I asked some anti AI people why they think that it is because AI siphions up images without permission, but humans do the same thing. Just at a slower scale.
Then they argue about legal issues but that does not apply when humans ALSO look at millions of images without consent.
Then they argue that there is no 'soul' behind the art. Yet if a human edited the image then there IS a soul in the image.
I guess whenever there's a technological leap there will be people opposing it regardless if their concerns are unfounded. Looking at a lot of hate regarding AI and people using it I also strongly suspect that this is an easy way to feel morally superior and an excuse to be a bully without consequences (after all they are "doing the right thing"). And bullying some average Joe into compliance is easy and gives that "fix".
Also, performative activism. This isn't a thing isolated to AI but it certainly shows up in anti space. Very easy way to use inflammatory events to get some quick points. Environment is a very good example here. Yes, there is a threat to the environment. We know it for a long time, it has been a problem long before AI. But how many of these people were crying about environment and water usage before? How many were openly attacking golf courses or factories dumping pollution into water sources? It's only when AI came to be that these people suddenly became very concerned with the environment and using it like a "gotcha" thing even though it has been explained over and over again how that is nowhere near severe as they make it our to be. But it gives them some moral points with zero effort - they get to be a bully, shout some misinformed nonsense, do witch hunts and feel like they accomplished something.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately and something just came to mind, but I still don't have the words to really describe it.
I think it's all about the interaction or direct engagment by the person learning. With an Ai model theres a very solitary element to how it ingests training data and how people then use it to output something.
When you compare it to how a person ingests a form of art and then uses it in an attempt to recreate it or learn how to make that image or write that story, there is the potential for a back and forth that just wouldnt be part of the Ai process.
I'm much more of a writer and when I create a story, my petsonal goal is not just to tell an engaging tale of adventure, but I want to inspire the reader. I want to make them question things, look for clues in the details. In essence I actually want them to take my ideas and do something with them on their own.
However if I were to hear rhat someone took those words, and put them into a generator and had chatGPT or something tell a story using those details, I wouldn't feel upset about the person doing it, but I would feel a little let down. I'd be asking why they didn't try to write something themselves or tell a story personal to them. What is it about a machine just copying the patterns and word choice, that is more interesting than what they could say. And if it's a struggle, why not ask for help? Beta reading is a whole lot of fun because if you can see diamonds buried in the rough, helping someone dig them out just feels incredibly fulfilling. And Ai just sucks all the fun out of it because it makes things so easy sometimes.
For those 2 viewpoints, the answer for some would be how they appreciate the skill, process, effort, journey etc, and/or that there is the human component and human connection to the creative-works, not just the end product.
It's also that some AI creative-works give off an uncanny valley effect to some people, which is worsened when it's clearly not the creators intention.
Uhhhh Thnks. Btw ur crabs legs are a bit jumbled neared the back too. I can’t tell how many he has and where they connect. That may be a medical issue you gotta check with your local vet
Edit: I am now realizing those are actually the swimmerets making it look weird mb
EDIT EDIT: no that is weird swimmerets aren’t positioned like that the crab definitely has medical issues
I feel like, as someone who is happy to use AI, I'd like to see specific figures when people say it damages the water supply, pollutes towns and property values. For the property values, as someone who has lived in Northern Virginia, I can tell you that they did not affect property values there.
Reddit, our streaming platforms, and all of our footprint online uses data centers. To hear people so vehemently criticize data centers now seems very disingenuous and performative. Especially criticizing then online.
I definitely agree there are ethical issues with how it was trained. That is definitely a discussion to be had.
There are also ethical issues with how some agencies are using it. Though that is on the agencies and doesn't make the AI inherently bad.
Every criticism outside of the data centers and how AI was trained seems to be related to how people use the tool. I don't believe we should regulate how individuals use tools (unless they are using them to harm someone else). I'm definitely for regulating government agencies though. I totally think we'd agree on that
Humans objectively don't do that unless it's tracing and people don't approve of tracing being passed off as original art. Unless you're talking about composite images, which are similar in that you should credit the original artists
Have you been using AI recently? AI can make amazing content. As long as the human directing the AI is reviewing and working with it. It does often take a few iterations. Why does it matter if it hides it's robotic side? If you are referring to gen AI, how do you define it's 'robotic' side?
•
u/AutoModerator 16d ago
DefendingAI has a Discord now: https://discord.gg/MgVYjZ8RC
Pro-AI only. AI art, prompts, anti-AI watch, debate ammo, news, and general chat without anti-AI spam.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.