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.
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.
A horse looks at a car something something. The technology is here to stay and has it’s uses, the tech industry will get bored of it’s limitations and a new thing will come along for us to scream at. AI has practical applications but I don’t think you should dismiss it entirely on principle. I think it’s about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
I’m more frustrated by the haste with which it’s implemented. I’ve seen (secondhand) instances of this Google search AI spitting out results that are either flat-out wrong (e.g., presenting fan theories as fact in response to a question about warhammeer 40k), or actively harmful (e.g., recommending self harm in response to a search for “how do I stop crying”)
I think it’s about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
If that was happening, I think we’d probably be fine with it. But it just appears almost everywhere, uninvited, as half-baked and soaked in mile-high promises.
People who criticize AI seem to fall into 3 camps:
Bandwagon jumpers who just see people they like criticizing AI and regurgitate what they hear.
People who reject it out of principle because it would break their world view to consider the possibility that human beings could just be machines with no free will.
People who reject it because theyve seen capitalism use previous advances in automation to enrich the working class and entrench their power.
Largely agree but I think there are one it two more camps.
People who feel threatened to irrelevance as artists trying to use art as their primary means to make money
People who realize that CEOs and higher up people in companies actually do intend to replace human workers as soon as they can, even before it’s properly viable.
I’m pro AI, but I largely see the AI backlash as inventing complex moral justification to oppose it when the core issues are it’s impact on the livelihood of artists under capitalism.
Obviously AI art is just as valid as human art, and there is nothing inherently special about human creations. We are actually just biological machines and our behavior and output is easily emulatable.
I would just tend to group those as two sub camps under the third, anti-capitalist, camp that I mentioned, but I can see reason them to put them on the same hierarchical level.
Most of the problems with AI are with it accelerating the already ongoing effects of capitalism.
You can and should dismiss LLM’s on principle though, because these are nothing. They’re fancy Markov generators, one step up from the auto-correct in your keyboard.
They’re fun for researching problems and trying to further our efforts towards developing artificial intelligence, but the only thing techbros are selling is a new monkey to regurgitate the data it’s been fed. The monkey doesn’t know if the data is actually useful, or even if it is true, but to the techbros it “approximates a conversation” and therefore is good enough to replace jobs. AI might be cool eventually, but we are still lightyears away from anything that can think.
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.
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.
Lmao at all the luddites angry at a new open source piece of tech who are using a niche open source forum to yell at the clouds for being left behind by technology
Edit: All the downvotes in the world wont stop me from using AI gen, nor will it stop you from being left behind
2nd Edit: Keep feeding my block list knuckle draggers, it hasnt had fuel like this since I started blocking Tankies
The Luddite comparison is rather unfair. AI will have its applications, but it’s largely turning into the next tech bro buzzword being inappropriately shoehorned into everything, just like companies were trying to do with crypto and block chain everything a couple of years back. Now, everywhere you turn is cramming it in by default, whether it’s actually helpful or not. Outlook suddenly started irritating attempts at “assisting” my email writing, when I search for stuff, I get previews with generic AI summaries rather than letting me see a snippet of the actual content, and on and on. AI art will be matter of taste, I suppose, but AI evangelists have taken a novelty and worn out its welcome faster than redditors beating the dead horse of a joke into the ground.
If companies weren’t constantly overselling its current capabilities and putting it in things it has no business being in, you would probably have a much less negative reaction to it. I’ll wait another few years to see what it actually shakes out to be useful for, but in the meantime, I don’t really want to hear about the latest and greatest AI-enabled toaster that uses cloud technology to predict when you want toast and to burn images based on voice prompts into your toast, while using a loaf-based block chain to identify which of your roommates should have used the heel of the loaf but skipped it.
Nuanced arguements with AI doesnt happen. A lot of the tech is currently being used as the next tech bubble yes, but it already has found legitimate and powerful use outside that as well. My luddite comment is more of a response to whenever I bring up its legit use I get comments like “Enjoy your tendies bootlicker” Luddites were a group that became synonymous with being left behind by technology because they went and burned down lace making factories during the advent of machines that could mass produce lace, and as such they are a VERY accurate comparison to the fuckers saying everything ai makes is garbage and theft.
You dont have to wait years to see its actual use cases, AI gen is a powerful tool for people to access creative freedom who had previously been gatekeeped by skill levels, and I have English as a Second Language coworkers that tell me that ChatGPT has helped them practice their english conversation skills in private like no other program has before, and have heard a lot of talk from programmers that it has greatly sped up their coding workflow.
Edit: This is why I’ve gone back to just laughing at the idiots angry they’re being left behind, any time I actually address any non made up concerns, people just downvote and verbally throw their own feces like the dumb monkeys that they are
I’m gonna need context on why you quoted that. Are you amplifying it? Or are you mocking it? There’s no info to guess tone and meaning on
Edit: Or downvote me I guess, that gives context too
2nd Edit: Whoever responded to me, I’ve already deemed your opinion worthless due to earlier comments and cannot see what you’ve said because I blocked you, I can only see “1 more reply ->”. I’d say have a nice day, but I probably wouldnt mean it
Because it can only do that through theft of intellectual property. Also, just because you like using something that will obviously and quickly be used to tighten the shackles around your ankles, doesn’t mean that others have to enjoy their chains or lick boots.
