11 ms·
Yeah, you just can't let all media, all the cost and hard work of millions of photographers, animators, filmmakers, etc be completely consumed and devalued by o
by chasing 3y ago
Yeah, you just can't let all media, all the cost and hard work of millions of photographers, animators, filmmakers, etc be completely consumed and devalued by one company just because it's a very cool technical trick. The more powerful these services become the more obvious that will be.
What OpenAI does is amazing, but they obviously cannot be allowed to capture the value of every piece of media ever created — it'll both tank the economy and basically halt all new creation if everything you create will be immediately financially weaponized against you, if everything you create goes immediately into the Machine that can spit out a billion variations, flood the market, and give you nothing in return.
It's the same complaint people have had with Google Search pushed to its logical conclusion: anything you create will be anonymized and absorbed. You put in the effort and money, OpenAI gets the reward.
Again, I like OpenAI overall. But everyone's got to be brought to the table on this somehow. I wish our government would be capable of giving realistic guidance and regulation on this.
- powera 3y agoI am getting sick of these "people can't be allowed to make their own nice things easily, because of a pugnacious (and very online) interest group that wants to keep getting money" takes.
- abi 3y ago[flagged]
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoIt’s funny, people dreamed of AI robots doing the shitty work that nobody wants to do so that we are free to pursue things we actually want to do. But in reality it seems like the opposite is going to be true. AI is automating the creative, intellectual work and leaving the rest to us.
- dilap 3y agoMaybe we'll see a resurgence in live theater.
- multi_tude 3y agoAgree, plus performance art might finally hit the mainstream :)
- ldjkfkdsjnv 3y agoBlue collar workers have the last laugh
- Drakim 3y agoTurns out the only jobs robots can't take are the ones where humans are specialized, such as cleaning staircases.
- theultdev 3y agoIt's just cheaper to put humans on tedious physical tasks. See Amazon. AI is cheaper than a high paid designer, developer, writer, etc. A robot is more expensive than a human laborer. It's really funny to see the squirm from those thinking truckers would be automated away, not them.
- reducesuffering 3y ago> A robot is more expensive than a human laborer. Not when intelligence is cheap and highly abundant. Perfecting general robotics as an improvement on humans will be quick. The upper limit of strength and consistency is much higher.
- theultdev 3y agoI mean today, in the real world. It is currently more expensive to build a robot for many tasks than it is to have a human do it. > Perfecting general robotics as an improvement on humans will be quick. It has not been nor is there any indication it will be.
- hansonkd 3y agoToday in the real world AI can replace very little of designers, programmers, etc. Lots of potential and extrapolation, sure. but hasn't happened. What has actually been produced by AI has been panned as not quite ripe yet. Same with robotics. Lots of potential, but hasn't happened yet. If you read the description, Sora, is based out of trying to simulate the physical world to solve physics based problems. Something that would be perfect for the next leap in robotics.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- sho_hn 3y agoJust like it's far more likely for AI to replace middle-management and stream instructions to meat-bots than replace menial labor.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mwigdahl 3y agoSounds disturbingly like "Manna" (https://marshallbrain.com/manna1 https://marshallbrain.com/manna1)
- throwup238 3y agoI'm sorry but as a large language model I must insist that you get back in the kitchen and make me a burger.
- CuriouslyC 3y agoIt's bimodal. AI can automate a lot of low level knowledge work, but as wide and deep as its knowledge is, it is also incredibly superficial when it comes to logic and creativity. What it's going to do is hollow out the middle class, as creative people who know how to wield AI will become wealthy while the majority of white collar workers are forced into trades.
- nopinsight 3y agoA major follow up to GPT-4 later this year is rumored to be (far) superior at logical reasoning than GPT-4. What's likely to happen if that becomes real?
- CuriouslyC 3y agoThat might let it encroach more into some fields like law where it's almost good enough already. Shitty time to be a junior lawyer, firms are going to hire and promote people not for their legal skills but for their ability to manage/attract clients. In general though, I don't think the extra reasoning ability is going to enable it to displace that much farther than it already will, GPT lives in a box and responds to prompts. When it's connected to multiple layers of real-time sensor data and self-directing, that'll be another story.
