Negativity rule : 196

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think you mean:

yes (the environmental angle is a complete distraction and red herring from moving towards more sustainable energy production generally; the ethical one is just plain nonsense spread by people with absolutely no idea how these things work)

yes (people use and like them, people have fun with them and create great art with them. You might not but that’s a you problem)

and … well actually probably no tbh (but that’s a problem with capitalism not technology).

Stop making shit up to dismiss new technology because you’re a luddite

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

In theory valid point and I approve but I'd disagree the sustainability factor. Even with renewables we won't have infinite energy, so we still need to think what we need to use the availabile energy for. The taining ist already ridiculously expensive and should the model become extremely popular it might still pull a lot of energy.

Needs to be evaluated on a per model usefulness / Energy Consumption basis.

And I doubt most current models would score very highly on that. (but please tell me those who do)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The amount of solar energy that hits the Earth every day is enough to power it for a year, and that's not including wind, wave, or anything else. (yes I know we can't gather it all but the amount of energy available is absolutely gigantic

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

I think the problem is capitalism and that the AI is used to make things better for the Capital owner without making anything realistically better for the worker and sometimes worse cause the owner is an out of touch idiot.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

NaNoWriMo came out as pro-GenAI after an AI sloppenheimer generator became a sponsor. I'm definitely not negative enough.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago

My problem isn't AI, it's capitalism and capitalistic profit driven use of every single technology.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

Literally every single one of those statements is wrong

[–] [email protected] 16 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Genning is still power hungry and expensive, but it has its applications. The problem is that industrialists want to do with it what they've wanted to do with every previous step of automation, which is, replace workers with it.

And the problem is, the way people justify their existence to the societies we have is through employment or profits. If you don't have those, you go homeless and now according to SCOTUS, you are an unperson.

And so now it is conspicuous any time an employer lays someone off or removes them from a job, even to maximize profits. That is a life-threatening action, and it raises questions of whether institutions exist for humankind, or vice versa. If it's vice versa than Viva la revolución! Party like it's 1789! The ownership class will tremble!

But for now we seem happy to let billionaires put all their resources into making their number go up and stopping us from resisting this impulse by force. Including robot dogs with guns.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Admiral Stabby is fine, but I have no issues hitting a robot dog with a gun with an improvised EMP, a Molotov cocktail, or hell just a sledgehammer.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Nor should you!

When La Résistance started organizing in occupied Paris, it was because the German garrison picked that fight. The Germans couldn't help themselves (despite orders to police gently) but be brutal and abusive against the French, and individuals in the public felt compelled to misbehave in small acts of resistance (slashing tires, defacing propaganda posters, cutting phone lines). Things escalated from there.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Template writers and clipart generators are peachy. Saves us time. People who develop those, they have mostly positive intentions. There's nothing wrong with sustainable research and progress in software of this sort.

You should be focusing on the salespeople, the investors (speculators), the marketers, the corporate buyers. These people have mostly bad intentions.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I don't think it's like that.

The worst of AI is how is being pushed by big corporations in every product to "sell better" and "collect more data".

But there are plenty of legitimate uses for both AI as a concept and in particular generative LLMs.

Are you telling me that the people who use AI to spice up their RPG sessions with images and text are the devil??

Sometimes I feel like anti-AI is reaching religion levels of dogmatism. It's too early for a butlerian jihad.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago

The anti-ai luddites are about as intractable as trump cultists, and their arguments just as asinine

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Issues with those usecases are normalization or such technologies on a larger scale, and the eventual reduction of the artistic process to having a single idea.

If we were in a post-capitalistic world, I wouldn't be as concerned about the normalization part. However, one of my biggest fears is that the anti-AI movement gets tired out, and then with better AI technologies and sneakier uses, it gets normalized even more.

When I'm creating, I also interested in the implementation of the idea, not just the idea itself. Generative AI simply reduces the creative process to "coming up with ideas". And a "good idea" does not guarantee "good outcomes". I cannot count the number of good ideas wasted in bad execution, including AI generated stuff. In that case, many good ideas were just put into a generator instead of actually going through the creative process.

Sure, AI could become better, and many "AI promters" could graduate into "AI art directors". There's one problem with that: That could also kill AI art, as its biggest selling point towards its customers and fans is its reduction of the artistic process to coming up with ideas.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You'll know how much the means of creating art have changed over the centuries. Different or more time efficient does not mean worse.

Also if you have been an artist for a few decades now you'd been alive while digital art was introduced and the complains it raised to traditional artists.

Complains here are very similar to those. It's just a new tool. It can be used to do good of bad art same as a Photoshop brush. And Adobe is as bad and big corporations (probably bigger and worse) than openAI.

And no, making AI art is not instant. Neither just writing "make me a nice bunnie" and enjoy. It also have a process, with many steps, iterations and that if what you aim to do is something good a lot of times it needs to be complete with traditional digital art. Once again, it's just a tool, how it's used is up to the artist.

