effingjoe
effingjoe avatar

effingjoe

@effingjoe@kbin.social

Do not disassemble.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You're not wrong, but tbh it's going to be a matter of time before they just abandon the desire to mimic real people and move to just making up people that don't exist and using them instead.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar
effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

Ignoring a problem does not make it go away. Consider the viewpoint in this youtube video. It is pretty long. The whole series is really good. This one is one of the last ones, I think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCl33v5969M

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

That's fair-- I take the same stance usually-- I really should have just done that from the get go, huh?

Your response above-- the one I replied to, is also a "win state" for bigots. They win when you ignore them, and when you give them attention. The video goes on to point out that framing the scenario like you are, where the battlefield is a war over attention, that minorities are being treated as tools or pieces on a board, and both sides are engaging in bigotry.

My summary sucks, but maybe it's enough to get you to take a look?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I can't watch the video for you, friend. If you're curious, watch it. If you're not, then don't.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I don't see any reason why I should transcribe a video for you, when it's freely available to watch at your leisure. I find the video series insightful when it comes to understanding and combatting bigotry and those that champion it-- and for sure, you may not. I only wanted to bring it to your attention because it directly applies to the discussion, and assuming your end goal is combatting bigotry, you might be interested in knowing that the way you're going about it isn't likely to work.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I used reddit in a way where I would check out my front page, and then go to my favorite (smaller) subs to specifically look for things that wouldn't make it to the front page. Unfortunately, I've not followed through with that after leaving reddit, because I'm on kbin and it's pretty annoying to get to your followed magazines (as they're called), and I see indications about making some of them "favorite" but I don't think that functionality actually exists yet.

I'm sure it will get there eventually.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

Right? I've been using public restrooms for a long time and I don't recall ever seeing anyone's naughty bits.

..and for me the most ridiculous part of this discussion is that bathrooms have never been a secure space. If some creep wanted to go into a bathroom to harass people, there is literally nothing stopping them. It's not like bathrooms have guarded entrances and now people have a sneaky way to get into a bathroom by pretending to be transgender or something insane like that.

It's literally a manufactured issue to get the GOP electorate terrified, as everything they do is designed to do.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I don’t see any detriment to giving trans people their own space where they can be comfortable and let everyone else be comfortable too

I am confident you don't realize the full implications of what you're saying, so please don't take this as an attack, but would you also support "black only" restrooms for this exact same reason? If not, why not?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

Elaborate? In what way are they so different that they wouldn't also apply for the comment I quoted?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

and it's worth mentioning that there is no genital check before entering a bathroom. An "anti-trans bathroom" law would likely also get wielded against masculine women and effeminate men who are not transgender.

None of it makes any sense when you take 30 seconds to consider it.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

Oh you know what? I think I did have those in elementary school. That was a while ago though.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

It's a shot in the dark, but are you running a vpn on your phone? That might mess things up.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You may very well be right on the money here, but I find it at least plausible that a market for "human-made" art becomes a thing if computer-made art becomes a thing.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

If you're leaning on morality, then the comparison to humans becomes relevant again.

Lawyers taking a high profile case is not any indication to go by.

I could be off base here, but are you financially impacted if AI starts making commercial art? Like, is that how you make income, too?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I don't follow why calling it a tool matters. If a python script renders someone's job redundant (hypothetically; this is unlikely in reality) does it matter if the script was written by a human or a LLM?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

That's not necessarily true. Certainly plausible, but just as plausible as it working out like "cage free" eggs, where a perceived value pushes the market into a direction that it wouldn't go for purely financial reasons.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You're going to need to strictly define "exploited", I think. I don't know what you mean when you use that term.

If I read a book on Python and write a script to replace someone's job, did I exploit the person who wrote the book? What about the people that created and/or maintain python?

Why don't we want companies replacing creatives with AI? Should we roll back other technological advances that resulted in fewer humans being employed? No human routes phone calls anymore, but they used to. Should their jobs be protected, too? What about people that used to carve ice out of mountain lakes and deliver it to businesses? Should refrigeration technology be held back by the law to protect those jobs? If not, why artists? What makes them more deserving of being protected?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

Intent is a big deal in this one. Your Python book writer intended for people to read it to learn Python.