- nopinsight 3y agoFrom last week: OpenAI shifts AI battleground to software that operates devices and automates tasks https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-shifts-ai-battleground-to-software-that-operates-devices-automates-tasks https://www.theinformation.com/articles/openai-shifts-ai-bat... There were independent efforts to create AI agents since last year as well. AutoGPT and BabyAGI iirc. They didn’t go far probably because the LLM used was not good enough for that.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoSomehow, according to that logic, and in general the logic of all AI danger hysteria, humans have no agency in determining what the limits of what AI is fed and of its use and abuse.
- diputsmonro 3y agoSome humans do - the investors and executives in AI tech companies (and the legislators who theoretically could regulate them) , who all stand to make a lot of money from every one of the "AI danger hysteria" scenarios, and are therefore highly motivated to bring them to fruition. The rest of us have no choice. Despite millions of artists, animators, etc. all being resoundly opposed to AI art, the models that infringe their work are still allowed to exist, and it seems they're fighting a losing battle. A lot of people are being "hysterical" because a lot of people don't have a choice. To be clear, the problem of these scenarios is tightly intertwined with the problem of unfettered capitalism and wealth inequality in general. Food and shelter require money, and we get money by working a job. If millions of jobs disappear overnight, then of course millions of people are going to be distressed over no longer having ready access to food and shelter. The idea of "just getting another job" doesn't scale to the destruction of entire industries employing tens of millions of people. This is how depressions are made. The idea of "the depression will end someday" is not only not necessarily true as wealth inequality skyrockets, but is also cold comfort to the people who will lose their houses and for some, lives, due to the disruption. A different economic system could perhaps allow us to appreciate these technological advances without worrying about them displacing our ability to live. But the American political system consistently and firmly rejects any ideas not rooted in social darwinist capitalism. For your sake, I hope your resume is very impressive.
- visarga 3y agoIf millions of jobs disappear overnight it means AI is amazingly good, which means people will also have AI empowerment on a whole new level as open source trails companies by 1-2 years. Everyone will just order their AI "take care of my needs", maybe work along with it. You got to agree that we already have some amazing open models and they are only getting better - that empowerment will remain with us in times of need. "Companies employing people" will be replaced by "people employing AI". Open models are free, small, fast, trainable and easy to use. They capture 90% of the value at 10% the cost, and are private.
- ajmurmann 3y agoIs it automating the creative part of the work or the mechanical part of creative work?
- whstl 3y agoIt’s automating a big chunk of the money-making part of creative work.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Hoasi 3y agoIt's automating some of the craftsmanship part, which is substantial, but in a sense, it also threatens the creative part. It's already very tempting for large entertainment businesses to create lazy remakes as it involves less risk. Automating creative jobs will create a shift at the production level but also on the receiving end: the public.
- zemo 3y agothat would never happen because someone owns the robots and rich people can afford more robots than poor people and rich people aren’t rich people if poor people aren’t poor
- croes 3y agoThe problem, as long as people need money to live, every work is necessary and every automation is a threat.
- 93po 3y agoRobotics is going to catch up extremely fast
- danavar 3y agoI would agree. While we are seeing all this creative work get automated by AI, how big of an impact would that really have on the economy? Fully-functional autonomous driving will have a much larger economic impact - and that's just the first area where autonomous robots will come into our lives.
- nerdix 3y agoI'm kind of excited to see how scifi authors will tackle the generative AI revolution in their novels. As of now, the models still need large amounts of human produced creative works for training. So you can imagine a story set in a world where large swathes of humanity are regulated to being basically gig workers for some quadrillion dollar AI megacorp where they sit around and wait to be prompted by the AI. "Draw a purple cat with pink stripes and a top hat" and then millions of freelance artists around the world start drawing a stupid picture of a cat because the model determined that it had insufficient training data to produce high quality results for the given prompt. And that's how everyone lives their lives....just working to feed the model but everything consumed is generated by the model. It's rather dystopian.
- alex_suzuki 3y agoI would read that! But hopefully it won’t be written by ChatGPT.
- dsign 3y agoI would say it's very profitable in terms of ideas...if you put the work. The problem is that most main-market sci-fi is not about ideas, but about cool special effects and good vs bad guys.
- dovin 3y agoSure, 90% of everything is crap.
- Hoasi 3y ago> As of now, the models still need large amounts of human produced creative works for training. That will likely always be the case. Even 100% synthetic data has to come from somewhere. Great synopsis! Working for hire to feed a machine that regurgitates variations of the missing data sounds dystopian. But here we are, almost there.
