5 ms·

Your "steelman" is embarrassingly bad. Why play devil's advocate if you're going to do such a bad job of it? Here's an alternative: - As a form of fair use, mo

Your "steelman" is embarrassingly bad. Why play devil's advocate if you're going to do such a bad job of it? Here's an alternative: - As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the human/model. - Provide comfortable office jobs for people in economically underdeveloped countries, categorizing data to minimize harm for content moderators worldwide. One piece of training data for a model to filter harmful content can prevent hundreds/thousands of people from being exposed to similar harmful content in the future. - Reduces or eliminates unpleasant low-skill jobs in call centers, data entry, etc. - Creates new creative opportunities in music, video games, writing, and multimedia art by lowering the barriers to entry for creative works. For example, an indie video game developer on a shoestring budget could create their own assets, voice actors, etc. - Reduces carbon emissions by replacing hours of human labor with seconds of load on a GPU.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the human/model. I've seen this analogy parroted everywhere and it's garbage. Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life. Absolute bunk. > Provide comfortable office jobs for people in economically underdeveloped countries, categorizing data to minimize harm for content moderators worldwide. ... who do you think the content moderators are? It's the same people being paid pittance wages to expose themselves to images of incredible violence, child abuse, non-consensual pornography, etc. etc. etc. No person should have to look at that to earn a GOOD living, let alone a shit one. > One piece of training data for a model to filter harmful content can prevent hundreds/thousands of people from being exposed to similar harmful content in the future. Yeah this is the exact nonsense that is spouted every time you criticize this shit. "Oh all we need to do is absolutely obliterate entire swathes of humanity first, and theeeeeen..." with absolutely zero accounting for the job that has to be done first. And again, I don't see any AI scientists stepping up to page through 6,000 jpegs, some of which depict unspeakable things being done to children, oh no. They find people to do that for them, because they know exactly how unbelievably horrible it is and don't want themselves being exposed to it. If it's so damn important, why don't YOU do it? If you're going to light someone's humanity on fire to further what you deem to be progress for our species, why not at least have the guts to make it your OWN humanity? > Reduces or eliminates unpleasant low-skill jobs in call centers, data entry, etc. And where are those people going? Who's paying them after this? Or are you going to suggest they attend a weekend Learn-to-Code camp too? And who's paying their wages in the middle of that transition, when the skills they have become unmarketable? Who's paying for their retraining? Or are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought? > Creates new creative opportunities in music, video games, writing, and multimedia art by lowering the barriers to entry for creative works. Derivative works. No matter how much you want to hype this up, AI is not creative. It just isn't. It gives you a rounded mean of previous creations that it has been shown, nothing more. AI will never invent something, in a thousand years it will not. This is why people call AI art soulless. > For example, an indie video game developer on a shoestring budget could create their own assets, voice actors, etc. Have you seen those games? They're shit. They're lowest common denominator garbage designed to get hyperactive kids on iPads to badger their parents into spending money. > Reduces carbon emissions by replacing hours of human labor with seconds of load on a GPU. So like, this just straight up means you know damn well people are going to die from this. They will be displaced, their labor made worthless, and they will perish. That's just like... what you just said there, because otherwise, the statement "reduces carbon emissions" makes no sense, because if someone gets fired and gets a new job, their carbon emissions do not necessarily go down, and they certainly aren't eliminated.*
- handoflixue 3y ago
  > Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life. So it's okay to learn, but only if you do it very slowly? I surely don't need to point you to the existence of forgers - you know a human can study the art of Rembrandt and paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings > are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought? We have been doing that since the dawn of history - what makes this any different from cars obsoleting the horse drawn carriage? Computers have been automating people's jobs for decades - should we ban programming writ large? Where, exactly, do you feel the line ought to be drawn?
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > So it's okay to learn, but only if you do it very slowly? No, it's a fundamentally different process with different results. An artist learns from previous artists to express things they themselves want to express. An AI digests art to become a viable(ish) tool for people who want to express themselves, as long as that expression resides somewhere in the weighted averages of the art the model has digested. Two fundamentally different things, apples and oranges, and, also not without it's own set of limitations. Despite the rhetoric around this stuff that anyone can create anything, that's just not true: you can create anything that you can find a model that's suitable to create it, that was itself trained on a LOT of similar material to what you want to create. Effectively automated ultra-fine scrap-booking. Honestly if creativity is your thing, even if you find creating difficult for whatever accessibility reason you feel like pretending you care about, you will find AI more frustrating than anything, and the bounds of your creativity are the model itself, and the safeguards whatever provider has decided are important to put in place. You've just exchanged one set of limitations you probably can't control for another set you definitely can't control. > I surely don't need to point you to the existence of forgers - you know a human can study the art of Rembrandt and paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings Yes and those are worthless once found, just like AI art. And again, you've sidestepped the scale: Adobe Firefly can bash out 3 images in roughly 2 minutes of solid resolution. No human can even dream of getting close to creating Rembrandt forgeries at that rate. > We have been doing that since the dawn of history - what makes this any different from cars obsoleting the horse drawn carriage? Because cars costed a fortune when new and were toys for the wealthy, before Henry Ford came along some three decades later to fix that. And then, the former farriers had time to retrain for new work. Not to mention, carriage builders were still employed through many decades with the rise of cars, because originally buying a "car" meant you got a chassis, suspension, engine and the essentials, which you would then take to a coach builder to have a "skin" if you will build around it. Hence the term "coachwork." > Computers have been automating people's jobs for decades - should we ban programming writ large? Is this the "debate" you were saying you were open to? Hyperbolic statements with zero substance? I can see why few want to have it with you. > Where, exactly, do you feel the line ought to be drawn? Consent. Tons of people's creative output was used to build machines to replace them, without their consent and more often than not, explicitly against their wishes, under the guise of a "research project" and not a monetized tech product. Once again a tech company bungles into the public square, exploits it for money, then makes us live with the consequences. I frankly think that question aught to be reversed: what makes OpenAI entitled to all that content, for a purpose it was never meant for, with zero permission or consent on the part of it's creators? I'm not opposed to ML as a concept. It has it's uses, even for generating images/writing/what have you. But these models as they exist now are poisoned with reams of unethically sourced material. If any of these orgs gave even the slightest shit about ethics, they'd dump them and re-train them with only material from those who consented to have it used that way. Simple as.
xigoi 3y ago
> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. “a lot” is doing very heavy lifting here. The amount of examples a human artist needs to learn something is negligible in comparison to the humongous amounts of data sucked up by AI training.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago

> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the human/model. I've seen this analogy parroted everywhere and it's garbage. Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life. Absolute bunk. > Provide comfortable office jobs for people in economically underdeveloped countries, categorizing data to minimize harm for content moderators worldwide. ... who do you think the content moderators are? It's the same people being paid pittance wages to expose themselves to images of incredible violence, child abuse, non-consensual pornography, etc. etc. etc. No person should have to look at that to earn a GOOD living, let alone a shit one. > One piece of training data for a model to filter harmful content can prevent hundreds/thousands of people from being exposed to similar harmful content in the future. Yeah this is the exact nonsense that is spouted every time you criticize this shit. "Oh all we need to do is absolutely obliterate entire swathes of humanity first, and theeeeeen..." with absolutely zero accounting for the job that has to be done first. And again, I don't see any AI scientists stepping up to page through 6,000 jpegs, some of which depict unspeakable things being done to children, oh no. They find people to do that for them, because they know exactly how unbelievably horrible it is and don't want themselves being exposed to it. If it's so damn important, why don't YOU do it? If you're going to light someone's humanity on fire to further what you deem to be progress for our species, why not at least have the guts to make it your OWN humanity? > Reduces or eliminates unpleasant low-skill jobs in call centers, data entry, etc. And where are those people going? Who's paying them after this? Or are you going to suggest they attend a weekend Learn-to-Code camp too? And who's paying their wages in the middle of that transition, when the skills they have become unmarketable? Who's paying for their retraining? Or are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought? > Creates new creative opportunities in music, video games, writing, and multimedia art by lowering the barriers to entry for creative works. Derivative works. No matter how much you want to hype this up, AI is not creative. It just isn't. It gives you a rounded mean of previous creations that it has been shown, nothing more. AI will never invent something, in a thousand years it will not. This is why people call AI art soulless. > For example, an indie video game developer on a shoestring budget could create their own assets, voice actors, etc. Have you seen those games? They're shit. They're lowest common denominator garbage designed to get hyperactive kids on iPads to badger their parents into spending money. > Reduces carbon emissions by replacing hours of human labor with seconds of load on a GPU. So like, this just straight up means you know damn well people are going to die from this. They will be displaced, their labor made worthless, and they will perish. That's just like... what you just said there, because otherwise, the statement "reduces carbon emissions" makes no sense, because if someone gets fired and gets a new job, their carbon emissions do not necessarily go down, and they certainly aren't eliminated.*