I really don't see where intent falls into this, still-- but feel free to change the hypothetical to looking at other people's python code to learn how to use python. It still doesn't change the equation. Did I exploit the people who wrote the python code that I learned from? Does my source of learning matter when it comes to what I produce? Do you really believe that artists create new art in a total vacuum, without drawing inspiration from prior art?

Back-breaking jobs that hurt people's health should be improved with technology. A migrant worker might lost his job to a mechanical fruitpicker but he's likely bilingual and eligible for a translator job. Unless that job, which is better for health and longevity, and allows someone to stay in one place, is taken by an AI.

I am somewhat stunned by the obvious bias you seem to have against manual labor. You really think having an active job is less healthy than sitting in a chair, looking at a screen all day? (Please note: 90% of my job is sitting in a chair, staring at a screen all day.)

There was no "promise of automation". Technology was always going to take everyone's jobs-- the only change is the order it has taken it in. It was assumed that human creativity was some special thing that was so difficult to define in software that it would be towards the end when it came to getting replaced, but it turns out that we're a lot more like computers than we believe, and you can train software-- with relative ease-- to figure out how to achieve an end result without explicitly defining how.

Large companies want to reduce overhead, increase productivity, and maximize profit. I assure you there's no bias as to what kind of jobs get replaced when it comes to those goals. It just happens that creative jobs seem to be easily replaced.

Do you really, honestly, think that it's even possible to hold back a technological advance using legislation? You can already host your own LLMs and train them on whatever material you desire, to better tailor their output. That's today. Even if we assume, for sake of argument, that the law does decide that people have a "right" to control how their art is consumed. (again, very unlikely imo), that won't even slow down the people spinning up their own instances, and even if they follow the rules, how much worse do you really think the models would be using only public domain and open source training materials?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You still seem to have a very specific idea of what manual labor is. You may not think you'd find manual labor jobs fulfilling or expressive, but that doesn't mean no one does.

Could it be that you care more about creative jobs because you have one, and if you had a manual labor job you'd be arguing the opposite?

Edit: what, specifically, does "justice" in the system look like to you?

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I caution you from repeating phrases you've read but don't fully understand. "Scraping the internet and collecting everyone's data" is just how the internet works. It's certainly how every single search engine works. (even privacy focused ones, like duckduckgo). If you don't want something to be read or viewed on the internet, you shouldn't put it on the internet.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You are trying to muddy the water, but I don't see why.

We aren't talking about location exif data on pictures, and people can and should strip that off (there are tools to do so) before posting online, but that has nothing to do with LLMs and their like. Privacy violations are certainly fair game for legislation-- but as you are finding out, you don't get a say in how people consume your work. I could buy your work and burn it, or read it to my dog, or put it on a shelf, or study it daily to better learn how to make similar works. Once you make it available for public consumption, the public can consume it, even if that consumption eventually hurts you financially.

One of the many problems with IP laws is that it is so ingrained in our society that people who benefit from it directly forget that it's not all encompassing, nor is it a law of nature. For instance, I am free to make a drawing of the main characters in Stranger Things, drawn in the style of The Simpsons. That violates no IP laws. If a computer learns a specific style of painting from a specific artist and can recreate that style on command, there is still no violation of IP laws, just as it would be if a human did it. And it's plausible (though, unlikely) that someone could learn a specific style of animation (like, the simpsons) and then go on to replace the originator of that style in the show. Styles aren't copyrightable.

Your job is very likely to be replaced and there very likely nothing you can do about it. That's the bottom line. Mine may as well-- I am in the field of Software QA right now, for military robots. I feel like my time to be replaced isn't quite here-- I can't imagine it's that far off. Acknowledging this is just prudent.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

You have taken a turn towards anger, if I'm reading the correct context, but I'm just a messenger. I also wasn't expecting you to like it, and I guess you can complain all you'd like, but I was expecting to help you accept it. To be sure, whether or not you accept it won't change whether it happens.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

effingjoe,
effingjoe avatar

I do not disagree with anything you said.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • provamag3
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • InstantRegret
  • magazineikmin
  • ngwrru68w68
  • Durango
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • rosin
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • osvaldo12
  • GTA5RPClips
  • cubers
  • cisconetworking
  • everett
  • tester
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • Leos
  • normalnudes
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines