Some reminder of the dire bulk of moderation needs on actual social media sites
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
There's finally a class action lawsuit challenging Stable Diffusion, the tool that big tech companies built on all our stolen artwork. I could not be more thrilled.
Fucking grim. But surely the consequences of algorithms that generate visual images will be different!
Really sucks cause AI text to speech can help so many people communicate with one another and it helps the disabled. But here it's just being use to line the pockets of Apple and Microsoft, who clearly need the money more than audiobook voice actors.
Fucking grim. But surely the consequences of algorithms that generate visual images will be different!
Really sucks cause AI text to speech can help so many people communicate with one another and it helps the disabled. But here it's just being use to line the pockets of Apple and Microsoft, who clearly need the money more than audiobook voice actors.
Oh, for sure. There are absolutely legitimate usages for that tech to help with accessibility. But it's apparently more profitable for companies to do this instead.
As long as there is public funding, a commercialized product isn't necessary for research to continue, especially for something as low cost as this. I expect we'll see new open source solutions in the accessibility space sooner rather than later
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
As long as there is public funding, a commercialized product isn't necessary for research to continue, especially for something as low cost as this. I expect we'll see new open source solutions in the accessibility space sooner rather than later
I hope they win, and I expect that the programs will be if not already have been restarted using only public and licensed assets.
This is going to take a long time for the legal system to resolve one way or the other, especially when big tech is throwing their weight behind it, which they certainly will - they're all laser focused on AI right now after ChatGPT went viral. I think AI is going to end up dominating every industry no matter what today's artists and workers do, the corporate interests are too massive to be deterred. It's rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Even if the courts rule that images can only be used for training with permission or in the public domain, that will only be a speed bump for this tech. They can probably even train the new model using their old AI-generated art.
To be clear I'm not advocating for how the original training was done, that's just how I predict it will end up. I don't think there's ever been a sea change in technological progress like this that has been carried out ethically with regards to the displaced workers.
AI workflow will probably be to us what password managers are to my parents
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
This is going to take a long time for the legal system to resolve one way or the other, especially when big tech is throwing their weight behind it, which they certainly will - they're all laser focused on AI right now after ChatGPT went viral. I think AI is going to end up dominating every industry no matter what today's artists and workers do, the corporate interests are too massive to be deterred. It's rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Even if the courts rule that images can only be used for training with permission or in the public domain, that will only be a speed bump for this tech. They can probably even train the new model using their old AI-generated art.
To be clear I'm not advocating for how the original training was done, that's just how I predict it will end up. I don't think there's ever been a sea change in technological progress like this that has been carried out ethically with regards to the displaced workers.
Is there just an alarm that goes off somewhere if this thread goes too long without someone saying "This is inevitable and nobody can stop it, best accept that now"
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
This is going to take a long time for the legal system to resolve one way or the other, especially when big tech is throwing their weight behind it, which they certainly will - they're all laser focused on AI right now after ChatGPT went viral. I think AI is going to end up dominating every industry no matter what today's artists and workers do, the corporate interests are too massive to be deterred. It's rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Even if the courts rule that images can only be used for training with permission or in the public domain, that will only be a speed bump for this tech. They can probably even train the new model using their old AI-generated art.
To be clear I'm not advocating for how the original training was done, that's just how I predict it will end up. I don't think there's ever been a sea change in technological progress like this that has been carried out ethically with regards to the displaced workers.
Is there just an alarm that goes off somewhere if this thread goes too long without someone saying "This is inevitable and nobody can stop it, best accept that now"
It's pretty hard to talk about AI without going there. Or to have any 63 page thread without repeating any arguments.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Corporate interests are only "inevitable" when people allow them to be
Corporate interests would prefer we not have weekends or a minimum wage or OSHA or emissions standards or any number of things that prioritize people over profits. Corporations frequently win, but get enough people saying "Fuck that and fuck you" and some limiters can be imposed
Whereas when people throw their hands up and say "Nothing to be done, if you can't beat em join em!" the world gets immeasurably worse for everyone everywhere
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
I think if you're allergic to scripting you probably shouldn't touch it until all the code is hidden within an outwardly intuitive black box / software expert companion
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Corporate interests are only "inevitable" when people allow them to be
Corporate interests would prefer we not have weekends or a minimum wage or OSHA or emissions standards or any number of things that prioritize people over profits. Corporations frequently win, but get enough people saying "Fuck that and fuck you" and some limiters can be imposed
Whereas when people throw their hands up and say "Nothing to be done, if you can't beat em join em!" the world gets immeasurably worse for everyone everywhere
Legitimately there was an example of this this past week with the D&D license extravaganza
Enough people saying "no, fuck this" caused a sizeable corporation with significant power and heft in an industry they dominate to step back
Actual organized reaction in combination with legislation can actually do something, here
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
I don't really see the benefit to most artists? I don't need an AI to draw fucked up hands with too many fingers, I can do that myself easily.
