouldn’t even be bragging about ‘prompt engineering.’ Basically every major AI now responds to real language, no need for +this -that in your prompts anymore.
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thibodaux_massacre
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludlow_Massacre
People died for those rights and still do. It’s privileged and insulting to talk about worker’s rights as a given and simply unintelligent to think rights happen naturally at the benevolence of wealthy leadership.
-
-
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
But art is hardly the only medium that AI is taking over and I don’t know why it gets romanticized as a protected class that needs saving, exempt from the same pressures that affect every other job in a capitalist system. I’d love to game, or dance, or write all day instead of working a job, but there isn’t any money in it for 99.9% of people who can do it.
You are vastly underestimating the quantity of creative people who currently make a living with their creative skills. I’m not just talking about the starving artist trope making their own music in their garage. I’m talking about the graphic designers, the technical writers, the voiceover narrators, the people who write ad copy, the animators who make the Marvel movies, the musicians, the novelists, etc. There are a tremendous number of jobs impacted by GenAI.
And hey, if the AI companies had gotten their tech through legit means, that’d still suck, but it would be different. The printing press put the monks out of business, but it did not steal their work to do so. These companies are, in my opinion, crooks. You can say copyright law is a joke but I couldn’t disagree more. I think it is a cornerstone of society. Not just for financial reasons, but for moral ones. Because it’s one thing to not make money off your art. It’s quite another to make art and then have some company steal it so THEY can make money.
-
@Warma-Sheen
Thisit won’t work today.
is
But trying to regulate AI is like putting a rookie traffic cop on a Formula 1 track.
Is it “mealy-mouthed”? You seem to have a habit of leaving off the parts that are relevant to the point you’re trying to counter, as though the posts aren’t all above to be referenced.
Your obvious omission of it shows that even you know it was wrong.
But again, you can be insulting if you need to. That’s how these conversations go on this forum. I just don’t know why you do, instead of just having a conversation with an exchange of ideas with someone who might have different thoughts than you. But you do what you need to do.
I don’t have all the answers. I never claimed to. But I can see when 2 + 2 does not equal 5 and I don’t have a problem speaking when I see people trying to make that math work. If the answer was that simple, somebody else would have figured it out by now.
Rather than looking for a solution that actually has a chance in hell of working, if you want to take a 200 year old solution that takes 50-70 years and apply it to a modern problem that will be irreversible in no more than 10 years absolute max (as if it isn’t basically already there now) and ignore all the very obvious issues between the two so you can pat yourself on the back and get all the upvotes, go for it.
Problem solved. “You got it, dude.”
See you in 70 years when we will all most definitely be AI free of the problem that became ubiquitous 65 years prior.
You are vastly underestimating the quantity of creative people who currently make a living with their creative skills.
Possibly. But I also think you are overestimating how many jobs GenAI is currently affecting - the key word being currently. Those jobs still exist. Some are affected. But others are not. My mother is a voiceover narrator. She doesn’t make a living off of it but she does make side income. She hasn’t seen much drop off of work YET, because, based on the conversations she’s had with the people she works with, the companies that pay for voiceover narration don’t find that AI quality is sufficient to stop hiring real people. AI can’t get the right amount of emotional range and proper inflections when it needs to. But what AI has done is allow people/companies who were not paying for it before to add GenAI robotic voicerovers to their service or business model for free. But these were people who wouldn’t have paid for real voicever anyway. The worry is that in the future as AI improve, it will get better and be good enough to stop hiring real people. The companies have told her when she’s asked, that more than likely that will be the case. It just isn’t at that point yet.
I think there could/would/should be some kind of graph with a line representing the quality of “creative” work (some creatives produce a more quality product than others, they just do) and the ability of AI to replicate that creative work to a specific degree. And as AI gets better, the more it will eclipse people and the more people will be put out of work as companies cut payroll to make more profits. That’s what companies do.
And I’m not arguing that its not bad and its not wrong. AI was trained on the cesspool that is the internet. The good stuff and the bad and everything in between. But ignoring the realities of it won’t make it go away. Railing about how bad it is for people won’t make it go away. Moar defeatism, I know…
At this point, I think there’s value in being able to use GenAI to enhance what you do for as long as you can do it. If you’re a technical writer, use AI to make you a better technical writer so that you can stay working longer than other technical writers who ignore it and do not increase in quality or production.
