ClamDrinker

Yes, exactly. And I don't even disagree with making things better on the environment. It's why I dislike LLMs being pushed into random things that don't really need it. And if more efficient models exist, they should preferably be used.

But using AI to make your life a little better also brings positives that outweigh that cost. And it seems like as a society we have much bigger polluters to take care of that use orders more electricity and water, and we already struggle massively doing just that. So it really feels like misdirected anger towards the unfairness in society (which the societal cost they mentioned also seems to point to) than a real criticism of AI. And I can understand that anger, but not the mindset behind the conclusions derived from it.

This kind of AI approaches art in a way that finally kinda makes sense for my brain, so it’s frustrating seeing it shot down by people who don’t actually understand it. Stop using this stuff for tasks it wasn’t meant for (unless it’s a novelty “because we could” kind of way) and it becomes a lot more palatable.

Preach! I'm surprised to hear it works for people with aphantasia too, and that's awesome. I personally have a very vivid mind's eye and I can often already imagine what I want something to look like, but could never put it to paper in a satisfying way that didn't cost excruciating amount of time. GenAI allows me to do that with still a decent amount of touch up work, but in a much more reasonable timeframe. I'm making more creative work than I've ever been because of it.

It's crazy to me that some people at times completely refuse to even acknowledge such positives about the technology, refuse to interact with it in a way that would reveal those positives, refuse to look at more nuanced opinions of people that did interact with it, refuse even simple facts about how we learn and interact with other art and material, refusing legal realities like the freedom to analyze that allow this technology to exist (sometimes even actively fighting to restrict those legal freedoms, which would hurt more artists and creatives than it would help, and give even more more power to corporations and those with enough capital to self sustain AI model creation).

It's tiring, but luckily it seems to be mostly an issue on the internet. Talking to people (including artists) in real life about it shows that it's a very tiny fraction that holds that opinion. Keep creating 👍

Totally second the latter part - it's the self destructive nature of being blindly anti-AI. Pretty much everyone would support giving more rights and benefits to people displaced by AI, but only a fraction of that group would support an anti-AI mentality. If you want to work against the negative effects of AI in a way that can actually change things, the solution is not to push against the wall closing in on you, but to find the escape.

This is like saying you can't play video games because it costs electricity and you can go without. You can say it about literally everything that isn't strictly necessary to live. AI isn't just LLMs and only LLMs have a high environmental cost, and unless you are literally wasting the output like the big tech companies are, even that can be justified for the right reasons.

Yeah and honestly, this is largely a reasonable standard for anyone running an email server. If you don't have SPF, DKIM and DMARC, basically anyone can spoof your emails and you'd be none the wiser. It also makes spam much harder to send without well, sacrificing IP addresses to the many spam lists. I wouldn't be surprised if some people setting up their own mail server were made aware of these things because of being blocked.

There is so much wrong with this...

AI is a range of technologies. So yes, you can make surveillance with it, just like you can with a computer program like a virus. But obviously not all computer programs are viruses nor exist for surveillance. What a weird generalization. AI is used extensively in medical research, so your life might literally be saved by it one day.

You're most likely talking about "Chat Control", which is a controversial EU proposal to scan either on people's devices or from provider's ends for dangerous and illegal content like CSAM. This is obviously a dystopian way to achieve that as it sacrifices literally everyone's privacy to do it, and there is plenty to be said about that without randomly dragging AI into that. You can do this scanning without AI as well, and it doesn't change anything about how dystopian it would be.

You should be using end to end regardless, and a VPN is a good investment for making your traffic harder to discern, but if Chat Control is passed to operate on the device level you are kind of boned without circumventing this software, which would potentially be outlawed or made very difficult. It's clear on it's own that Chat Control is a bad thing, you don't need some kind of conspiracy theory about 'the true purpose of AI' to see that.

Yes, but most people dont have that or take way too long than is worth in effort and (lack of) enjoyability for a simple meme. There already exist models to unblur entire images in seconds. AI should take the shitty work lol.

You don't solve a dystopia by adding more dystopian elements. Yes, some companies are scum and they should be rightfully targeted and taken down. But the way you do that is by targeting those scummy companies specifically, and creatives aren't the only industry suffering from them. There are broad spectrum legislatures to do so, such as income based equality (proportional taxing and fining), or further regulations. But you don't do that by changing fundamental rights every artists so far has enjoyed to learn their craft, but also made society what it is today. Your idea would KILL any scientific progress because all of it depends on either for profit businesses (Not per se the scummy ones) and the freedom to analyze works without a license (Something you seem to want to get rid of), in which the vast majority is computer driven. You are arguing in favor of taking a shot to the foot if it means "owning the ~~libs~~ big companies" when there are clearly better solutions, and guess what, we already have pretty bad luck getting those things passed as is.

