3 ms·

Why are you putting AI in quotes, out of curiosity? My priors tell me that great art will continue to be made, both with and without these new tools; and that

Why are you putting AI in quotes, out of curiosity? My priors tell me that great art will continue to be made, both with and without these new tools; and that people will simply re-adjust to a new normal of sorts. What are you suggesting exactly? That all the creators are so weak-willed that they simply stop creating? Or are you implying that they are going to all go live on some sort of "no-internet-allowed" island together?

Dalewyn 4y ago
>Why are you putting AI in quotes, out of curiosity? Because it's not intelligent. It's definitely artificial, but it's not intelligent in any meaningful sense of the term. "Automatic Interpolation" or something similar would be a far more suitable use for the acronym. >What are you suggesting exactly? Noone is going to spend time making something if the next guy immediately goes "You made this? ... I made this." like clockwork. Even moreso if someone was making something professionally. If we do see creators and inventors go away, it would be because of their own volition and desire to find greener pastures worthy of their time rather than "AI" usurping their jobs.
- stale2002 4y ago
  > Noone is going to spend time making something Yes they will. Not everyone is like you who will collapse into anger and outrage at the thought of other people creating new things based on your work. I do not care if anyone uses any of my intellectual property that I have ever created. In fact, I would be flattered if people use the stuff that I have built to them make newer cooler things. I support anyone and everyone "stealing" any intellectual property that I have every created.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    Good for you; unfortunately, you don't speak for everyone. Particularly those who create things for a living.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      I didn't say there I speak for everyone. Instead I am refuting your completely false statement of"Noone is going to spend time making something" that I was responding to. So great, you agree with me that yes there are people like me who will continue to produce intellectual property and release it to the public. > Particularly those who create things for a living. I create things for a living to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So yes, I speak, at least partily, for those people and am totally fine with people stealing my work.
  - souplesse 4y ago
    Have you created much intellectual property?
    - stale2002 4y ago
      Well I have been a software engineer for the last decade, at a major FAANG company so yes.
- ShamelessC 4y ago
  I guess I'm just confused about who specifically you're referring to. Is it the many current creators who happily post things on the internet for free? Or are you referring to just anyone who has copyrighted their work and posted it online? If it's artists, I think you are underestimating the impact a "real" author has on a given work. We're all human, and art tends to be about capturing a shared experience. This means the viewer of the art can make assumptions about the author's humanity and (sometimes) connect with them emotionally in this regard. It's about communication _with people_ - not with an unfeeling language model that is very clearly trying to win a game of sorts. So the artists incorporate these tools, some of them don't, new genres form, and new ideas are captured. All the artist has to do is assume they still have an audience (they will, because humans want to see art from other humans). I think the biggest problem is that indeed, _other people_ will use these tools to trivialize the works of others and conceal the origin. But again, the artist can just ignore this world - as before. It's not like copyright law was actually ever protecting them anyways. Same argument applies to licensing on Github code; while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution. The most pragmatic solution before, and now, was always "don't post things on the public internet for free if you don't want theft to occur". This is a lesson people keep having to learn since Napster. In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great! I don't really see that magically solving other issues (surplus of artists, shortage for the labor they would be good at), however.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >It's not like copyright law was actually ever protecting them anyways. They are; you can't use or incorporate an artist's products in public without their permission (aka a license). >In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great! That's the thing: Artists are charging and the "AI" community doesn't give a shit. Sooner or later, that house of "AI" cards is going to come crashing down with noone to blame but the "AI" community themselves. >while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution. Exactly. Sooner or later, someone who's been maintaining that one single block holding up all of modern humanity is going to say "fuck this and fuck you all" and leave everything to come crashing down; no, we can't blame him either. We've already seen creators disgruntled with insufficient compensation (putting aside whether their demands were just) taking their wares and leaving for greener pastures to the dismay of everyone else. Didn't need "AI" for that, either.
- jamilton 4y ago
  I recommend just calling it software, or something specific like "image generator", "text generator". It gets the point across well, in my experience.

Dalewyn 4y ago

>Why are you putting AI in quotes, out of curiosity? Because it's not intelligent. It's definitely artificial, but it's not intelligent in any meaningful sense of the term. "Automatic Interpolation" or something similar would be a far more suitable use for the acronym. >What are you suggesting exactly? Noone is going to spend time making something if the next guy immediately goes "You made this? ... I made this." like clockwork. Even moreso if someone was making something professionally. If we do see creators and inventors go away, it would be because of their own volition and desire to find greener pastures worthy of their time rather than "AI" usurping their jobs.

stale2002 4y ago
> Noone is going to spend time making something Yes they will. Not everyone is like you who will collapse into anger and outrage at the thought of other people creating new things based on your work. I do not care if anyone uses any of my intellectual property that I have ever created. In fact, I would be flattered if people use the stuff that I have built to them make newer cooler things. I support anyone and everyone "stealing" any intellectual property that I have every created.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  Good for you; unfortunately, you don't speak for everyone. Particularly those who create things for a living.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    I didn't say there I speak for everyone. Instead I am refuting your completely false statement of"Noone is going to spend time making something" that I was responding to. So great, you agree with me that yes there are people like me who will continue to produce intellectual property and release it to the public. > Particularly those who create things for a living. I create things for a living to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So yes, I speak, at least partily, for those people and am totally fine with people stealing my work.
- souplesse 4y ago
  Have you created much intellectual property?
  - stale2002 4y ago
    Well I have been a software engineer for the last decade, at a major FAANG company so yes.
ShamelessC 4y ago
I guess I'm just confused about who specifically you're referring to. Is it the many current creators who happily post things on the internet for free? Or are you referring to just anyone who has copyrighted their work and posted it online? If it's artists, I think you are underestimating the impact a "real" author has on a given work. We're all human, and art tends to be about capturing a shared experience. This means the viewer of the art can make assumptions about the author's humanity and (sometimes) connect with them emotionally in this regard. It's about communication _with people_ - not with an unfeeling language model that is very clearly trying to win a game of sorts. So the artists incorporate these tools, some of them don't, new genres form, and new ideas are captured. All the artist has to do is assume they still have an audience (they will, because humans want to see art from other humans). I think the biggest problem is that indeed, _other people_ will use these tools to trivialize the works of others and conceal the origin. But again, the artist can just ignore this world - as before. It's not like copyright law was actually ever protecting them anyways. Same argument applies to licensing on Github code; while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution. The most pragmatic solution before, and now, was always "don't post things on the public internet for free if you don't want theft to occur". This is a lesson people keep having to learn since Napster. In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great! I don't really see that magically solving other issues (surplus of artists, shortage for the labor they would be good at), however.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >It's not like copyright law was actually ever protecting them anyways. They are; you can't use or incorporate an artist's products in public without their permission (aka a license). >In any case, if the end result is that artists do indeed start charging for their creations - then great! That's the thing: Artists are charging and the "AI" community doesn't give a shit. Sooner or later, that house of "AI" cards is going to come crashing down with noone to blame but the "AI" community themselves. >while you can get on a soapbox and complain about how your code is GPL licensed - that won't prevent hundreds of developers from copy and pasting it when they need a working solution. Exactly. Sooner or later, someone who's been maintaining that one single block holding up all of modern humanity is going to say "fuck this and fuck you all" and leave everything to come crashing down; no, we can't blame him either. We've already seen creators disgruntled with insufficient compensation (putting aside whether their demands were just) taking their wares and leaving for greener pastures to the dismay of everyone else. Didn't need "AI" for that, either.
jamilton 4y ago
I recommend just calling it software, or something specific like "image generator", "text generator". It gets the point across well, in my experience.