Mastodawn

Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries?

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/35012211

Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? - Divisions by zero

I don’t get this. AI bros talk about how “in the near future” no one will “need” to be a writer, a filmmaker or a musician anymore, as you’ll be able to generate your own media with your own parameters and preferences on the fly. This, to me, feels like such an insane opinion. How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art? Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all? And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?

givesomefucks Jan 6, 2025

Everyone’s frame of reference is their own IQ…

So for some people AI seems as smart as their frame of reference, or even better.

They assume their frame of reference is everyone’s, so we’re in that weird period where dumb people are super excited about AI, and smart people still think it’s a gimmick.

Those people who find AI impressive, see it as a means to level the playing field, and it will eventually.

It just means the smarter you are, the longer it’s going to take to be impressive. Because your frame of reference is just a higher standard.

They’d never be as creative as a creative person, so to them it’s switching from relying on a person they have no control over or influence on, to a computer program that will do whatever is asked. To them it generates the same quality as a person, don’t forget the most popular media caters to the lowest common denominator, this is the same thing.

Like, it makes sense from their perspective. You just need to realize everyone has a different perspective.

It’s human variation

QubaXR Jan 6, 2025

Pretty good points there, though i’d argue it’s not just pure numerical IQ, but mostly life experience. The more variety of life you experience, the more you know of human history, different cultures, ways of thinking and seeing the world - the harder it is for you to get impressed by something as shallow as AI.

Tech bros live in a bubble of their own creation and don’t understand the true richness of the human condition.

givesomefucks Jan 6, 2025

it’s not just pure numerical IQ,

We talk about IQ like it’s a single number, but it’s like SAT/ACT, a bunch of different specific scores averaged into one number. So yeah it’s not as simple as a single number. I was thinking mostly processing speed and associative memory, but obviously you need the general knowledge as well.

The more variety of life you experience, the more you know of human history, different cultures, ways of thinking and seeing the world - the harder it is for you to get impressed by something as shallow as AI.

This is a very specific and easily fixable problem. It’s trained by a certain class of people, so it’s going to regurgitate stuff from that class and ignore everyone who hadn’t trained it.

Tech bros live in a bubble of their own creation and don’t understand the true richness of the human condition.

Nobody is gonna argue with that tho

kadu Jan 6, 2025

The AI bros can’t draw, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.

The AI bros can’t sing, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.

The AI bros can’t write, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.

The AI bros can only consume, and AI is great for generating a lot of endless content lacking any depth.

Yingwu Jan 6, 2025

Everything about this just feels really depressing. I’m guessing many people in the world are similar about only caring about consumption. As long as they deem it “good”, they don’t care how/when/where and by whom it was produced by.

LainTrain Jan 6, 2025

Eh, I make my own music and somewhat play guitar, I don’t even use samples because it feels personally a bit like cheating myself out of the most challenging and interesting part, though ofc plenty way more talented and successful musicians sample all the way, so it’s just a personal stance.

I’d say actually it’s that experience, just making art as self-expression that has thoroughly inoculated me against artbro talking points.

I’m not against creative industries, nor am I pro corpos, but AI is just a tool and now that anybody can make images, the drawing people seethe, sorry not sorry, I’d rather make creativity more accessible than please egos of a select few rich kid narcissists.

kadu Jan 6, 2025

I’d rather make creativity more accessible

I’ve seen beautiful artwork done with charcoal on paper. AI doesn’t make creativity more accessible, AI uses an absurd amount of power and stolen work to make you feel better pretending the prompt you generated means that creativity is yours.

LainTrain Jan 6, 2025

But the prompt is the creative aspect. It’s always the idea, and the rest is convention and form. And lol, modern poor aren’t going to have access to charcoal, paper, time or a deathbed, but they’re going to have a smartphone, hence it does indeed make creative expression more accessible.

I’d never have even tried music if I couldn’t pirate a DAW, plugins etc etc. Sure, cheap eBay fender clones and bargain bin amps help too, but like AI, piracy met me where I was. Shit ain’t cheap but once you know how to sail the high seas the possibilities are endless and it encouraged me to explore more.

Heck I’d actually gotten better at drawing too thanks to AI, I don’t have the time or energy as a wageslave to hone those skills, I’m not a millionaire like PewDiePie, but I can at least draw some basic shapes now because using that with controlnets and img2img in SD to produce ideas from my imagination was just encouraging enough to get me going and more realistically attainable. As with music, it brought me great joy.

Creativity isn’t to be gatekept and those select few privileged enough to practice it in lieu of something more materially useful aren’t to be put on a pedestal, there’s no such thing as talent for most people, just barriers to entry and accessibility.

People being able to enjoy art and artistry, especially not just by brainless consumption, but by producing it themselves will always be a good thing in my book. That’s what generative AI does.