The only real benefit seems to be to people who want to profit off the work of others without paying them.
There really isn't anything for artists to learn with AI art generators.
The mistakes aren't exactly easy to fix, because you've got to correct the number of fingers, and if you have more than one person in an image it's like something out of a horror movie. It can provide base images to manipulate, but it's not like you can layout exactly what you want as an artist faster with the AI than just drawing the thing you want from the start. The AI doesn't understand light sources or perspective. The people programming these things aren't artists and don't know why things are the way they are in the images they're feeding to the AI so it can't really teach rules of art to the AI.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
What exactly is inevitable has never been clearly defined, but the existence of any artist-AI tool pair that does something effective and / or unique in the near future is actually pretty close to something you can concretely bet on.
Of course, it won't be this iteration of AI art, but maybe the next, or the 37th
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind. Not trying to be a downer, just looking for a positive example and coming up blank.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind.
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind.
even if none have been "stopped" (according to whatever that metric would be, and I don't take that as true but don't care to have this argument again), that doesn't mean specific expressions of technology can't be ameliorated or pushed back against to ensure basic human protections.
like I just don't get this urge to instantly roll over and pull a "We've done nothing and we're all out of ideas"
Fully automating stuff won't work because every company will want their proprietary technology to be used and not want to use somebody else's that they'd have to license and they can't fully develop their own.
I do employment verifications and we can get the responses automated for employments through companies that hold the information. Here's a list of the companies that provide that service that are regularly used
Driver Reach
DriverFacts
Verification Manager
uConfirm
VerifyX
QuickConfirm
InVerify
VerifyAdvantage
VerifyFast
VeriSafeJobs
EmployCheck
JobTrax
Certee
EmpInfo
Vault Verify
Thomas & Company
VerifyFast
CCCVerify
WageVerify
i2Verify
TrueWork
VerifyToday
The Work Number
And then we have three different platforms internally to verify stuff on because our customers don't want to learn how to use our newest platform that the company made itself.
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind. Not trying to be a downer, just looking for a positive example and coming up blank.
In the broad sense? Harder to say. In the specifics? In implementations? All the fucking time.
From Betamax to DDT, individual techs die out fucking constantly, so it would be extremely plausible to, say, shut down art theft machines and keep genome-mapping networks. Just spitballing here.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
To be clear, you're saying that artists should not make use of AI? For how long? I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive.
This is going to take a long time for the legal system to resolve one way or the other, especially when big tech is throwing their weight behind it, which they certainly will - they're all laser focused on AI right now after ChatGPT went viral. I think AI is going to end up dominating every industry no matter what today's artists and workers do, the corporate interests are too massive to be deterred. It's rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic. Even if the courts rule that images can only be used for training with permission or in the public domain, that will only be a speed bump for this tech. They can probably even train the new model using their old AI-generated art.
To be clear I'm not advocating for how the original training was done, that's just how I predict it will end up. I don't think there's ever been a sea change in technological progress like this that has been carried out ethically with regards to the displaced workers.
You underestimate how much harm Im willing to inflict in myself in order to inflict it on someone else.
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind. Not trying to be a downer, just looking for a positive example and coming up blank.
In the broad sense? Harder to say. In the specifics? In implementations? All the fucking time.
From Betamax to DDT, individual techs die out fucking constantly, so it would be extremely plausible to, say, shut down art theft machines and keep genome-mapping networks. Just spitballing here.
