But then we have a problem with AI’s process, not the underlying technology. What I mean to say is, if I were to train and run my own model in an isolated local computer, using ethically sourced* training material, then would it still be bad?
Like, are we mad at the means needed to make the technology work or simply at the technology? Because if it’s the former, then we can do something about it. Agriculture is a hell of a technology, but there are very detrimental ways to apply it.
*Let’s gloss over what ethically sourced really means for the sake of discussion.
Sure, if you built an AI on your own machine, trained it entirely on public commons and voluntarily obtained data with the active consent, and powered it entirely on solar power and wind turbines, to do jobs without intrinsic value to human development, people would have a lot fewer objections to it. But you didn’t. And you won’t, because it would take resources that exceed anything you have available to do so. Much like genetic modification, there are motives and methods that potentially have real value, but they don’t tend to have significant return on investment and so are simply not done, and what is done ranges from suspect to objectively exploitative. You cannot create an ethical AI in the current environment, if such a thing is even possible.
It may very well be the former; but I don’t believe ‘ethically trained’ and ‘useful’ is an achievable combination in AI models, particularly within our capitalist world/society.
Even if such a thing was created; it’d be impossible to verify and distinguish among the flood of media produced by those that just don’t care about the broader picture and those effected. The detrimental effects of global AI infrastructure has greatly overshadowed the potential for ‘ethical’ AI implementation; and now we just don’t have the means to sort through ‘ethical’ vs not, leaving no option but to reject it outright.
You can’t train your own though. You can’t make your own AI that knows what a cat or Picasso is without it using works that are not yours. You’d never be able to tell it to write you a novel because it wouldn’t have any to work with.
AI is not sentient and cannot learn or read. It regurgitates a “best guess” and knows nothing. If you use drawing tools to make shapes in Paint, congratulations! You made art, not the computer. If you write the shittiest fanfic in the world, YOU made it, YOU adapted your experiences into your own work.
AI does not and never will do it. Stop defending it.
Why are you fighting so hard to defend AI slop? There was never an issue with anyone using references. The issue is stealing and regurgitating other people’s works and destroying the environment in the process. I’m sorry if that is too advanced for you, as I’m not the first to tell you this.
Apologies, I’m trying to do this while also feeding a very fussy newborn.
I’ll instead be an adult and say that I don’t want to continue this discussion. I have better things to do, and you’re getting pedantic about what defines “art”. It’s a lose-lose situation.
But then we have a problem with AI’s process, not the underlying technology. What I mean to say is, if I were to train and run my own model in an isolated local computer, using ethically sourced* training material, then would it still be bad? Like, are we mad at the means needed to make the technology work or simply at the technology? Because if it’s the former, then we can do something about it. Agriculture is a hell of a technology, but there are very detrimental ways to apply it.
*Let’s gloss over what ethically sourced really means for the sake of discussion.
Sure, if you built an AI on your own machine, trained it entirely on public commons and voluntarily obtained data with the active consent, and powered it entirely on solar power and wind turbines, to do jobs without intrinsic value to human development, people would have a lot fewer objections to it. But you didn’t. And you won’t, because it would take resources that exceed anything you have available to do so. Much like genetic modification, there are motives and methods that potentially have real value, but they don’t tend to have significant return on investment and so are simply not done, and what is done ranges from suspect to objectively exploitative. You cannot create an ethical AI in the current environment, if such a thing is even possible.
It may very well be the former; but I don’t believe ‘ethically trained’ and ‘useful’ is an achievable combination in AI models, particularly within our capitalist world/society.
Even if such a thing was created; it’d be impossible to verify and distinguish among the flood of media produced by those that just don’t care about the broader picture and those effected. The detrimental effects of global AI infrastructure has greatly overshadowed the potential for ‘ethical’ AI implementation; and now we just don’t have the means to sort through ‘ethical’ vs not, leaving no option but to reject it outright.
You can’t train your own though. You can’t make your own AI that knows what a cat or Picasso is without it using works that are not yours. You’d never be able to tell it to write you a novel because it wouldn’t have any to work with.
But if I write a novel, am I not also taking into account every novel I’ve ever read? Can you draw something without first looking at other drawings?
AI is not sentient and cannot learn or read. It regurgitates a “best guess” and knows nothing. If you use drawing tools to make shapes in Paint, congratulations! You made art, not the computer. If you write the shittiest fanfic in the world, YOU made it, YOU adapted your experiences into your own work.
AI does not and never will do it. Stop defending it.
You moved the goal post. I thought the problem was using other things as references for the creation process.
Why are you fighting so hard to defend AI slop? There was never an issue with anyone using references. The issue is stealing and regurgitating other people’s works and destroying the environment in the process. I’m sorry if that is too advanced for you, as I’m not the first to tell you this.
When the ad hominem attacks start, it’s time to drop it. Than you for the civil discussion while it lasted.
Apologies, I’m trying to do this while also feeding a very fussy newborn.
I’ll instead be an adult and say that I don’t want to continue this discussion. I have better things to do, and you’re getting pedantic about what defines “art”. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Agree to disagree. Thanks for being civil. Best of luck with your newborn.