@jrdepriest @davidgerard automated gaslighting 😭
pls I have enough ppl gaslighting me not AI too /s
@davidgerard fucking up legislation with thousands of junk amendments is also something that has possibly been done
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sustainable-jobs-bill-amendments-1.7171414
@virtualinanity @davidgerard McKinsey thinking that laying people off is like an instinctive thing for them.
And they are laying off people with technical knowledge IIRC. That’s going to go badly.
@davidgerard
Our political system cannot keep up (usually because of most of them being white old dudes) with the ever-increasing pace of technology by corporations. We've seen it with the aboslute shit-show the internet has become, despite its early promise of democratising knowledge and leveling the playing field.
The point that worries me the most is the abrogation. Unless our lawmakers act, the current regulatory capture will let the corps off with almost anything. Genuinely scary.
The main purpose of AI will be plausible deniability for politically funded propaganda campaigns and foreign malign influence operations.
Social media was rightfully castigated for their lack of content moderation leading up to Jan 6.
To absolve themselves of the Coup 2.0 being funded by Russia & their Republicans, social media platforms plan to blameshift to their AI, instead of blaming the Russian Internet Agency for gaming their engagement algorithms
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/09/16/1035851/facebook-troll-farms-report-us-2020-election/
@davidgerard
• Impressing the techno-illiterate
• Annoying me in particular
• Demonstrating, plainly, that simply because a technology works doesn’t mean it’s practical
I’ll have higher hopes for AI once the people currently selling it are honest about its current capabilities.
A wrench has nefarious uses. That's not a fault of the wrench though, but of the nefarious user.
Why is there so much hate for AI, rather than hate for Capitalists, the people nefariously using the tool?
While I think there's plenty of room to hate capitalists and their nefarious schemes in general, I feel compelled to point out that a wrench has at least one legitimate, non-nefarious purpose, but I have yet to see one of those established for AI.
Computers put millions of people out of a job when they became a common thing 40 years ago. AI has been around for like 2 or 3 years. Or are you holding a new technology to a standard that all other forms of technology weren't held to at their creation? Might I remind the internet was called a passing fad in the early 1990s? The Internet also put thousands if not millions of people out of jobs.
The Technology is never the problem, the Capitalists are.
As for "what legitimate uses are there for AIs?". My groups GameMaster has been using it to create lots of visual aids for our TableTop RPGs. And I've seen other people post on Reddit about their GMs doing the same.
@timgatewood @atatassault @tstrike78 @davidgerard Stolen, yes... but I think that's a weak argument, because humans learn from art they see as well - every picture seen is a slight alteration to the neural network. AI just makes the link from input to output more explicit.
The DMs understand something of the role of AI in art: It sucks. But sometimes you don't need a piece of greatly talented artistic work. Sometimes you need something fast, cheap, and just barely passable. AI can do that.
@Qybat @[email protected] @tstrike78 @davidgerard Stolen work means the artists don't get paid. Until we're living in a utopia where money isn't needed to live or do things or have health, artists not getting paid is the end of the argument. Pay the artists or it's not a legitimate use.
So-called AI is being pushed by tech bros who don't understand how art is made & don't want to pay the artists to make it. It doesn't matter how great or how cruddy the outcome of using it is, it is not legit.
@timgatewood @tstrike78 @davidgerard You're getting into arguments far beyond the scope of AI there, and into fundamental issues of economics and sociology. This is far from the first time technological change reduced the commercial value of a skill and left once-successful people unemployed. There is no fundamental right to be paid, and it would take a revolution to change that.
Art just occupies an odd place, being both a deeply personal process and a firmly commercial field. Contradictory.
@Qybat @viq @timgatewood @tstrike78
> The energy usage should come down with more mature technology.
in practice, any improvement in the tech is going to as much compute as they can possibly put in
ffs please read up on things before posting
@Qybat @timgatewood @tstrike78 @davidgerard Folk don't rush from their easel to spend eight hours down the pit, but they do the other way around.
Art has always only been only tangentially commercial, in that the people need a vast amount of time to do it which means working out how to fit it around or instead of labour. The idea that the whole great panjandrum of museums, auctions, collectors, etc is anything other than auxilliary to art -- that the personal and commercial aspects are in any way comparable -- is a bit silly.
Would we want a robot priest (perfectly programmed with word-perfect catechisms) to displace human ones at a great cost savings to the church and that's just progress, dude? And *then* they get shirty when we ask whether a given priest is human or robot?
@Qybat @timgatewood @tstrike78 @davidgerard The value of that use of art is ultimately "backed" by its value as a cultural work, though and, in return, *pays* for that work. It's a reciprocal process.
I'm not disagreeing with you that artists will lose work if AI art is left unchecked.
What I'm suggesting is that this is a different *category* of problem to miners or car makers losing work.
I'm not an artist and I live in an ex-mining area, so I don't really have a dog in the game, but I've never yet met a miner (project manager, cashier) who misses the activity of mining *per se* (rather than, say, "having a good job"), for example by rushing home from a new job to mine (project manage, run a checkout) in their free time because it makes them feel good.
People say the automation of art "just like" these things, and it isn't. It's the weird deal we do to keep culture alive that in other times flourished by other means (religion, etc).
@Qybat @timgatewood @tstrike78 @davidgerard I mean, there's lots of ways of making money that are illegal. Like drug running, or blackmail, or beating up old people in the street.
I mean people didn't say "Fentanyl's just progress in the mu-opioid binding affinity sector": people who don't keep up with progress are just luddites.
As far as I can tell, what usually happens with these things is lawmakers look at a thing and assess its impact on human flourishing and what costs it might have externalised from the financial transaction (pollution, etc), and then decide to legislate or not.
@chiffchaff @timgatewood @tstrike78 @davidgerard
Silliness aside, it can be a problem. Think of how entire towns were left in ruin when mining shifted from thousands of men with picks into a highly-mechanised industry employing far fewer people operating giant machines. Or the creation of the "rust belt" as cheap global transport caused industry to move elsewhere.
AI doesn't make good art. But a mediocre artist with AI can make good art, at superhuman speed.
@chiffchaff @Qybat @tstrike78 @davidgerard
"As far as I can tell, what usually happens with these things is lawmakers look at a thing and assess its impact on human flourishing and what costs it might have externalised from the financial transaction (pollution, etc), and then decide to legislate or not." <-- That is the claim of how government works. The reality is that far more often, it's what gets contributions to the legislators for re-election, aka what benefits rich folk.
@timgatewood @Qybat @tstrike78 @davidgerard Well, yes. I should have said "should" and "let's aim", not that this was current reality.
It was an "intention of parliament" kind of description of lawmaking. We all know that parliament does things because a third of the members are asleep or drunk, a third have been paid off, and a third are lost in a pit of despair, but I've never heard a court interpreting the "intent of parliament" when drafting legislation in that way.
WhereDoesThisButtonGo
David Gerard
[object Object]
España Bizarra
Ehproque has moved
René Vadidis
holothuroid
J. R. DePriest 
:EA DATA. SF:
mercurial yapper (now in plasmatrap.com)
Bee O'Problem 
kflanagan
Bill Harrison
Q. Edwards
Frank
Michał "rysiek" Woźniak · 🇺🇦
Zekovski 🧣
wasabi brain
Misuse Case
wolfkin
A. Rivera
Ashton Black
eagerpebble
spmatich vk3spm 
HumToTable
Frank Patz-Brockmann
Nicole Parsons
enoch_exe_inc
AT-AT Assault 🏳️⚧️
Thunderstrike
Tim Gatewood
Noah Cook
Louis Marelle
viq
kæt
hazelnot 