You had to bring up Betamax. I specifically asked you never to talk to me about Betamax again
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
It's literally, like not figuratively-but-I'm-saying-literally but literally literally, collaborator mindset. Dissent with a known-malicious force is too hard/too "unlikely" to succeed, so I'll get mine and encourage anyone to do the same.
That it is framed as morally neutral, as pragmatic, as a decision basically out of one's own hands, is of course part and parcel. Defeatist nihilism accepted passively and framed as prescient virtue.
Talk about job skills or whatever misses the point. This software seeks to offload artistic creation from humans to an algorithm. Its the precise inversion of everything that capitalism has spent generations promising us. Automation not as a tool to free us from debasement and leaving us free to create art but removing our space to create art and leaving us compelled to debase ourselves.
So fuck this software and fuck the people who made it with their bone deep loathing of any skill they dont possess themselves.
Talk about job skills or whatever misses the point. This software seeks to offload artistic creation from humans to an algorithm. Its the precise inversion of everything that capitalism has spent generations promising us. Automation not as a tool to free us from debasement and leaving us free to create art but removing our space to create art and leaving us compelled to debase ourselves.
So fuck this software and fuck the people who made it with their bone deep loathing of any skill they dont possess themselves.
Okay but what if the robot draws a nice picture of me
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
To be clear, you're saying that artists should not make use of AI? For how long? I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive.
you mean a capitalist environment. that is what you mean.
Yeah proprietary technology goes away because when you protect intellectual property, you make it vulnerable to extinction. Share it freely and it becomes much more invulnerable.
So paradoxically the less profit AI art makes, the more likely it is to stick around and evolve.
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
To be clear, you're saying that artists should not make use of AI? For how long? I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive.
To be clear, you are stating this all from the dual assumptions that this shit is both inevitable and also a beneficial tool for artists.
I genuinely don't understand how these algorithms are supposed to "help" artists. How are these things that are plagurising them and devaluing their work helpful?
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
Artists with high end clients and fat contracts are safe. Who this eats alive are artists making two to low three figure commissions and people supporting their artistic goals with punch in punch out design jobs.
Ah, there's plenty of examples in war. Chemical weapons, mines, cluster weapons. They're not totally gone (and it's arguable how much is due to treatys and how much is due to their danger to the users) but they are definitely examples of technology that has been agreed upon that we don't use.
Has technology ever been stopped? Aside from technology stopping due to societal collapse (Greek golden era, Roman empire collapse, decline of American space program) no examples really spring to mind.
yeah no one wants to use nuclear power
I'd put that under social collapse but that's just my opinion. Still it fits in nicely with the weapons in that it is something (potentially) dangerous.
Crossbows were banned for a time (against Christians at least). But even the Pipe couldn't stop them. Good example of inferior technology replacing skilled humans too. Bows were popular even after the invention of crossbows because they were better, but the lack of traing needed to use a crossbow compared to a bow eventually won out. And then the same thing happened with guns.
Oh actually, guns are a good example of technology being held back for reasons other than society or technology. Repeating firearms were available early on but armies preferred to arm their men with single shot firearms. Ease of use and training on single shot guns was prioritised over complicated better guns that required more training and knowledge from the soldiers. The same principle that advanced technology from bow to crossbow held back the (military) development of more advanced weapons.
I think "learn whatever skills you have to to stay competitive!" is also forgetting that art is a creative endeavor. it isn't just churning out a product for money. I mean it can also be that, but ostensibly an artist is making things that they want to make, in the way that they want to do it. telling someone to stop doing things the way they want and only focus on what's going to keep them in some kind of market is a great way to burn people out and drive them away and, let's see, yes my notes say this is already a huge problem!
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
And these algorithms will only make it harder for artists to make a living as an artist. Are you trying to put forth the argument that art is somehow purer when it is divorced from being produced as a commodity? Because I have some news for you about the history of and current state of how art has been and continues to be produced.
Honestly not sure how you can make these sorts of statements about how hard it is for artists to make it, and also advocate for the propagation of these algorithms.
