I believe it has a use.
Like, AI can make up roleplaying assets and what graphics needed to be made to translate what objects are and everything. Stuff like that.
But using it for art contests, for bigger projects and all? It makes you look lazy.
this post was submitted on 02 Jan 2025
12 points (65.8% liked)
Asklemmy
44252 readers
877 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Obvious trash
I hate it. For starters, I want to echo a common sentiment in the comments: the way it was taught data seems just so wildly unethical to me. The authors and artists whose works were stolen deserve a paycheck and I mean big time.
Don't get me wrong, it does cool stuff too. Being able to recognize birds and plants and being able to proofread your texts, stuff like that? That is pretty cool.
But what pisses me off is how much "white noise" it generated on the internet, if you know what I mean. It depends on the search engine, but I've caught myself typing -ai_generated or some-such in the search bar just to find something that an actual human made. The search results are just so polluted with this shit. And, of course they want to put AI in everything. Ovens, CPUs, pillows, you name it. I don't want it. Make it go away.
Peel back the veneer of AI and you find the foundation of stolen training data it's built on. They are stealing from the very content creators they aim to replace.
Torrent a movie? You can potentially go to jail. Scrape the entire internet for content and sell it as a shitty LLM or art generator? That's just an innovative AI startup which is doing soooooo much good for humanity.
Exactly, an equitable solution could be to pay royalties to artists that had their work stolen to train these algorithms. That, however, would require any of the generative algorithms to be operating at a profit, which they absolutely are not.
And it would require the LLM owners to admit to stealing that content.
That too
One more thing: if you want to use public data, your AI needs to be open source (not just the software around it, the actual models that do the AI stuff needs to be available for anyone to run on their own system) and all the works generated with it public domain. The public owns your AI at that point. Personally, if you don't want to pay me, then let me have a stake in the AI my data helped create.
That's a good point.
Copying is not theft
In this case it absolutely is.
Google it
Torrent a movie? You can potentially go to jail. ...
Because artists are not billion doller hollywood studios with so many political lobbies and stubborn well paid lawyers, duh.
I also like the bug ID app. But I like bugs so your milage may vary.
Define the terms please. AI has existed for decades. What are you focusing on now?
I'm not talking about AI in general here. I know some form of AI has been out there for ages and ML definitely has some field specific usecases. Here the objective is to discuss the feeling about gen AI produced content in contrast to human made content, potentially pondering the hypothetical scenario that the gen AI infrastructure is used ethically. I hope the notion of generative AI is sort of clear, but it includes LLMs, photo (not computer vision) and audio generators and any multimodal combination of these.
That's a good start, but where do you draw the line? If I use a template, is that AI? What if I am writing a letter based on that template and use a grammar checker to fix the grammar. Is that AI? And then I use the thesaurus to automatically beef up the vocabulary. Is that AI?
In other words, you can't say LLM and think it's a clear proposition. LLMs have been around and used for various things for quite a while, and some of those things don't feel unnatural.
So I'm afraid we still have a definitional problem. And I don't think it is easy to solve. There are so many interesting edge cases.
Let's consider an old one. Weather forecasting. Of course the forecasts are in a sense AI models. Or models, if you don't want to say AI. Doesn't matter. And then that information can be displayed in a table, automatically, on a website. That's a script, not really AI, but hey, you could argue the whole system now counts as AI. So then let's use an LLM to put it in paragraph form, the table is boring. I think Weather.com just did this recently and labeled it "AI forecast", in fact. But is this really an LLM being used in a new way? Is this actually harmful when it's essentially the same general process that we've had for decades? Of course it's benign. But it is LLM, technically...
There are two core issues I have with AI generated content:
-
Ownership - All the big players are using proprietary software, weights, models, training methods, and datasets to generate these models. On top of the lack of visibility, they have farmed millions of peoples data and content without their knowledge or consent. If it were up to me, all AI research and software would be 100% open source, public access, non-copyright. That includes all theoretical work in scientific publications, all code, all the datasets, the weights, the infrastructure and training methods, absolutely everything.
-
Lowest common denominator - AI has unleashed the ability for individuals and organizations to produce extremely low effort content at volumes that haven't been seen before. I hate how search results are becoming totally poisoned by AI slop. You just get pages and pages of sites that abuse SEO to become the top search result and are nothing more than click-farms to generate ad revenue. This is a systemic issue that stems from several things, primarily Capitalism, but also the way we cater to powerful corpos that push this sludge onto us.
I have no issue with AI tools that are actually helpful in their context. For instance, animation software that uses AI to help generate intermediate frames from your initial drawings. Screen reader software that uses AI to help sight-impaired folks with more accurate text-to-speech. AI tools that help with code completion, or debugging.
These are all legitimate uses of the technology, but sadly, all of that is being overshadowed by mountains of sludge being shoved on us at every level. Because those implementations aren't going to make rich people even richer, they aren't going to temp investors to dump billions more into AI startups and corpo tech. Helping blind people and indie animation studios is boring and low-profit, therefore in a Capitalist system, it gets shoved to the bottom of the stack while the high-margin slop gets pumped down our throats.
About ownership, you didn't mention the risk of mass manipulation by perfectly filtering out any critique of social injustices that the training set had. Gen AI is a better brainwashing tool than corporate mass media.
(The day after the mass murderer CEO got shot, OkCupid (Match Group) let me know that they had deleted the year-old chapter in my profile containing "Fuck the healthcare system - make a better one", without sending me a copy to edit. The assholes have deleted so much of my content. 85% of my multiple-choice question answers deleted without a warning. Back up your online content, people!)