All the artbros seething are just landlords of the art world feeling their houses lose value to new buildings that belong to everyone.

All the arguments about power use are null and void because if it wasn’t this it’d be something else, most advances in computing would require more power, we need to solve that problem with nuclear & renewables, not by artificially placing a cap on scientific advancements.

kadu Jan 6, 2025

But the prompt is the creative aspect.

Please add a warning before typing such non-sense, I was drinking coffee and almost spit it out in my monitor.

LainTrain Jan 6, 2025

So do you have a rebuttal or? Because this is the way I see it, using music because it’s what I know more:

I get an idea in my head for a melody or piece of music -> I either lay it out on an instrument or in a DAW piano roll or on paper -> I tweak and refine and add/remove elements -> I export the file and upload to a website.

The actual creative spark is the first step, the rest is a matter of speaking the language and skills at using the tools of choice to convey ideas clearly. Both are skills in and of themselves but one is about technique, the other is about a well-trained imagination and analytical mindset.

Prompts in that case are just another language like notes and scales, used to put ideas into form.

Then you add onto that LoRAs, controlnets, refiner models, custom refines of existing models, embeddings, weights, sampling steps, classifier-free guidance scale, and it’s quite a lot to actually learn and use effectively.

I don’t see how it’s any less creative whatsoever. Less skilled? Sure, absolutely, it can be. No denying there. Understanding that notes fit into scales and what a key is in music is a much bigger learning curve than simply typing in what you want, but in both cases that’s not all there is to it.

Maybe you could say it’s also less intentional, but plenty of art has unintentional elements which doesn’t make it any less creative.

I’m sure every amateur musician had that one experience where you make a piece of music that you think is sad, show it to a friend and they say it sounds cheerful, it doesn’t happen because you’re uncreative, it happens because your ‘musical language’ needs work.

Eventually you make that one track with a clear intent and show it to someone and they tell you exactly what you meant by it and it is the best gosh darn feeling on earth.

Proompting may be goofy, but it’s just another language, and it doesn’t invalidate the creative spark that starts it all.

Thistlewick Jan 6, 2025

If I commission a human artist to paint me a picture or write me a song, did I create it? I gave them the prompt to generate the work with their skills, so I must be as creative and skilled as any work they return, right?

You’ve asked something else to make your art, and then claimed that because you were really specific with your request that you deserve the kudos for the creativity and skill of the art. Pick up a pen and stop stealing existing artists’ work in order to force a computer to stroke your delusional ego.

kadu Jan 7, 2025

So do you have a rebuttal or?

Sure! According to your moronic argument, using AI is being creative, so I have a totally original, creative, full credit to me, reply generated with ChatGPT to you:

“Ah, yes, the old “I get an idea, I play with some tools, and voilà, creativity!” argument. How wonderfully simplistic. Let’s break this down, shall we?

First of all, your analogy between music composition and AI image generation is… well, cute. But it misses the mark in every way imaginable. You claim that prompts are “just another language like notes and scales.” Sure, in theory, they both help convey an idea—but one requires years of training, understanding of harmony, rhythm, texture, and the emotional weight of every note, while the other requires you to type a few words and hope for the best. That’s a little different, don’t you think? One requires mastery of an art form, and the other just needs a dictionary.

You mention using DAWs and instruments, where you “refine and tweak” to get the perfect sound. That’s great! But last time I checked, a piano doesn’t generate random melodies for you based on some keyword you type in. It doesn’t spit out a bunch of garbage until you say “oh, that’s close enough.” There’s a bit more finesse in playing an instrument or composing than clicking a button to “refine” a half-baked prompt until you get something that looks vaguely close to your idea. It’s like saying cooking a 5-star meal is no different than microwaving a frozen dinner because they both involve food at the end.

And then there’s the whole “not all creativity needs to be intentional” bit. Sure, there’s room for happy accidents, but when you’re typing in a prompt, it’s not about the accident—it’s about how many times you can hit the “regenerate” button until something pops out that looks vaguely like what you intended. If that’s your idea of “creative spark,” I’m afraid you might be confusing convenience with artistry.

Let’s not even get into the long list of terms you threw in there like “LoRAs” and “sampling steps,” which—spoiler alert—don’t actually make you an artist. They just make you someone who’s trying to sound like they’re mastering something complicated, when in reality, you’re just a user, not a creator. This isn’t about understanding the “tools of choice” or “learning to use” anything. It’s about what you’re producing with those tools. If all you’re doing is pushing buttons and waiting for software to do the heavy lifting, I’m not sure I’d call that “creativity” so much as “optimizing the use of someone else’s work.”