I might catch some flak for this, but speaking strictly pragmatically, I think artists should be learning to use this tech regardless how they feel about their art being misappropriated. It's happening regardless, you may as well reap the benefit. I think creativity and an "eye" for art will always be a uniquely human characteristic, and something that's still valuable in the AI future. Anybody can use a prompt to generate an image that would take an incredible artist to create by hand, due to its complexity or photorealism - but you have no real control over it, you don't have the skill to get it to do exactly the right thing, and it won't be artistically interesting to people who see the same thing on the most basic of blogs.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
To be clear, you're saying that artists should not make use of AI? For how long? I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive.
Maybe you should actually read what artists are writing about AI and how it's already impacting them instead of telling them to give in and accelerate their own downfall without any insight or understanding about what that actually entails for them both professionally and personally. "We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive" is the kind of sounds-smart-at-first-but-actually-doesn't-mean-anything empty platitude that people actively attempting to use this tech to put artists out of work are using. So like, nah. That kind of generic take doesn't really have anything to do with what's actually happening here.
Posts
Some reminder of the dire bulk of moderation needs on actual social media sites
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Really sucks cause AI text to speech can help so many people communicate with one another and it helps the disabled. But here it's just being use to line the pockets of Apple and Microsoft, who clearly need the money more than audiobook voice actors.
Oh, for sure. There are absolutely legitimate usages for that tech to help with accessibility. But it's apparently more profitable for companies to do this instead.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I hope they win, and I expect that the programs will be if not already have been restarted using only public and licensed assets.
To be clear I'm not advocating for how the original training was done, that's just how I predict it will end up. I don't think there's ever been a sea change in technological progress like this that has been carried out ethically with regards to the displaced workers.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Is there just an alarm that goes off somewhere if this thread goes too long without someone saying "This is inevitable and nobody can stop it, best accept that now"
It's pretty hard to talk about AI without going there. Or to have any 63 page thread without repeating any arguments.
Corporate interests are only "inevitable" when people allow them to be
Corporate interests would prefer we not have weekends or a minimum wage or OSHA or emissions standards or any number of things that prioritize people over profits. Corporations frequently win, but get enough people saying "Fuck that and fuck you" and some limiters can be imposed
Whereas when people throw their hands up and say "Nothing to be done, if you can't beat em join em!" the world gets immeasurably worse for everyone everywhere
I think if you're allergic to scripting you probably shouldn't touch it until all the code is hidden within an outwardly intuitive black box / software expert companion
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nah this sucks actually. Like if you yourself are an artist and feel that way, go hog wild. But telling all artists that they should start fucking themselves and their colleagues over because it's "inevitable" is just a really bleak, cynical outlook. It's not pragmatic, it's desperate.
Legitimately there was an example of this this past week with the D&D license extravaganza
Enough people saying "no, fuck this" caused a sizeable corporation with significant power and heft in an industry they dominate to step back
Actual organized reaction in combination with legislation can actually do something, here
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
I don't really see the benefit to most artists? I don't need an AI to draw fucked up hands with too many fingers, I can do that myself easily.
The only real benefit seems to be to people who want to profit off the work of others without paying them.
The mistakes aren't exactly easy to fix, because you've got to correct the number of fingers, and if you have more than one person in an image it's like something out of a horror movie. It can provide base images to manipulate, but it's not like you can layout exactly what you want as an artist faster with the AI than just drawing the thing you want from the start. The AI doesn't understand light sources or perspective. The people programming these things aren't artists and don't know why things are the way they are in the images they're feeding to the AI so it can't really teach rules of art to the AI.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
I'm not an artist but I absolutely expect that most of what I'm doing in my day to day work right now will be automated sooner or later. I don't think artists are unique in being affected by this, ChatGPT was trained on a ton of people's writing and code in order to replace them. My answer to that is to keep my skills up to date so I'm still relevant in the future workforce. I don't think that's cynical. Artists and workers who refuse to work with AI out of principle until the day it replaces them are the ones who truly will end up being victimized by this.