People have to adapt to changes in order to survive. Get on board the train or get run over by it. As I said above, I don’t have all the answers. But I think it is obvious that this thing is gonna be here to stay. So at this point, it is a matter of using it to your advantage and staying ahead of others who cannot/will not evolve along with it.
It has been said ad nauseam, but GenAI is tool. And the better you can use that tool, the better off you will be. But you can’t get better if you don’t practice with it. There is an art and a talent to using AI and some people don’t understand that. And in the current climate and the foreseeable future, being able to use AI skillfully is quickly becoming a survival skill in the job market. Early adapters will benefit.
Do I think that’s a solution to the problem? No, its just an adaptation to it. And a lackluster one at that. But that’s as much as I have right now.
-
Rethinking the Luddites in the Age of AI
Brian Merchant’s new book, “Blood in the Machine,” argues that Luddism stood not against technology per se but for the rights of workers in the face of automation.
-
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
At this point, I think there’s value in being able to use GenAI to enhance what you do for as long as you can do it. If you’re a technical writer, use AI to make you a better technical writer so that you can stay working longer than other technical writers who ignore it and do not increase in quality or production.
People have to adapt to changes in order to survive. Get on board the train or get run over by it. As I said above, I don’t have all the answers. But I think it is obvious that this thing is gonna be here to stay. So at this point, it is a matter of using it to your advantage and staying ahead of others who cannot/will not evolve along with it.
More than plenty are hopping onto that train. But like. The problem with that train you’re advocating folks should be hopping onto in order to get ahead is that the ahead it’s barrelling towards is over the bodies of everyone else.
The train of AI is barreling down tracks littered with the bodies of art that weren’t its to take, and it’s heading straight towards the artists. I don’t see any reason at all to want to help it run any faster. And I’m sure as hell not about to think much decency about others who are willing to do so. If that train is running people over, why would ANYONE think that the reasonable reaction to that massacre is to board it?
-
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
Is it “mealy-mouthed”?
Unwilling to state facts or opinions simply and directly.
There is no thesis statement in any of your posts beyond “AI is harmful but there’s no point in resisting so we might as well all use it anyway”, and you’ve spent almost 2000 words saying it if I remove the asides about how I’m mean.
If this is not your argument, feel free to state simply what it is.
-
@Warma-Sheen said in AI PBs:
At this point, I think there’s value in being able to use GenAI to enhance what you do for as long as you can do it. If you’re a technical writer, use AI to make you a better technical writer so that you can stay working longer than other technical writers who ignore it and do not increase in quality or production.
If you’re a good technical writer, GenAI isn’t going to help you become a better one, it’s only going to help you become a faster one. Of course, in doing so, it’s going to introduce errors into your work that you won’t notice if you’re going fast enough.
Same thing goes for those using GenAI to get the tone right in emails, or to fill in the background of an image, or prototype code, or summarize law briefs, or all of the other relatively reasonable uses of GenAI that I’ve heard of. It doesn’t make you better, it makes you faster.
And when GenAI makes a professional faster, it allows the company to reduce staffing, like you mentioned, but it also introduces errors that slipped through because the now-overstretched staff has to go fast with GenAI to keep up with demand.
So maybe we can’t put the GenAI genie back in the bottle, but we can, and I posit, we should still mock the crap out of companies that can afford it when they use it, and chastise them for taking shortcuts that hurt their workers and are unethical and environmentally unsustainable. At the same time, our higher education and businesses should be working to find out what GenAI is actually good at, and what it can be trained to do (relatively) ethical and environmentally-sustainable methods.
-
@Roadspike said in AI PBs:
It doesn’t make you better, it makes you faster.
It doesn’t always do that either.
When developers are allowed to use AI tools, they take 19% longer to complete issues—a significant slowdown that goes against developer beliefs and expert forecasts. This gap between perception and reality is striking: developers expected AI to speed them up by 24%, and even after experiencing the slowdown, they still believed AI had sped them up by 20%.