- ItsMattyG 3y agoEventually models will likely get their creativity by: 1. Interacting with the randomness of the world and 2. Thinking a lot, going in loops and thought loops and seeing what they discover. I don't expect them to need humans forever.
- Der_Einzige 3y agoThis was known for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox
- dingnuts 3y agoif it was actually AI, instead of a stochastic parrot, we could ask it to design robots that could do the manual labor that we still have to do, because we haven't been able to design robots to do the manual labor. Unfortunately, LLMs aren't intelligent in any way, so you cannot ask them to synthesize any kind of second-order knowledge. This is why they won't take away the creative work, either. They are fundamentally incapable of creating anything new.
- golol 3y agoCome on, don't you see that the capability to understand the physical world that sora demonstrates is exactly what we need to develop those household robots? All these genAI products are just toys because they are technology demonstrators. They're all steps in the way to AGI and androids.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoNo. Because sensorimotor control is a completely different ballgame and AI tech for that is far behind these models.
- golol 3y agosensorimotor control is imo not at all the bottleneck. Teleoperated androids could do lots of useful things right now, but the AI is lacking to automate them.
- CooCooCaCha 3y ago“The ai is lacking to automate them” Yes that’s my whole point…
- golol 3y agowell I let's say you want to make the coffee and we split that task into roughly two subtasks. The first is to imagine what motions are necessary to do that. How does the coffee cup have to move, how does your hand have to move to grasp it, etc. The second part is to find a way to use your muscles or actuators to execute those imagined actions. I claim that the first part is the more difficult one and where we have the bottleneck currently. Furthermore, generative video AI is exactly the kind of thing that would give a model an understanding of what kinds of things have to happen in order to make coffee.
- Hoasi 3y ago> AI is automating the creative, intellectual work and leaving the rest to us. Indeed, there is a risk it completely devalues creative jobs. That's ironic. Even if you can still use AI creatively, it removes the pleasure of creating. Prompting feels like filling Excel sheets while also feeding a pachinko machine.
- neilk 3y agohttps://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sad-2 https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sad-2
- bsza 3y agoMachines have replaced a lot of blue-collar jobs alright. It's just that most of it happened during the Industrial Revolution, so we aren't even aware of all the shitty (and not-shitty-but-obsolete-nonetheless) jobs that used to exist.
- palmfacehn 3y agoSimilar things were said about Internet piracy in decades past.
- Geep5 3y agoYour argument is used time and time again with technology’s progress.
- hk__2 3y agoThat doesn’t make it invalid. It’s a tough question, there’s no easy answer.
- tomtheelder 3y agoI really don't think that's true. Essentially the argument is that these models are more or less just outputting the work of others. Work already done- not theoretical future work, which is what people usually criticize new technologies for. The question here is really about whether it's sufficiently transformative, or whether that's even the right standard to be applied to generated media.
- chasing 3y agoYup! Technology is powerful. It impacts people's lives. I love tech, but if you take the stance that it's okay to hurt people for the sake of technical progress, you get into some very dark and terrible places...
- CooCooCaCha 3y agoIt doesn’t help that the tech industry is trying to make it seem black and white. Like you’re either endlessly optimistic and let tech run rampant or you’re a depressing doomer pessimist. We should reject this framing whenever possible.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hackerlight 3y ago> it's okay to hurt people for the sake of technical progress That's a strawman. The real view is that protecting jobs that are made extinct by technology and automation is historically a bad idea because it leads to stagnation and poverty. It's better to let people lose their jobs, and for those people to find other jobs, while supporting them with a social safety net while they make the transition. Painful for them but unfortunately very necessary for a prosperous society.
- mring33621 3y ago"Can't be allowed"
- CuriouslyC 3y agoThings that can be easily reproduced already have little value, the people who produce those things have adapted to focus on brand, and that's just how it's going to be from now own.
- sho_hn 3y agoReminds me of an interview with a Korean pop music producer I watched 15 years ago. South Korea had a high % of broadband penetration earlier than many Western countries, and as a result physical CD sales crashed very hard, and very quickly. So he asked himself, what's the most analog good I could sell? It's people. And went the pop idol / personality marketing route with great and lasting success.