Of course, it won't be this iteration of AI art, but maybe the next, or the 37th
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
they're already being victimized by this and you're asking them to further engage in victimization of themselves and their peers rather than push back in any way
I just have very little respect for or interest in "toss up your hands and let them win without a fight, and by doing so make things even worse for you and your colleges" perspectives
yeah no one wants to use nuclear power
even if none have been "stopped" (according to whatever that metric would be, and I don't take that as true but don't care to have this argument again), that doesn't mean specific expressions of technology can't be ameliorated or pushed back against to ensure basic human protections.
like I just don't get this urge to instantly roll over and pull a "We've done nothing and we're all out of ideas"
I do employment verifications and we can get the responses automated for employments through companies that hold the information. Here's a list of the companies that provide that service that are regularly used
Driver Reach
DriverFacts
Verification Manager
uConfirm
VerifyX
QuickConfirm
InVerify
VerifyAdvantage
VerifyFast
VeriSafeJobs
EmployCheck
JobTrax
Certee
EmpInfo
Vault Verify
Thomas & Company
VerifyFast
CCCVerify
WageVerify
i2Verify
TrueWork
VerifyToday
The Work Number
And then we have three different platforms internally to verify stuff on because our customers don't want to learn how to use our newest platform that the company made itself.
{Twitter, Everybody's doing it. }{Writing and Story Blog}
In the broad sense? Harder to say. In the specifics? In implementations? All the fucking time.
From Betamax to DDT, individual techs die out fucking constantly, so it would be extremely plausible to, say, shut down art theft machines and keep genome-mapping networks. Just spitballing here.
To be clear, you're saying that artists should not make use of AI? For how long? I genuinely don't understand how that helps them. We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive.
You underestimate how much harm Im willing to inflict in myself in order to inflict it on someone else.
You had to bring up Betamax. I specifically asked you never to talk to me about Betamax again
It's literally, like not figuratively-but-I'm-saying-literally but literally literally, collaborator mindset. Dissent with a known-malicious force is too hard/too "unlikely" to succeed, so I'll get mine and encourage anyone to do the same.
That it is framed as morally neutral, as pragmatic, as a decision basically out of one's own hands, is of course part and parcel. Defeatist nihilism accepted passively and framed as prescient virtue.
So fuck this software and fuck the people who made it with their bone deep loathing of any skill they dont possess themselves.
Okay but what if the robot draws a nice picture of me
3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
you mean a capitalist environment. that is what you mean.
So paradoxically the less profit AI art makes, the more likely it is to stick around and evolve.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Nobody is telling anyone to stop making art. How many artists are making a profession out of their own creative fulfillment without having to adhere to any capitalistic pressure? Only the very fortunate few. Our society is not built to encourage that at all.
To be clear, you are stating this all from the dual assumptions that this shit is both inevitable and also a beneficial tool for artists.
I genuinely don't understand how these algorithms are supposed to "help" artists. How are these things that are plagurising them and devaluing their work helpful?
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Artists with high end clients and fat contracts are safe. Who this eats alive are artists making two to low three figure commissions and people supporting their artistic goals with punch in punch out design jobs.
Crossbows were banned for a time (against Christians at least). But even the Pipe couldn't stop them. Good example of inferior technology replacing skilled humans too. Bows were popular even after the invention of crossbows because they were better, but the lack of traing needed to use a crossbow compared to a bow eventually won out. And then the same thing happened with guns.
Oh actually, guns are a good example of technology being held back for reasons other than society or technology. Repeating firearms were available early on but armies preferred to arm their men with single shot firearms. Ease of use and training on single shot guns was prioritised over complicated better guns that required more training and knowledge from the soldiers. The same principle that advanced technology from bow to crossbow held back the (military) development of more advanced weapons.
And these algorithms will only make it harder for artists to make a living as an artist. Are you trying to put forth the argument that art is somehow purer when it is divorced from being produced as a commodity? Because I have some news for you about the history of and current state of how art has been and continues to be produced.
Honestly not sure how you can make these sorts of statements about how hard it is for artists to make it, and also advocate for the propagation of these algorithms.
Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Maybe you should actually read what artists are writing about AI and how it's already impacting them instead of telling them to give in and accelerate their own downfall without any insight or understanding about what that actually entails for them both professionally and personally. "We all need skills that are relevant in a modern technological environment in order to survive" is the kind of sounds-smart-at-first-but-actually-doesn't-mean-anything empty platitude that people actively attempting to use this tech to put artists out of work are using. So like, nah. That kind of generic take doesn't really have anything to do with what's actually happening here.