In the end, the best track isn’t the one where you typed in a prompt and got something halfway decent. It’s the one you built from the ground up, where you sweat the small stuff, honed your craft, and put heart into what you made. Sure, there’s no denying that learning the technical aspects of music is challenging—but at least it’s a real challenge, not just following the whims of an algorithm until you get something “good enough.”

But hey, you keep telling yourself that pushing the button is just as creative as composing an entire symphony. If it makes you feel better, go for it!”

I have to say, I’m actually impressed at how well it captured how I’d want to reply to your comment, the snark is on point.

agent_nycto Jan 6, 2025

Everyone already can be creative and make images you moron

LainTrain Jan 6, 2025

Why don’t they then? And why do they now that AI is around?

Almost as if there’s a barrier to entry there for most people that’s been removed.

agent_nycto Jan 7, 2025

People do make art and be creative still so I don’t know why you’re asking why they don’t.

And people still do it because making art is a thing humans do and like to do. People still sew even though they can just buy clothing.

Acting like there’s a barrier for entry to make art is a flat out delusion. Humans were making art on caves with chalk and dirt they found. You can make art with a stick. Acting like artists are rich elitists is the most ignorant and incorrect thing I’ve ever read on the Internet.

LainTrain Jan 8, 2025

You do realise a barrier to entry doesn’t mean that something is literally impossible for everyone, but that it’s an obstacle for some?

It’s disingenuous comparing art someone would want to look at produced today to literal caveman drawings.

And yes artists are absolutely rich elites, the often very literal top 10%, feel free to look at my other comments ITT for why I’ve found this to be the case.

Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? - Divisions by zero

I don’t get this. AI bros talk about how “in the near future” no one will “need” to be a writer, a filmmaker or a musician anymore, as you’ll be able to generate your own media with your own parameters and preferences on the fly. This, to me, feels like such an insane opinion. How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art? Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all? And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?

agent_nycto Jan 9, 2025

Dude artists are some of the most broke people out there, to the point where the starving artist is a trope, what are you smoking?

LainTrain Jan 9, 2025

I only smoke consume nicotine, water and food, cheers. I’ve heard of the trope but have never seen a contemporary example IRL or even not IRL if I think about it.

See my response to a similar question here: lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/15822412

I understand it’s “common knowledge” but I’ve been questioning it for a while.

I’m happy to be proven wrong if you’d be willing, but so far I’ve not been and as such I’m not sure this trope has any resemblance to reality in the modern day.

Why do AI bros and other staunch AI defenders seem happy about the potential of killing off the creative industries? - Divisions by zero

I don’t get this. AI bros talk about how “in the near future” no one will “need” to be a writer, a filmmaker or a musician anymore, as you’ll be able to generate your own media with your own parameters and preferences on the fly. This, to me, feels like such an insane opinion. How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art? Do these people not see or feel the human behind it all? And are these really opinions that you’ve encountered outside of the internet?

agent_nycto Jan 11, 2025

It’s called sample bias. You’re only talking about the artists you’ve personally met, not the statistics of artists as a whole.

I also think you’ve got a bias in favor of tech bros because you see them as hard workers, and see artists as lazy elites.

And when I am talking about artists, I’m not talking about the small fraction that are in “high” arts with museums n shit.

It sounds to me that you you don’t really know a lot of artists and don’t really know a lot about this whole situation but still managed to form an opinion.

LainTrain Jan 12, 2025

It’s called sample bias. You’re only talking about the artists you’ve personally met, not the statistics of artists as a whole.

I know what sample bias is.

If you read my linked comment carefully, I’m not talking about just people I’d met IRL personally, I genuinely don’t know of any actually struggling contemporary artbros.

Statistics lie, like I said, they may earn less on paper as a wage, but they are raking it in otherwise or have QoL far superior to even the top wagies, if they couldn’t, they’d be working at a factory.

And when I am talking about artists, I’m not talking about the small fraction that are in “high” arts with museums n shit.

And did I mention or imply I meant anything of the sort? No by artbros I just meant (like in the linked comment) people who are professionally doing things like animating, drawing, 3D modeling/CGI, writing, film or music.

What relevance does this section of your comment pose? Is it just an attempt at strawmanning me as some ignoramus who thinks arts are just in museums or something? It’s not very nice of you.

also think you’ve got a bias in favor of tech bros because you see them as hard workers, and see artists as lazy elites.

Prove me wrong then.

It sounds to me that you you don’t really know a lot of artists and don’t really know a lot about this whole situation but still managed to form an opinion.

If that were the case I’d still know way more than you it seems.

Or do you have an actual counterpoint, like an example?

agent_nycto Jan 14, 2025

So you’re saying you don’t know of any financially struggling artists.

How exactly would you hear about an artist who isn’t doing well financially but is so popular you’d hear about them? If you actually hung out in artist circles then you’d know a lot of artists like that, so yeah, I’m assuming you don’t.

