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.