I want AI for exactly one thing: helping me put my own thoughts into words. A GPT-3 machine trained in 2021 it’s perfectly good enough for that. For everything else, I want simple if-this-then-that programming.
I’ve found AI useful just for programming examples. I think it’s a decent programming resource especially when working in an unfamiliar language.
Outside of that it’s right now a net negative in almost every case where I’ve seen it used. Google results are already polluted by AI-generated hallucinated crap and the bots will feast on their own excrement until it dominates the entire internet.
Let’s be honest about the two reasons why the industry is pushing it. Number one, it has the potential to replace human workers at low cost and therefore is attractive to the investor class. Number two, tech investment is down in a high interest rate business climate and after the dud of VR the tech companies need a new buzzword to attract capital.
They are certainly not cramming it into your OS because they think you will actually find it useful.
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.
Says the guy posting on an obscure, overly complicated version of a web forum primarily dedicated to Linux and other fringe technology and ideologies from a non-mainline instance lol
The only part that annoys me about that complaint is that it’s not “stealing.” I think it’s very reasonable for artists to ask for compensation if their works are used in the creation of a commercial product, but it never has and never will be theft. Equating copyright infringement with theft is entertainment industry anti-piracy propaganda, and Hollywood really doesn’t need you to be their unpaid spokesperson.
If you’re an independent artist who wants to be compensated when your art is used in AI training, then do yourself the favor of understanding what you actually need to ask for. Specifically, legislation to clarify that incorporation of copyrighted materials into an AI training data set is a protected use under copyright law and requires compensation, and/or that AI image models should be established as derivative works of the images in their training. That’s the legislative change they should be pushing for rather than inaccurately claiming “theft” and “stealing art.”
Stealing art is when you have a painting and I don’t, and then I take it, and now I have a painting and you don’t. It has nothing to do with AI. Artists who oppose AI would be better advocates for themselves if they offered their criticism in accurate terminology.
Whats extra funny is the online DnD community that will parrot the art theft point seconds before they jump back onto Pinterest to TOTALLY NOT STEAL the art of their next DnD character
You fucking moron, they aren’t using that art for financial gain. That’s the fucking difference. You will never listen to any actual grievances though because you don’t care who or what it harms, only that you get cool new gadgets. Eat shit you cunt bag.
It’s not about what the people use the AI for, you incompetent prick. Who owns the AI? They make money from it providing a service to people. That service is stealing the abilities of real people who no longer get paid for their services.
A child could understand this but as I said you will never even try to because you simply don’t give a shit about anyone or anything but your own enjoyment.
Using technology to make a post complaining about technology. The very platform being used contributes to “tech bro capitalism” but AI is crossing the line? What a weird take.
This is like pointing at someone who took a bus to a climate science convention to talk about the problems with air travel and saying “wow, you used mass transit to complain about mass transit”
ok so technically the definition of art isn’t really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is “that it isn’t human” and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that’s why “ai art” is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn’t matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it’s art, it’s art. It’s technically just that simple.
I also wouldn’t classify it as theft, considering that’s pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they’re all pretty similar? There’s a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it’s funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it’s working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let’s go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it’s hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
ok so technically the definition of art isn’t really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is “that it isn’t human” and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that’s why “ai art” is the term people use instead.
Art it art, it doesn’t matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it’s art, it’s art. It’s technically just that simple.
I also wouldn’t classify it as theft, considering that’s pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they’re all pretty similar? There’s a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.
it’s funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it’s working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?
You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let’s go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it’s hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.
:P
I technically didn’t steal this content because I added a “:P” to it. Nobody can really define what plagiarism is so therefore it’s all good!
I will never understand why Americans insist on simping so hard for billion dollar companies. Is it the lead in the drinking water? Is it the lack of healthcare? Is is the terrible state of their education? Truly baffling.
Is this directed at me? 1: Not American 2: My use of AI helps zero corporations in any way as I installed the programs, for free, on my computer and use open source checkpoints, loras, and nodes to run them
A whole fuckload of the hate towards AI is completely uniformed and based on gut feelings and shit thats just plain wrong. If you hate artists losing their jobs, attack the capitalists, not the commoners ALSO losing their jobs that have found a new tool that has greatly improved their lives
Edit: Wow, you added so many big words! Did momma forget your sauce again?
Hey, you’re an expert: do you think the uptick in the number of sticky-fingered midwesterners around here is a sign that Lemmy’s finally reaching a wider, less technical audience?
Hey, you’re an expert: do you think the uptick in the number of sticky-fingered midwesterners around here is a sign that Lemmy’s finally reaching a wider, less technical audience?
i think it’s probably recognition bias more than anything.
Add comment