You said that if they appeared to not be making money they are essentially lying about it or going off to work in a factory.

So you’re preventively arguing against any evidence to the contrary of the poor artist. As for the factory part, my brother in Christ, that’s what most artists have to do. They work part time or full time jobs, sometimes multiple jobs, to supplement their income.

As for your definition of artbro, that’s a myopic sliver of the art world as a whole, and I am dismissing your aren’t to limit the conversation to just those people, because the topic is about generative ai which affects the WHOLE art community. Amateurs to full on professionals. In every branch of the arts.

I guess this is where the miscommunication has been happening, since I’m talking about artists as a whole and you’re only talking about those which have gotten jobs in specific industries.

So I apologize, I thought you were coming from a more holistic, knowledgeable, informed, and experienced position than you were and shouldn’t have put that upon you.

shalafi Jan 6, 2025

Neither is true.

agent_nycto Jan 7, 2025

Elaborate

shalafi Jan 9, 2025

The vast majority of people don’t have a creative bone in their body. Most people are some variation of stupid. Intelligence and creativity usually go hand in hand.

Perhaps you disagree? Consider, just being here, in this space, having this conversation, puts you well above most people in intelligence. And your friends and coworkers likely reflect that intelligence. Still don’t believe me? Sign into Facebook with a new account, look around. And those are the people who can and do use technology.

I’m barely above average, 119 IQ, but I’ve got down in the trenches, at work and in interpersonal relationships. Yeah. Most people are dumber than me, and that’s scary. Odds are, you’re smarter than me.

And no, even among the smarter set, most people can’t make an image without a website to do it for them. I worked at a shop that was part graphic design. It’s appalling how clueless people are at creating the simplest thing. And I am no artist.

agent_nycto Jan 9, 2025

I see creativity as an inherently human trait. I’ve known plenty of people who are smart and have very low creativity, and people who aren’t that bright who come up with very creative ideas. And people who are both and neither.

Making images and arts are only part of that creativity, there’s more to it than that.

fubbernuckin Jan 7, 2025

My guy, we live in a world where we are required to have a job to live. Most of those jobs are not essential for society to function. Some of these jobs make people happy and passionate, many others are soul grating and awful. This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs much less lucrative while the product becomes worse. We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what? Like seriously, I cannot think of something an ai can bring to the table that a human cannot in terms of art.

Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it? Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy? If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in I’d be all for this kind of advancement, but it does not make life easier, it does not get us better things, and it almost exclusively makes life worse for millions of people with nothing to show for it.

eronth Jan 7, 2025

I think this is the big contention point. In a world without a need for jobs, AI would be a neat alternative method of art generation, and a fascinating advancement of technology as a whole…

but UBI is not yet real and jobs still need to be had. Without some form of life-securement for those who provided the art to be trained off of, we’re just using tech to really fuck people over. It’s definitely a moral grey area - very dark grey.

LainTrain Jan 7, 2025

We simply lose things that bring people joy and for what?

Why would you campaign to strictly make people less happy?

I disagree completely. Idk but creating brings millions of people joy, anything that democratizes it more accessible is a good thing. AI has absolutely brought many more people joy.

A world where a technology exists that can query the sum of human knowledge and skill to translate ideas into form but is gatekept because few people like feeling special is a horrifying dystopia and I can’t imagine how someone could be so fucking evil as to really wish for that.

Like really, I want to keep giving y’all benefit of the doubt that you simply don’t consider a perspective outside your own, but you don’t make it easy.

This technology makes some of those enjoyable jobs

Technology is what made those jobs enjoyable and accessible to those who do them now in the first place.

Nobody is forcing you to use AI or any technology, you can still farm goats and use them to make drums before you lay out a beat, people will probably be pretty impressed if you did that.

Why would you want to remove the jobs people enjoy and are passionate about just for the sake of it?

If they are passionate about their craft for the sake of it they will keep doing it, if they are doing it as a job then like with any other job market when new technologies or trends arrive they will have to adapt.

To put it in perspective with an analogy: It’s an absurd notion for instance that new programming languages should be banned not for their quality but simply because not every developer will learn them, and it’s an absurd notion that someone who loves programming in C for the sake of it cannot do so just because Java exists.

Having DAWs did not make it illegal to mess around with an old rompler and a step sequencer for the sake of it, nor did orchestra plugins eliminate violins, but market demands orchestral music done quicker, you either do this or don’t.

If it wasn’t for the horrible system we live in

This would be the case for every system that still has some market demands, even something like anarcho-communist cooperative based market economics would favour technological advancement and efficiency every time and some jobs would simply not be in demand any more.

There is simply no economic system that makes any sense where someone would need to hire an orchestra for every sting on kitchen nightmares instead of using a VST or sample library or now in the not too distant future - generating one.