And you think most artists and creatives don't see this? Most of us are honest about the fact of how we got to where we are, because we've learned how to create and grow our skill set this same way. By consuming (and so, analyzing) a lot of media, and looking a whole lot at other people making things. There's a reason "good artists copy, great artists steal" is such a known line, and I'd argue against it because I feel it frames even something like taking inspiration as theft, but it's the same argument people are making in reverse for AI.

But this whole conversation shouldn't be about the big companies, but about the small ones. If you're not in the industry you might just not know that AI is everywhere in small companies too. And they're not using the big companies if they can help it. There's open source AI that's free to download and use, that holds true to open information that everyone can benefit from. By pretending they don't exist and proposing an unreasonable ban on the means, denies those without the capital and ability to build their own (licensed) datasets in the future, while those with the means have no problem and can even leverage their own licenses far more efficiently than any small company or individuals could. And if AI does get too good to ignore, there will be the artists that learned how to use AI, forced to work for corporations, and the ones that don't and can't compete. So far it's only been optional since using AI well is actually quite hard, and only dumb CEOs would put any trust in it replacing a human. But it will speed up your workflow, and make certain tasks faster, but it doesn't replace it in large pieces unless you're really just making the most generic stuff ever for a living, like marketing material.

Never heard of Cara. I don't doubt it exists somewhere, but I'm wholly uninterested in it or putting any work I make there. I will fight tooth and nail for what I made to be mine and allowing me to profit off it, but I'm not going to argue and promote for taking away the freedom that allowed me to become who I am from others, and the freedom of people to make art in any way they like. The freedom of expression is sacred to me. I will support other more broad appealing and far more likely to succeed alternatives that will put these companies in their place, and anything sensible that doesn't also cause casualties elsewhere. But I'm not going to be in favor of being the "freedom of expression police" against my colleagues, and friends, or anyone for that matter, on what tools they can or cannot not use to funnel their creativity into. This is a downright insidious mentality in my eyes, and so far most people I've had a good talk about AI with have shared that distaste, while agreeing to it being abused by big companies.

Again, they can use whatever they want, but Nightshade (And Glaze) are not proven to be effective, in case you didn't know. They rely on misunderstandings, and hypothetically only work under extremely favorable situations, and assume the people collecting the dataset are really, really dumb. That's why I call it snake oil. It's not just me saying exactly this.

If you think I'm being optimistic about UBI, I can only question how optimistic you are about your own position receiving wide spread support. So far not even most artists stand behind anti AI standpoints, just a very vocal minority and their supporters who even threaten and bully other artists that don't support their views.

It’s not about “analysis” but about for-profit use. Public domain still falls under Fair Use.

I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Public domain is free of any copyright, so you don't need a fair use exemption to use it at all. And for-profit use is not a factor for whether analysis is allowed or not. And if it was, again, it would stagnate the ability for society to invent and advance, since most frequent use is for profit. But even if it wasn't, one company can produce the dataset or the model as a non-profit, and the other company could use that for profit. It doesn't hold up.

As it stands, artists are already forming their own walled off communities to isolate their work from being publicly available

If you want to avoid being trained on by AI, that's a pretty good way to do it yes. It can also be combined with payment. So if that helps artists, I'm all for it. But I have yet to hear any of that from the artists I know, nor seen a single practical example of it that wasn't already explicitly private (eg. commissions or a patreon). Most artists make their work to be seen, and that has always meant accepting that someone might take your work and be inspired by it. My ideas have been stolen blatantly, and I cannot do a thing about it. That is the compromise we make between creative freedom and ownership, since the alternative would be disastrous. Even if people pay for access, once they've done so they can still analyze and learn from it. But yes, if you don't want your ideas to be copied, never sharing it is a sure way to do that, but that is antithetical to why most people make art to begin with.

creating software to poison LLMs.

These tools are horribly ineffective though. They waste artists time and/or degrade the artwork to the point humans don't enjoy it either. It's an artists right to use it though, but it's essentially snake oil that plays on these artists fears of AI. But that's a whole other discussion.

So either art becomes largely inaccessible to the public, or some form of horrible copyright action is taken because those are the only options available to artists.

I really think you are being unrealistic and hyperbolic here. Neither of these have happened nor have much of chance of happening. There are billions of people producing works that could be considered art and with making art comes the desire to share it. Sure there might only be millions that make great art, but if they would mobilize together that would be world news, if a workers strike in Hollywood can do that for a significantly smaller amount of artists.

Ultimately, I’d like a licensing system put in place Academics have to cite their sources for research That way, if they’ve used stuff that they legally shouldn’t, it can be proven.