handoflixue 3y ago
> Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life. So it's okay to learn, but only if you do it very slowly? I surely don't need to point you to the existence of forgers - you know a human can study the art of Rembrandt and paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings > are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought? We have been doing that since the dawn of history - what makes this any different from cars obsoleting the horse drawn carriage? Computers have been automating people's jobs for decades - should we ban programming writ large? Where, exactly, do you feel the line ought to be drawn?
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > So it's okay to learn, but only if you do it very slowly? No, it's a fundamentally different process with different results. An artist learns from previous artists to express things they themselves want to express. An AI digests art to become a viable(ish) tool for people who want to express themselves, as long as that expression resides somewhere in the weighted averages of the art the model has digested. Two fundamentally different things, apples and oranges, and, also not without it's own set of limitations. Despite the rhetoric around this stuff that anyone can create anything, that's just not true: you can create anything that you can find a model that's suitable to create it, that was itself trained on a LOT of similar material to what you want to create. Effectively automated ultra-fine scrap-booking. Honestly if creativity is your thing, even if you find creating difficult for whatever accessibility reason you feel like pretending you care about, you will find AI more frustrating than anything, and the bounds of your creativity are the model itself, and the safeguards whatever provider has decided are important to put in place. You've just exchanged one set of limitations you probably can't control for another set you definitely can't control. > I surely don't need to point you to the existence of forgers - you know a human can study the art of Rembrandt and paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings Yes and those are worthless once found, just like AI art. And again, you've sidestepped the scale: Adobe Firefly can bash out 3 images in roughly 2 minutes of solid resolution. No human can even dream of getting close to creating Rembrandt forgeries at that rate. > We have been doing that since the dawn of history - what makes this any different from cars obsoleting the horse drawn carriage? Because cars costed a fortune when new and were toys for the wealthy, before Henry Ford came along some three decades later to fix that. And then, the former farriers had time to retrain for new work. Not to mention, carriage builders were still employed through many decades with the rise of cars, because originally buying a "car" meant you got a chassis, suspension, engine and the essentials, which you would then take to a coach builder to have a "skin" if you will build around it. Hence the term "coachwork." > Computers have been automating people's jobs for decades - should we ban programming writ large? Is this the "debate" you were saying you were open to? Hyperbolic statements with zero substance? I can see why few want to have it with you. > Where, exactly, do you feel the line ought to be drawn? Consent. Tons of people's creative output was used to build machines to replace them, without their consent and more often than not, explicitly against their wishes, under the guise of a "research project" and not a monetized tech product. Once again a tech company bungles into the public square, exploits it for money, then makes us live with the consequences. I frankly think that question aught to be reversed: what makes OpenAI entitled to all that content, for a purpose it was never meant for, with zero permission or consent on the part of it's creators? I'm not opposed to ML as a concept. It has it's uses, even for generating images/writing/what have you. But these models as they exist now are poisoned with reams of unethically sourced material. If any of these orgs gave even the slightest shit about ethics, they'd dump them and re-train them with only material from those who consented to have it used that way. Simple as.

xigoi 3y ago

> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. “a lot” is doing very heavy lifting here. The amount of examples a human artist needs to learn something is negligible in comparison to the humongous amounts of data sucked up by AI training.