I fully agree that we need to change the system to ensure when these technological advancements happen that people don’t end up on the street.

However, I’m sure most would agree that even though it was not fair to e.g. human computers, the move to electronic calculators is a net positive for society.

Similarly endlessly distributable digital copies of books etc. democratized media to a massive degree even if it put libraries at risk.

but it does not make life easier,

It definitely does make life easier for many artists, for instance you can upscale old media or restore media where the original was lost to time, game devs can use AI-generated assets for background stuff like adding nigh-infinite variety to textures that would be impractical for an indie dev to do or a sole dev can compensate for whatever skills they lack manually etc.

it does not get us better things

I think with regards to quality it’s completely value neutral, I’ve seen plenty of dogshit AI art, but also some really good unique stuff. I think it just follows Sturgeon’s Law as everything.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law

Sturgeon's law - Wikipedia

mapumbaa Jan 7, 2025

Thank you.

blaggle42 Jan 8, 2025

Maybe the real problem is the AI slop, which is really just humans being lazy.

In my immediate neighborhood there are two pastry bakeries. One has lines of people summoned by the TikTok/Instagram, who take videos of themselves eating. The other is known to locals, but never self promotes.

You can imagine, that the non-promoting one has amazing pastries. The best I’ve ever had. The TikTok one does have a trendy fancy interior, made for videos.

People want to be seen at a pastry place. That fake pastry place wants to be seen as an awesome bakery, even though really, without the marketing they are below average. Some guy wants to be seen as writing pop music, even though he can’t. Another wants to draw, even though I won’t spend the thousands of hours required.

Art is really about understanding the effort. Human effort.

Somehow, I can just imagine having AI slop music, and AI slop movies, and AI slop everything.

If a movie house is going to be Steve Jobs Pixar, they are going to hire the best real artists and the best real writers, and do something that means something to be human. They aren’t interested in slop.

If a movie house is going to be just for profit, are they going to even pay for the generative AI to do a few more iterations. I think they will keep it at slop.

Anyhow, a bit too much babble. Must sleep.

Yingwu Jan 8, 2025

This is truly my exact worry.

whatalute Jan 7, 2025

I honestly find it fascinating that you view artists as the “rich kid narcissists” in comparison to AI proponents as more of an everyman. My personal experience is those the most engaged in AI stuff are college educated, often in STEM fields, silicon valley with money types, whereas the generally the working artists I know come from middle income or poor backgrounds. I don’t say this trying to attack you, or invalidate your experience, I’m genuinely curious. Would you be willing to elaborate on why you view them this way?

LainTrain Jan 7, 2025

My experience is simply the polar opposite of yours.

Most artists I’ve known of are extremely upper class, at the very least they come from very privileged backgrounds, and usually had the safety net required to take gap years for unpaid apprenticeships or to start bands, have capital to invest and can afford to lose it, can live with parents and rely on them financially waiting for publishing deals or comissions money or adrev etc etc.

Come to think of it IRL I actually have never heard of a “working class” artist, other than in the strict Marxist sense in that they’re not an owner class.

Even if they work a low paying or shitty job part-time they almost always have very high QoL due to those privileged backgrounds. One guy who went into the arts I know has a day job that paid half mine out of the gate, but he had way more disposable cash because his parents paid his rent and bills.

A friend of mine who’s in theatre just bailed out after school, took a gap year, did an unpaid apprenticeship and later got a day job as a theatre tech, now swimming in cash from being a manager and her published plays, she’s the second richest person I know.

I’m not saying that arts are just a passtime of the rich mind you, (though I do think the rabidly anti-ai types have a “fuck you got mine” streak) I think it’s survivorship bias ultimately, those who can be full-time or even decently part-time professional artists in some capacity are the ones who have privilege.

Meanwhile 99.9% of “Techbros” aka people in CompSci at uni were the hustler-grindset type working folks trying to escape poverty or otherwise move up the ladder, either real career chasers who are all about networking or grifters/scammers/shady characters you’d see betting on horses and hanging out in money laundering candy/barbershops.

They were in it for the money alone because they heard the money is good and that’s because they def needed the money.

Most people had at least 1 job just to afford rent, many had 2 (uni is pretty much free here in the UK).

The only rich people were drug dealers in blacked out BMWs and Chinese immigrants with Rolexes and extremely strong spice vapes and no knowledge of English.

The remaining 0.1% were genuinely gifted kids who pursued PhDs or less talented nerds (me) and they were all usually not super well off locals or they were immigrants from shithole countries of families who could afford to send their kids overseas and not much else, where they prolly didn’t need to work semester time but they couldn’t fuck around either (also me).