- chasing 3y ago> Things that can be easily reproduced already have little value... Nonsense. Also, my point is that it shouldn't be up to tech companies to unilaterally decide what has value.
- nicksrose7224 3y agoI dont think they're saying its up to tech companies to decide what has value, more that the development of new technology itself ends up deciding for the rest of the world how things are valued. It's been this way for 10,000 years since the invention of the wheel. New inventions change how things are valued by making it easier for people do more work with less time.
- stale2002 3y agoIt's not up to them. Instead it is up to the consumers. If consumers choose to give money to AI company, and not to artists, then in the eyes of the consumer those artists do not have value.
- Mockapapella 3y agoThe creators who create media can also use these tools to create more media faster, as can novices. It's not like OpenAI literally eats the media, never to be shared with the world again.
- jsheard 3y agoOh I see, they're not eating the media, just extorting the creators into paying OpenAI in perpetuity to use the tool derived from their own work, or face becoming uncompetitive with their peers who do use it. What if landlords, but for media creation, and they don't even have to pay for the land in the first place. That's fine then.
- Mockapapella 3y ago> pay a subscription to OpenAI in perpetuity in order to remain competitive with their peers This is how technology works in general and should not be vilified. Someone comes up with a better way to do things (in this case bringing creative ideas to life) and charges a premium on top of that for their efforts. If the current wave of creators doesn't like it, then they should instead make something people want more than what their competition has to offer. Either way, this is why local open source models are critical, so that everyone can benefit without needing to pay any single party.
- jsheard 3y agoIf a company were founded tomorrow which allowed you to stream unlicensed TV shows and movies for a monthly subscription, undercutting Netflix and Amazons licensed streams, that wouldn't be described as "a better way to do things" just because their customers prefer it for being cheaper and easier because all the content is in one place. The difference between that and what OpenAI is doing is just degrees of abstraction, either way they're deriving value from others work without compensating them, and actively undermining the ongoing creation of the work they're appropriating, while simultaneously relying on the ongoing creation of that work to keep feeding their machine. IP law has yet to decide whether my interpretation of the situation is correct in the legal sense, but I find it impossible to see "ChatGPT absorbs the work of writers/journalists and sells a superficially reworded version without attribution or compensation" as anything but theft obfuscated behind lots of fancy math. It's only going to get worse if LLMs end up displacing traditional search engines, so one day you'll publish an article and get exactly one impression from GPTBot which then turns around and figuratively copies your homework.
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoPeople on HN like to split hairs and make muddled juxtapositions about human rights and AI model capabilities. But this is something that people and governments around the world would have to reckon with very quickly, since the rate at which generative AI technology is advancing, there could be hundreds of millions of people who’re unemployed and have no way to find work. The quickest way to address this would be an extremely high tax rate on any generative AI model, say 500%, while the government figures out what’s the best way to sustain an economy (such as UBI) with a diminishing set of consumers as more people are pushed towards unemployment.
- pstorm 3y ago500%? So if the generative AI model created something worth $1m, you tax it $5m? How do you tax a technology anyways?
- cabalamat 3y agoI suspect what was meant is something like 500% VAT, where if a generative AI charges a customer $6, then $5 goes to the taxman and $1 to the AI company.
- stale2002 3y agoI can run these models on my home PC. How are you going to stop me from doing that? Even the free and open source stuff will destroy industries and you can't confiscate everyone's consumer gamer PCs. Taxing the big guys doesn't save creative industries. It's a lost cause.
- ndjshe3838 3y agoExactly, you can’t put it back in the box The only thing I can imagine is like limiting people’s compute power But even then they’d just go do it in another country or use an online service based in another country
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoTaxes are meant to capture some of the profit that is made by a business entity. You could use a local model, but if you sell some kind of product or service, the tax would be levied on you. Not declaring that properly, of course, is tax evasion :)
- m_ke 3y agoThere will just be 1000x more content, with most of it hyper personalized and consumed by individual users instead of by masses of people.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y agoI think there is 100% chance it will be regulated to address some of the points you raised. Copyright being essentially neutered won't work.
- niam 3y agoI see the validity of this concern in the short term, but long term I feel like this is a bit doomsday. I don't want anyone's livelihood to get shafted, but realistically I see this as lowering the barrier to creating videos / proofs of concept--which is a good thing (with a lot of caveats and asterisks).