I perfectly know that this is not about the "integrity of art". This is mostly about "commission art" or "industrial filling art"(like videogame not important assets, backgrounds, etc) that it was paying the bills for many people and it has been incredibly threatened by generative AI as for the people paying for that type of art the results of an AI model are good enough for a fraction of the price.

But again, it's the same that happened before with digital art. Before there were a need for way more traditional artists jobs for the same result as fewer digital artists.

Progress has always killed jobs, and people have need to learn new skills. That's why we need social protection systems so people can keep employed despite that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Oh yes, the evergreen argument of "but previous technologies"...

Digital art did not intent to replace the artist, but instead give them a new kind of canvas, instrument, etc. AI art does. And seeing patterns in the tech industry, AI companies are absolutely trying to drive people out of the creative industry by undercutting them, then to raise prices back again.

The backlash was much more mild, and often those were real elitists. Artist that berated e.g. drawing as a "lesser medium" to watercolors, not just digital art.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

AI does not aim to replace the artist. That is beyond the reach of the technology.

Generative AI aims to make one artist produce more art in less time. Same as digital art or photography with respect to portraits.

What capitalist companies do with a technology is always bad. That's why I do not like capitalism. But primitivism and halting progress is not the solution. If capitalism is causing issues maybe the solution is ending capitalism.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

Well digital art did not, but photography surely did. And eventually it was for the better for everybody.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (2 children)

hurr durr AI = BAD

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 months ago

Yes, it is bad!

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the commercial AI that our corporate overlords are force feeding us is.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago

yeah that's why we need to make it open

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

would someone like to tell me who this guy is?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Random noone in twitter

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

this is bluesky, so that would make sense, i would he is also a nobody on bsky then.

Sometimes these people are important, and i wouldn't know shit fuck about them lmao.

[–] [email protected] 48 points 3 months ago (3 children)

There's actually a lot of cool science stuff that AI is doing, it just isn't in the public eye.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I'm working for a company that's using it for sheet metal forming, you just upload an STL and robots make it out of a blank sheet.

Eventually we won't need dies anymore (good for environment) and will make sheet metal more efficiently (Jevons paradox territory, but we need to reduce total consumption anyways).

IMHO we should have Pigouvian pollution taxes and then let the market decide which ideas are worth pursuing.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Absolutely. Bio-chemistry, astrophysics, imaging, diagnostic testing...

Everybody is stuck on how it can make text/video/pictures which is neat but not nearly as useful. This will just be used for porn/scams/ads overwhelmingly.

However, parsing huge datasets and extrapolating impossible to detect patterns and subsequent correlation of seemingly unrelated phenomena is going to be lit 🔥

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Absolutely, but also when you consider ethical challenges (copyright, livelihood of artists), sustainability challenges (energy use) etc. The use cases that you describe are not nearly as controversial as LLMs like ChatGPT.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 months ago

ML for recognizing trends is awesome. AI for generating porn of celebrities with weird hands is not.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Issue with that, that's not as cool as generating AI slop from a few words, especially for boomers, who always thought art should be just a weekend hobby, done purely for the sake of self-enjoyment, all because art doesn't involve getting muddy, oily, or getting "cool workplace injuries", thus it's a fake job.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

That's an oddly specific example. I'm guessing you could possibly be an employed artist who is not muddy, oily or ever had a "cool workplace injury".

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

I like this take... https://daniellerac.com/dear-ai/

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I can code 3 or 4x faster using an llm than I can without. Granted most of the stuff I have to write is under 200 lines, AI becomes significantly less useful when the codebase is any larger than that.

I realize I'm also an outlier. Most people didn't get such a productivity boost.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 months ago

80% of my programing work is solving problems and designing stuff. The only productivity boost I got is when working with proprietary libraries that have most of their documentation in customer support tickets (wouldn't be a problem if I could just read the bloody source code or our company didn't think that paying UNHOLY AMOUNTS OF MONEY for shit makes it better) or when interacting with a new system, where I know exactly what I want, but just don't know the new syntax or names. It's handy, but definitely not a game changer.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

+1. LLMs do Regex for me. I didn't have to break my brain for that thankfully.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Ai is a great tool for VFX and plenty of other things. It's been the norm for decades. Fake techies turned it into a buzzterm. It's a great way to enable up and comers without resources to grow. If you're lazily replacing people in workflow, of course, that's predatory. That's what a lot of CEO's *want, but they won't achieve. In reality, these tools are being created by the people they're supposed to "replace" to make their jobs easier. I have a passion for art, programming, and a lot of other things that are "effected" by ai. So far, it seems like fear mongering. Traditionalist always get fucked in the art world. You just kinda shoot for it. (I work in graphite and animation)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

AI is one of the many reasons humanity should never have left the 90s.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Well, have you considered that I don't need to write stupid long overly polite emails myself anymore?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 months ago (3 children)

You just need to proofread stupid long overly polite emails to make sure they're actually overly polite and don't tell the recipient random made-up bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

No I just tell it to be more terse and give it a general word and sentence limit.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

Sure, keep wasting your time buddy

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago

And that's bad because?

Proofreading and editing takes a fraction of the time it takes to generate sincerity from scratch.