Idk about Silicon Valley, I’m not American nor have been, from what I’ve seen people who talk about the “bay area” on Mastodon are either insufferable cunts or some kind of weird internet people/hacking savants/furries though.

mapumbaa Jan 7, 2025

Yes. 👏

hoshikarakitaridia Jan 6, 2025

Hello,

Let me chime in as someone who would probably fall under your definition of an AI defender.

How do I defend AI? Well, I think AI really flips the world on it’s head. Including all the good and the bad that comes from it. I still think the industrialization is a good metaphor. Things changed a lot. A lot of people were pissed. Now we don’t mind as much anymore, because it’s the new normal, but at the time, most people weren’t happy about it.

Same with AI. I think overall it’s a plus, but obviously it comes with new pitfalls. LLM hallucinations, the need for more complex copyright and licensing definitions, impersonation, etc. . It’s not entirely great, but I totality, when the dust settles, it will be a helpful tool to make our lives easier.

So why do I defend AI? Basically, because I think it will happen, whether you like it or not. Even if the law will initially make it really strict, society will change their mind about it. It might be slowly, but it’s just too useful to outlaw.

Going back to industrialization metaphor, we adapted it over a longer period of time. Yes, it forever changed how most things are made, but it wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. It’s just a thing. And even though lots of logistics chains are streamlined, there’s always gonna be handmade things and unique things. Ofc, not everything is handmade, but some important things still are. And for both of them, there’s some stuff that’s totally fine to be automated, and then there’s some stuff that just loses it’s value if we just gloss over with automation.

Now I don’t want AI to just roam free (ofc not, there’s some really bad stuff happening and I’m not pretending that it’s not) but what we need is laws and enforcement against it, and not against AI.

Imagine if most countries outlawed AI. It would make all AI companies and users move operation to that one country that still allows it, making it impossible to oversee and enforce against. So we better find a good strategy to allow it for all the things where it doesn’t do damage.

Now let me address some specific points you brought up;

In the near future no one will “need” to be a writer

But isn’t this already how it’s going? Only people who wanna be a writer are one, anf it’s good that way.

Also, AI can only remix the art that’s already there, so if you’re doing something completely unique, AI won’t ever be able to replace you. I find that somehow validating for the people who make awesome and unique art. I think that’s how it should be.

Do these people not see or feel the human behind the art at all?

I do. And that’s the exact reason I’m not concerned. Everyone who puts in the work to make something very particular to them should not be impacted in any way.

Now there’s an argument to be made how consent for training data is given (opt-in / opt-out) and what licensing for the models can and should look like, but this is my very basic opinion.

Are these really opinions you have encountered outside of the internet?

I may have about one friend out of 30 who thinks like me.

I mean I am living proof we exist, but I can’t say this is a popular opinion, which is fair.

I don’t want people to mindlessly agree, I want them to come their own opinions because of their own research and presumptions.

I also don’t expect you to agree with me, but I hope some people will understand my perspective and maybe this brings a bit more nuance to this bipolar conversation.

CurlyWurlies4All Jan 6, 2025

I absolutely don’t agree with your perspective.

AI is just another way to ensure control of the means of production stays in the hands of capitalists.

It empowers the techno-feudalist monopolies to put further pressure on more industries, not content to own a portion of every retail purchase, every digital payment, and every entertainment property. They now get to own a portion of every act of creation, every communication that could possibly challenge their power.

They can subvert any act of independent impactful art by copying it and remanufacturing lesser versions over and over until the original’s impact is lost. And they can do it faster than ever before, cashing in on the original creative’s effort and syphoning returns away from creators into their own pockets.

nimpnin Jan 6, 2025

You’re basically saying AI can’t be used in any other way than it’s being used right now. I think you are the one who’s taking the current state of things as inevitable and inescapable.

Scubus Jan 7, 2025

I mean, he basically said industrialization is bad. Not sure why he’s saying that online, via his computer.

spujb Jan 7, 2025

There’s nothing wrong with opposing technology as it currently stands. Maybe there’s room for nuance in language, but that doesn’t break their argument.

As it currently stands, the user above is right, and the labor of human artists is being siphoned into corporate profit with zero compensation. In the same way, at the beginning of the industrial revolution the labor of children was siphoned into profit with zero compensation and deadly work conditions.

The way the textile industry was “fixed” was by opposition: speaking about the issues related to the technical developments and advocating for better treatment of the laborers. The only way AI as it currently stands can be “fixed” is also by opposition. Being critical of AI doesn’t mean “turn it off,” it means speaking about the issues related to the new technology and advocating for better treatment of the laborers.

Jakeroxs Jan 6, 2025

Completely agree, I think of industrialization as well when comparing it.

Steel plow comes to mind.

Scubus Jan 7, 2025

In addition to this, the current state of AI is basically just advanced algorithms. Id would be extremely difficult, but in theory you could still trace the connections between bodes and run the optimization calculations yourself.

