Salve J. NilsenFeb 13

Here's a thought experiment.

Imagine a stamp mark with the words "Made with #AI" on it.

If you see this mark on a picture, illustration, mobile app, song, movie, or story - do you get the notion that this product is of higher, lower or unchanged quality?

If you see two identical products for the same price, where one has an AI mark and the other doesn't - which one would you buy?

(Please retoot this #LLM #poll for wider reach)

AI mark signals HIGHER quality
0.2%
AI mark signals NO DIFFERENCE in quality
2.6%
AI mark signals LOWER quality
97.3%
Poll ended at .
Show threadFrancesco P Lovergine Feb 13
@sjn
The use of AI is not relevant for quality. One produces good or bad products with or without AI use.
It is definitely dependent on the human side, whether or not her/his homework is done. Let me say that I saw shitty code produced by humans and AI, as well as good enough code.
Show threadSalve J. NilsenFeb 13

@gisgeek I think that strictly within the software development field, you may have a point - under the right circumstances.

Sadly, these tools aren't _only_ used for supporting highly skilled software developers.

Just take a look at your profile photo - clearly generated! What do you think this tells people about yourself?

This is what I'm asking in the poll: Does the next person seeing that image associate it with a positive, negative, or no change in quality?

Makes you think, no?

Show threadFrancesco P Lovergine Feb 13
@sjn
Ah nice example the image. Let me explain. Incidentally, I'm perfectly able to draw a self-portrait of myself in Moebius style. But I had no intention to do that for a series of reason, including the time to dedicate to use ink and colors for that (I'm an old fashioned amateur comic book artist). I deliberately choose to not doing that. So the use of AI says exactly nothing about me (i.e, it is not relevant) which is the point. Did you draw your avatar personally?
Show threadSalve J. NilsenFeb 13

@gisgeek My avatar image was drawn by an illustrator on a commission. I don't have the skills to draw. 😅

(That reminds me, I really should reach out to them to commission an update)

Though my question wasn't about your intention with the image, but rather what the audience/reader associates with it, when seeing it.

I think that their thoughts matter, though of course this doesn't have to mean their thoughts matter _to you_. (And that's fine, really. You do you! 😸)

Show threadFrancesco P Lovergine Feb 13
@sjn I understand the point of view of artists and creators. Being used for neural net training is not something many of them have ever contemplated. Which is fine, but licenses and copyright exist for that.
But it's a totally different matter. Again, it is not about quality, and I could cite that photography was not considered art in the old days. At that time, a drawing was art, a photo a mere reproduction of reality. Perceptions of such things change a lot. We live in interesting times.
Show threadRussell PhillipsFeb 16

@gisgeek @sjn

licenses and copyright exist for that.

Yes, they do. One of my big frustrations with LLMs is that AI companies violated licenses and copyrights on a vast scale.

Yet, when creators seek recompense for that, we're told that can't be allowed to happen because it would destroy the AI industry.

Show threadFrancesco P Lovergine Feb 16
@rpbook @sjn
Clearly, a lot of training has been conducted in violation of third-party rights. But note that the violation, in most cases, has been recognized not for the digitalization — processing—destroying part, but for the use of a clearly pirated repository of digital content (see the Anthropic case). Like it or not, the training part is not, if not explicitly introduced as an exclusion in the license, a violation.
The same for FOSS code.
Show threadRussell PhillipsFeb 16

@gisgeek @sjn I'm very aware of the Anthropic case, I'm a part of it.

Part of their defence has been that if they have to pay damages for everything they pirated, they'd go out of business. And now governments are talking about adding AI exceptions to copyright laws.

Telling people to not share things so they don't get stolen is not a solution. It's simple victim blaming.

Show threadAmira Magdalena
@rpbook @gisgeek @sjn laws exist to prevent companies doing bad shit, namely with the threat of them going out of business due to financial punishments, the fact that any court would even tolerate that defence really makes a mockery of the legal system
Feb 20 at 10:33amWeb