The reason we have sources in research is not for licensing purposes. It is to support legitimacy, to build upon the work of the other. I wouldn't be against sourcing, but it is a moot point because companies that make AI models don't typically throw their dataset out there. So these datasets might very well be sourced. One well known public dataset LAION 5b, does source URLs. But again, because analysis can be performed freely, this is not a requirement.

Creating a requirement to license data for analysis is what you are arguing here for. I can already hear every large corporation salivating in the back at the idea of that. Every creator in existence would have to pay license to some big company because they interacted with their works at some point in their life and something they made looked somewhat similar. And copyright is already far more of a tool for big corporations, not small creators. This is a dystopian future to desire.

I think you are making the mistake of assuming disagreement with your stance means someone would say no to these questions. Simply put - it's a strawman.

Most (yes, even corporations, albeit much less so for the larger ones), would say "Yes" to this question on it's face value, because they would want the same for their own "sweat of the brow". But certain uses after the work is created no longer have a definitive "Yes" to their answer, which is why your 'simple question' is not an accurate representation, as it forms no distinctions between that. You cannot stop your publicly posted work from being analyzed, by human or computer. This is firmly established. As others have put in this thread, reducing protections over analysis will be detrimental to both artists as well as everyone else. It would quite literally cause society's ability to advance to slow down if not halt completely as most research requires analysis of existing data, and most of that is computer assisted.

Artists have always been undervalued, I will give you that. But to mitigate that, we should provide artists better protections that don't rely on breaking down other freedoms. For example, UBI. And I wish people that were against AI would focus on that, since that is actually something you could get agreement on with most of society and actually help artists with. Fighting against technology that besides it negatives also provides great positives is a losing battle.

You're confusing LLMs with other AI models, as LLMs are magnitudes more energy demanding than other AI. It's easy to see why if you've ever looked at self hosting AI, you need a cluster of top line business GPUs to run modern LLMs while an image generator can be run on most consumer 3000, 4000 series Nvidia GPUs at home. Generating images is about as costly as playing a modern video game, and only when it's generating.

It is understandable. But what is not understandable is turning a blind eye to the nuance and choosing hate over understanding. I'm glad you have not done so and done your own research, and I happily applaud you for that. But I meet plenty of people that blindly take some art social media influencer's misguided (sometimes suspiciously conveniently so) ideas on how AI works. Big companies aren't all that exists, and they are not the only ones making advancements. Or the majority of it, really. It just looks that way because they get all the attention and have all the means.

Pretending it is so is gives them far more unwarranted power than is healthy, as it creates a situation where people think they're destroying the big corporations, but in fact are destroying the means for smaller creatives that operate in the shadows to keep up and compete. AI technology will never be restricted in a way that will just harm the corporations as it currently is. Stricter copyright laws are a common proposal but I'm sure Disney et al are just downright content if that what ends up with it, as they have enough data to their own to easily train their own AI. And banning the technology as a whole would open up cans of worms that it won't be banned everywhere, leading to economic losses to the countries that do ban it.

I'm working day to day with professional artists from smaller companies that are using it for the right jobs to speed up their work. But their voices are unheard because if they speak up they get showered with hate and people calling them fake or frauds. Again, people that have created wonderful things without AI and deserve the title of artist multiple times over. They don't have millions of followers to back them up, so they just don't bother with and do what artists do, which is to create. Ironically, it's also in part artists that are silencing other artists over AI, not the big corporations.

is super energy demanding so it actively hurts the environment for no real benefit.

While I agree with that, it should be mentioned that it's mostly LLMs that require massively out of proportion energy. Generating images is about as expensive as playing a video game on high settings. Modeling software and 3D software also drain energy and producing art is just generally more expensive than consuming it. I think just saying 'it hurts the environment' is slightly misguided, since you can say that about literally everything. Humans existing at all is bad for the environment, but the balance of it is what matters. I do think LLMs go over the edge and big company's insistence to shove it into literally everything is despicable, and not proportional to the benefit.

The energy would be so much better used solving actual problems

So one thing I want to mention there is that AI is downright revolutionary in medicine. You can't look at technology as something that takes linear paths from improvement to improvements. The lessons learned in one area can also become applicable to other areas. AI can be used to detect cancers early, solve protein folding, find tumors on medical scans. And that's from just the relatively little knowledge I have of it. So yes, image generation doesn't solve such issue, but the technology that allowed them to exist does solve real tangible issues, and it's popularity and spread is inherently linked.

If some people enjoy AI generation, then that’s fine but I think it shouldn’t replace a passionate, skill-based workforce.

100% agree. No AI should ever replace humans. I would rather see people get excited to make something because of AI, and once they have some success and secure funding, switch over to competent human artists. That's how humans should replace AI in my eyes, not the other way around.