Soon enough, we will have AGI. Im not a big fan of LLMs, because theyre a fundamentally flawed idea. The only way to get that much data is without consent, and they will always be prone to hallucinations. AGI on the other hand is fundamentally different. It’s capable of learning just like a human, and capable of doing tasks just like a human. By all measurements it will be able to do anything a human can do, and by most measurements, it will do it better.

The issue most people have is that they do not understand that the current state of AI is like the OG printing press. It’s crazy to a layperson, and it has its uses, but since most everyone is illiterate farmers, its not that useful. But to claim that transcribing text is pointless is ignoring an entire world of possibilites, to the point where people who rail against AI almost seem malicious or willfully ignorant. Why do you not want us to be able to almost instantly diagnose new diseases? Or have a nursebot babysitter that is literally a better parent than you are, and doesnt have to sleep or eat? Whats the issue with making cars safer, making construction more efficient, and taking corruption out of the government? Why do people hate the idea of people no longer having to be alone, or having a therapist that is available at all times, perfectly tailored to help you with your specific issues and no biases?

Yes, these things are impossible with modern AI. But to claim that AI is useless… It’s either malice or ignorance.

Apepollo11 Jan 6, 2025

The invention of production lines didn’t mean that nobody appreciated hand-built cars any longer - it just meant a cheaper option was now available to more people.

The invention of phonographs, records, cd etc, didn’t mean that nobody appreciated live music anymore - it just meant that there was now a more accessible option available.

Every job in arts and engineering can, has and will be automated to some extent - it doesn’t mean the death of those industries, or a lack of appreciation for the creativity involved.

I think the real benefit comes from when the creatives use the tools to do the heavy lifting. Every new innovation sees a glut of low-effort money-saving cash-ins. After a while, however, these fall to the wayside as the people who actually have the skills take over again.

More than ten years ago, I wrote a song for my daughter. I recorded it, animated a little video, and uploaded it to youTube. I’d written several more songs for her, but had never found the time necessary to actually record the songs and create videos for them. Because of AI tools, I’ve finally been able to make significant headway on a couple of songs that I hope to upload within the next fortnight.

We’re just in a transition period. Like George Lucas’s over-reliance on CG in the prequels - although it looked pretty great at the time but now looks thoroughly artificial.

EndlessApollo Jan 6, 2025

Remind me how much electricity production lines, phonographs and CGI use, or how much they rely on art theft simply to exist, or how they pose as an expert on a subject and feed people misinformation, or how they allow people to literally stop thinking and let it write everything and form every opinion for them?

LainTrain Jan 6, 2025

They absolutely do all those things though? Like render farms consume fucktons of electricity and they absolutely rely on theft because every artist uses references not to mention asset packs etc. and you are absolutely posing as an expert on the subject feeding people misinformation without any AI (probably). I’m sure someone editing film would consider your optimised premiere shortcut stream deck a device for someone who’s “stopped thinking” as well, without any AI at all.

Thistlewick Jan 6, 2025

Alright bro, you win. I give up. You’re head is so far up your own ass that “asset packs” are theft and a stream deck is the equivalent of feeding the entirety of human creativity into a robot and asking it to make pictures of a big titty anime girls to promote chat apps.

You’re too far gone.

EndlessApollo Jan 8, 2025

None of the things I mentioned are even close to as horrible as AI is in those ways. Either you’re being disingenuous bc you think you need chat gpt to think for you, or you just have no idea at all what “AI” is and really need to do a lot of research on how harmful it is. Comparing CGI render farms to AI servers? Comparing human inspiration to a computer rearranging existing art? You’re not serious are you?

LainTrain Jan 8, 2025

bc you think you need chat gpt to think for you, or you

Woah woah turn down the projection man. I don’t use gippity lol.

or you just have no idea at all what “AI” is

I think I do, but feel free to enlighten me.

need to do a lot of research on how harmful it is

Are you a “do your own research” type, or are you going to state your case?

Comparing CGI render farms to AI servers?

Yes.

Actually I only advocate for locally run FOSS AI models because I’m anti-commercial-AI and broadly anti-capitalist as a whole.

So do tell me, how does my one gayming RTX GPU that can just about accommodate an LLM or SDXL compare to a render farm for Netflix/Hollywood slop powered by coal in third world country sweatshops they outsource to?

Comparing human inspiration and paid for asset packs to a computer rearranging existing, stolen art?

“Our glorious inspiration” “Their stolen art”

You don’t come off as mentally stable my friend, maybe log off and calm down for a bit?

EndlessApollo Jan 8, 2025

Hey if you can’t actually make a solid argument for why “AI” is actually fine, there’s always calling the other person insane :D your use of an LLM isn’t any better or less cringe just bc you don’t use chat gpt, you’re still outsourcing your thinking and decision making to a computer, and you still use a fuck of a lot more power than you should on something that is ultimately stupid and pointless. Your life was fine before “AI”, why are you acting like this is some good or helpful or necessary thing at all?