Very well said. I think at the end of the day, the human element is too easy to overlook and that's a problem. We have one bot, a search engine, keeping an eye open for content. SEO wants to stand out for that bot, so it demands content (and in a certain way) be created so the search engine picks it up... But that takes effort, so we have another bot creating content to get the attention of another. And the thing a person wants just becomes an afterthought and dead Internet theory is that much more real
Well, I'm a mod of [email protected], so...
The rise of what recently/popularly has been referred to as "AI" is a massive scam/bubble.
load more comments
(4 replies)
As someone who has had her art stolen for usage in an AI output, AI generated images are considered a form of art theft for good reason.
It's just deeply inauthentic. I'd feel tricked if I listened to a song that I enjoyed and found out it was actually a meaningless machine printout.
Is there such an example? Till now I didn't come across any remotely good/interesting music generated by AI of any meaningful length. Short clips are kinda good but that needs creative composer to arrange them into music.
Nah cos you're right, they're shit - but if we're talking about a future where these models are unfortunately used by uncreative dorks enough that they harvest enough music to become good, it'll be a sad day.
Iβd rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spork.
I think itβs a bad idea in general, currently being produced in unethical ways by people with unethical aims, consistently failing to deliver on a tenth of what was promised and already ruining a lot of stuff despite its frailty.
I avoid AI content because it's sort of an intellectual goo. It looks like there were some thoughts behind it, smells like it, and then you notice the distorted letters or certain writing style patterns. The AI we have currently is not sentient, so if there are no humans in the loop doing quality control then you end up with an AI telling people to eat rocks while citing The Onion. I lose trust in anything when I spot that a part of it was AI generated - without being explicitly marked as such - for this reason
Then there's AI's heavy association with corporations/VCs/tech bros, giant waste of electricity, bias in the training data, legality and ethical implications of training AI on data from the entire internet, people losing jobs, companies running sweatshops of people in 3rd world countries to manually classify said data, the list goes on and on
yup, currently whatever is called AI is not intelligent, they do not actually understand the prompts and data points that get fed into them, they merely know what is the most statistically relevant answer from the question. We may still be able to keep improving on the current LLMs, but we will very soon hit a wall that a mathematical model that is only trained on existing data cannot pass through.
I have no problem with it. Iβve been using it to make images for my website that I would otherwise not be able to afford to pay a graphic designer to make.
I also use it to help me figure out wording to get the right tone to my message. Iβll read a few iterations and then work off of the one that I like best. The AI one is not always better, but itβs great to get quick alternatives for comparison.
What would you say if your work was used in ai and no one would pay you for your work?
load more comments
(5 replies)
I think stable diffusion is cool. π€·ββοΈ
It's useful in some circumstances, but businesses are pushing for it in way too many areas. Luckily most have seen the light and that it is no where close to replacing humans. AI can't write a movie that will captivate audiences. (Hell I get bored with character chats after a few messages). AI can't animate a movie. It can't make a video game, or build useful programs.
What it can do it does well. Give you a jumping off point, give you different perspectives, allow you to get started - and I think we'll see it used in that area. For text based AI, it's great at something like "Give me 20 prompts" that can help a writer get started - but we all can tell AI generated content pretty quickly, and it gets dull.
So that's what makes me say it'll be useful in the second area, which is AI slop. Meta and them have discovered that there are a ton of gullible people out there who will happily consume AI slop left and right, roll right up to the trough and eat it down. It can't make a full feature length movie, but it can make a blog post on some half baked subject. We'll see a lot more of that.
I'll fight tooth and nail against it replacing jobs, or having full works from just AI out there. If you want to use it personally, go right ahead. I guess what I'm saying is that my moral compass around it is:
- Generate whatever you like for personal use, who cares
- For public consumption, AI should be used only to generate the "outline" of the content. If you call it done after that phase, it's slop, and it's immoral to publish it. If you want to take the outline and put your spin on it, and use it to build something new, then absolutely go for it.
It's a perfect commodity, which means it's going to be worth the least out of anything out there.
I like it as an idea flow starter. I've used it to generate stuff like site profile logos (like my little ghost in baseball cap here) and screen savers. I've used it for minor tasks like coding Excel macros and such.
But would I say it's a major life impactor? I'd have to say that even though it saves a little time here or there... no.
If it is for personal usage, I donβt mind and I donβt care. If it is just for putting on like an AI fan site.Where somebody created an image of a dragon sitting on top of a castle with knights running around, I donβt care I have no problem.
But if itβs used in movies and it is taking jobs away from people that I care. If itβs used in music and it is jobs away from people that I care. If itβs used in art or anything else, and it is taking jobs away from people then I care.
I donβt want to see computer created stuff. I wanna see what humans come up with. Itβs also why in movies I prefer practical effects over special effects.
Companies will always go for the cheapest way to do something, but at some point, weβre not gonna have enough jobs. The company wonβt care theyβre still making money off of somebody.
When we went from horse and buggy a car, the people who made the horse and buggy could take their skills to go build a car because some of the ideas transferred over.
If we keep giving the jobs to AI , where people going to go for jobs?
I want to see what people created with their own hands. Not have a person just type some keywords into a computer and have the computer just generate something.
Wouldn't art created from personal use be taking away commissions from artists? I don't see how it's functionally any different. Only the scale is changed. If I wanted a very specific picture I could either generate it myself or get it commissioned. What makes that any difference for Hollywood? Either your paying for the software and someone to generate the content or your paying for the artists? What about CGI vs practical effects? It's all the same argument.
this would go into the same argument against piracy though, most of the time people don't actually commission others for personal use stuffs, people tend to only commission stuff for things that are less personal and would be shared around. AI just happen to be a convenient option for that one use case.
You have a good point
AI content is low-quality slop. That said, sometimes low-quality slop is the best option for what you want, and in that case, it can make sense to use. That slop can also make a useful ingredient for other, better works, so long as its just a small peice used appropriately.
view more: next βΊ