Matthew MalthouseThis applies to all current publicly available AI generators, not just those producing images.
Yusuf Toropov@calmeilles those fucking mechanized looms are a conspiracy to put all the honest hardworking weavers out of business, too. Bash the shit out of them every chance you get, anytime you see one.
I love all the work the word "purpose" is doing in that quote, by the way, instilling a single malign objective to all human beings who've taken part in AI development
@calmeilles if someone used images that weren't in the public domain, let's talk about the instances in which that took place
A Shiny Blue Thing@YusufToropov @calmeilles There's an entire lawsuit.
Hell yes. Do a class action thing. Sue the shit out of someone.
But don't pretend everyone who ever worked on this did it with the express "purpose of deskilling, disempowering, and replacing real, human artists." That's CLINICAL level paranoia.
Not everyone who ever worked on it, no. I don't think the programmers and actual working folks involved are intentionally working towards making themselves obsolete, for example. BUT that's ABSOLUTELY the end goal of the corporate supporters of AI use cases.
The investors? DO want to be able to push a button and generate content, no employees involved. Profit only, only power and tech maintenance bills as overhead.
And these "corporate supporters" and "investors"--for instance, a Black teacher in Mississippi w/shares in a mutual fund that tracks the S&P 500 (=Microsoft) in her retirement portfolio--we're saying ALL of them, as in every single one, has the "end goal" of making creatives obsolete? All shared/are sharing the "purpose" of "deskilling" artists and making them obsolete?
Don't get me wrong. I *do* want someone to sue.
Pro-class-action-lawsuit.
Anti-paranoia.
You are being deliberately obtuse, pointing away from the big guys and at the little folks with tertiary investment and no real control over where their piecemeal invested money goes.
I am talking about the big corporations and VC investors, and you know it. Google, Microsoft, etc. The money behind the big resource sucking datacenters is certainly not each individual who has put their money in a small investment via a financial institution.
Then let's say that. You and I are in total agreement about their exposure. The question is for what? Yes: I'm saying we want to be specific.
Who do you want to sue? Precisely? Who are we accusing of malign intent?
BTW, we're going to have a hard time proving that malign intent (which is what gets people's adrenaline going in a quote like the one I was responding to).
That dark PURPOSE of "deskilling" artists and making them obsolete.
But we CAN sue someone.
It's that broad brush that drives me nuts
And PS let's sue them for running datacenters that aren't carbon neutral first
Easier to win that case, bigger payout more likely
Accusing them of plotting against artists for the last ten years is fucking absurd and only going to turn off whatever jury we draw...
Reducing the costs of human labor has been the main goal of corporate executives for the past 50 years, to the detriment of the humans involved. Assuming it's only targeted at artists (or assuming I only mean artists when I say "creative") or has been going on only for 10 years is foolish.
I'm talking about what that quote I responded to was saying about AI, not what you were saying.
Reducing human labor costs is part of running a small business, also part of running a large business. I won't ask a family restaurant to operate without AI advances; won't ask a Fortune 1000 co. to do so either. I *will* expect the Fortune 100 to pay WAY more taxes, make good on citizenship PR BS, honor agreements w/unions, & be a responsible steward of the environment
It would be lovely to live in such a world, wouldn't it? Alas, we live in this one.
I don't want to leave you hanging, but I have to get to work now. I may be available to discuss this more in several hours.
hazelnot 
@YusufToropov @ShinyBlueThing @calmeilles when they tell you who they are, believe them
https://futurism.com/sam-altman-replace-normal-people-ai
Dude's explicitly saying that's the end goal, but I guess he's just lying to make him look worse because ???
People are trying. That's a nightmare of local regulation and contract law, plus places that have been politically hamstrung relaxing all rules to bring in corporate interests.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2024/03/ai-water-climate-microsoft/677602/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/business/artificial-intelligence-data-centers-green-power.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-data-energy-centers-water-energy-land-2023-10
Yep, that needs to change
The *purpose* is to make any need for paid creative staffing obsolete. Deskilling and its related effect of the next generation not learning how to do the work of being creative? Simply a side effect, if a desirable one to the people who want to make profits selling creatorless creative works.
If nobody can make it themselves, consumer demand will be higher.
The post I was responding to didn't say it was a side effect. The post I was responding to said it was the motive for the creation of AI. Which is clinically paranoid. And not worth letting pass without calling BS.
Also I don't see any problem w/making a profit. As long as they pay their taxes without offshore loopholes & don't hasten the destruction of ecosystems in statistically verifiable ways. Big companies that fail those tests = FUNDING WE NEED via lawsuits
You seem to be clinging to the precise order of those words, imputing importance from order, when the word doing the real heavy lifting in that statement, and the one you need to pay attention to, is *replacing.*
How is replacing of all creative work (and not just artists, they are simply much more visible than other creative folks, like programmers, writers, editors, etc.) not sinister enough?
Tell you what, I'll talk about the part of the post that pissed me off, you talk about what you want. It was DELUSIONAL/ PARANOID or knowingly manipulative, hard to say which is worse
I go back to Luddite example.People who learn how 2 use new technology are the ones who'll be more creative/productive/insert laudable-adjective-here in the economy after introduction of (mechanized looms, etc)
Those who wish tech didn't exist, swear at it to draw a crowd... I dunno
Takiro 🎨@YusufToropov @ShinyBlueThing @calmeilles
Apparently you think that creating art is a tedious work people need to be freed from. The introduction of the mechanical loom compares to AI more like replacing the people who make all the patterns and images, not the people previously making the fabric. You got your analogy all wrong.
@ShinyBlueThing @YusufToropov @calmeilles this guy runs an editing/publishing business, of course he would love to be able to replace the editors and writers with AI. Much, much cheaper, and of course he doesn't see it as sinister, because nobody thinks they're the bad guy.
@hazelnot @ShinyBlueThing @calmeilles
I don't run a publishing business, I don't want to replace a single editor or a single writer with AI, and PS it's a two-person operation. You could have found out about that if you'd decided to engage with me.
You've made some cool points and cited articles to support them, so I'm going to go out on a limb and assume a conversation is possible here, but I need you to know I've reached the age (62) where I don't waste time on people with balled fists.
@YusufToropov @ShinyBlueThing @calmeilles Fair enough. The use of the word "team" on the website made me believe you had employees, I apologize for assuming you're a capitalist who just wants to profit off of others' work.
@hazelnot @ShinyBlueThing @calmeilles
Thanks for lowering the temperature. I am a capitalist who wants to profit off MY work. I'm also a novelist, a playwright, and author of about a dozen nonfiction books. I don't want Open AI or MS scraping my stuff or anything else protected by copyright. I keep waiting for some high-end left-wing lawyer with more expertise than I will ever have to start suing these people -- but as I say I would much prefer they sued data centers for killing the planet.
@YusufToropov @hazelnot @calmeilles
Back from the work training I was in.
Are you talking to both me and the person to whom you are replying? Or are you conflating us? I've noticed several points in which you seem to be attributing things to people who didn't post them. For example, I'm not the OP of this thread, and I am the person who included links to news coverage in my replies, but I'm not the person you were replying to here.
@ShinyBlueThing @hazelnot @calmeilles
I've lost track. Sorry if I replied to OP and I also included content that sounded like I was replied to you. Not willing to scroll back and figure this out, but I'll do my level best to reply to you as an individual. Again, apologies.
Sally Strange