LainTrain Jan 8, 2025

I’m not outsourcing anything, why would you assume so? Do you?

I don’t really use LLMs at all and I haven’t used SD in ages. Are you trying to say art is stupid and pointless?

EndlessApollo Jan 8, 2025

It was wrong of me to assume you were using it in the wasteful, mindless ways a lot of people use “ai” stuff, I’m sorry for being an asshole about it. Afaik you running stuff like that sometimes isn’t any more wasteful than you spending that time playing games that push your hardware to the max, and I hadn’t thought about that before those replies.

I’ve been really worried about how shady and powerful open ai is and how many people are starting to use it to write science papers and cheat through med school and shit, but other than all the ways corporate “AI” is horrible there’s a lot of cool and fun applications imo, and I’m sorry for assuming you were supporting sam altman’s shenanigans

LainTrain Jan 9, 2025

Nah it’s cool DW, no offence taken.

We should support AI only as research in the public sector that is open sourced, leveling the playing field, rather than Corpos amassing evermore power.

We can’t make AI go away, and I’m sorry to those who feel it cheapens their life’s work or passion, but we can make it belong to the people. It was after all public sector research that got us to this point in the first place.

Also, fuck Sam Altman and Elon Husk and all the corpos and grifters in charge of them.

EndlessApollo Jan 8, 2025

BTW if you unironically think that original art inspired by previous works is actually comparable to a computer scraping and slapping random bullshit together, you don’t know jack shit about art or the “AI” you do desperately need

LainTrain Jan 8, 2025

More projection. Why even respond if you have no counterpoint? If I’m such a nitwit gippity user, it shouldn’t be hard for you to enlighten us all, should it?

I’m no AI expert, but I understand the basic principles behind diffusers and I’ve written a few tiny image classifiers in python for fun before. Surely an expert like yourself can do better?

scarabic Jan 6, 2025

The invention of phonographs, records, cd etc, didn’t mean that nobody appreciated live music anymore

I’ll argue with this one. The only live music anyone appreciates now is going to see world famous commercial artists made popular by their records, cds, etc.

Live music used to be: if you have some friends over and want to liven it up, one of them plays the piano. A pub has a live set of musicians who can read the room and play what people want at the tempo they want depending on if they want to dance or not.

You can say that people still appreciate live music because some of them still go out to the symphony, but the world of music from before was absolutely killed off by radio, records, etc. That world is alive in tiny pockets at best.

gaiussabinus Jan 6, 2025

That’s hype. AI is just another sort of hammer. In the hands of a talented artist, they can churn out masterpieces in hours instead of days. Polarising people is modern marketing. Threating peoples bread and butter is a good way to do that.

spujb Jan 7, 2025

people are losing their jobs and that’s “hype” and “marketing” haha good one

FourPacketsOfPeanuts Jan 6, 2025

How can someone not value the ingenuity and creativity behind a work of art?

Their point of view is that if people do actually value this then there will always be a market for it.

If they don’t, there won’t.

I suppose a long time ago the radio and gramophone looked like they’d been the end of live performing musicians but they still exist, everything’s just continually changing…

CarbonIceDragon Jan 6, 2025

I’m no AI bro, but I do think this concern is a bit overblown. The monetary value in art is not in simply having a picture of something, a whole infamous subset of “modern art” commands high prices despite being simple enough that virtually anybody could recreate it. A lot is simply in that people desire art created by a specific person, be it a painting that they made, or commissioning a still active artist to create something, or someone buying a band’s merch to support their work. AI simply does not have the same parasocial association to it. And of course, it doesn’t at all replicate the non-monetary value that creating something can give to someone.

I can, at most, imagine it getting integrated into things like advertising where one really doesn’t care who created the work; but even then there’s probably still value in having a human artist review the result to be sure of it’s quality, and that kind of art tends to add the least cultural value anyway.

That isn’t zero impact obviously, that kind of advertisement or corporate clip art or such does still pay people, but it’s a far cry from the end of creative human endeavor, or even people getting paid to be creative.

ArbitraryValue Jan 6, 2025

I can appreciate a sunset or a flower without needing these things to have “a human behind it all”.

With that said, art is far from the most important potential application of AI. I am merely amused that right now I can ask a computer to draw a cow in the style of Monet and get a pretty good result. The amazing thing is not present-day capability (which is remarkable but not world-changing) but rather what the rate of progress implies about the near future. I think that a computer better than any human at everything (or at least at every intellectual task) is likely within my lifetime.

It’s the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.

Lovable Sidekick Jan 6, 2025

Why do people who post loaded questions approve of pedophilia and torturing kittens?