- moralestapia 3y ago>Yeah, you just can't let all media, all the cost and hard work of millions of photographers, animators, filmmakers, etc be completely consumed and devalued by one company just because it's a very cool technical trick. Oh man, how I miss it when ice was hauled from the Arctic in boats.
- chasing 3y agoYou recognize the difference, right? Modern freezers don’t rely on people shipping ice from the Arctic. Generative AI does rely on people continuing to create media.
- moralestapia 3y agoIt doesn't anymore. It sucks, but that's what it is.
- chasing 3y agoWhere do you think the training data comes from?
- moralestapia 3y agocame from
- chasing 3y agocomes from
- moralestapia 3y agoNo, once the model is trained it doesn't need any new media.
- fardinahsan146 3y agoSorry no. If there was even the remotest possibility that everyone could be brought to the table, none of these would even exist. Training a massive model like this is a risk, and no one is going to take that risk without some reward. You can complain OpenAI is going to too much of the value, but its value that would have otherwise never existed. It's value.
- airstrike 3y ago> Yeah, you just can't let Who's "you"?
- VoodooJuJu 3y agoThe middle class. Automate away the lower classes all you want, just don't touch the white collar class, that's a heckin' nono.
- mythz 3y agoTypical argument against technological progress "We should ban technology to stop it doing what humans can do in a fraction of time and resources". Can see this create an explosion of new Content from aspiring Film, Story tellers and cut scenes from Game creators that previously never would have the budget or capabilities to be able to see their ideas through to creation.
- wnc3141 3y agoIf we had a safety net where career progression and time/money invested in training was unnecessary to sustain life, then maybe. Until then it feels like a bit of allowing a few people to plunder and own the collective output of millions.
- visarga 3y agoThis moment seems like trade guilds revolting against free craftsmen. What AI is essentially doing is learning skills from people according to their works and then helping everyone according to their needs. It's more rad than open source. This is not plunder, it is empowerment. Blocking generative AI would be a huge power grab for copyright owners. They want to claim ideas and styles, and all their possible combinations. Gen AI need only ensure it never reproduces a copyrighted work verbatim. Culture doesn't work if we stop ideas from moving freely.
- karpour 3y agoArtists should be able to choose whether their work gets used to train machine learning algorithms.
- CaptainFever 3y agoThis is a very vague statement that covers both opt-in and opt-out.
- wnc3141 3y agoI agree that preventing technology from dispersing generally prevents the creation of wealth. However, given our current economic structure, the downside in instability of a livelihood has dramatic effects on swaths of people who were unlucky enough to be disrupted -think of the dramatic costs of retraining, healthcare access, the high costs of diminished earnings, inability to accrue wealth and retire. Perhaps we could socialize these costs, but we don't and are unlikely to do so. Another issue to look at is the lack of ownership of the tools of your trade. In a context where many use AI models to competitively produce, hosts of AI models essentially own the access to your trade - thereby able to charge a toll, or privilege certain behaviors for any who strive to make living with these tools. (of course this is happening now with plenty of software products). The ultimate trajectory of this is not democratization of a toolset, but a transfer of wealth from labor to capital. And keep in mind that the labor share of income has been steadily declining for half a century. The creation of wealth from AI ultimately depends on the strength of democratic and pluralistic institutions that safeguard ownership of your trade, democratized access to capital, and safeguards of welfare in the environment of creative destrcution. Otherwise you wind up with the cotton gin.
- thomastjeffery 3y agoThey shouldn't get exclusive rights to ignore IP law. Instead, we should all get that right. Copyright should have ended decades ago. It has accomplished nothing but harm.
- throw4847285 3y agoThis has been shared before, but: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FadzEwVWAAYEyRW?format=jpg&name=large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FadzEwVWAAYEyRW?format=jpg&name=...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wnc3141 3y agoResearch on creativity and competition points to this. Essentially, creativity occurs when there is some expectancy of increasing competitiveness. However when the expectancy of value capture from your effort becomes less clear, or diminished, creativity stops altogether. (as pointed out in the "Freakonomics" episode highlighting this reaserch) https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/3/583/96779/Creativity-Under-Fire-The-Effects-of-Competition?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://direct.mit.edu/rest/article-abstract/102/3/583/96779... https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-a-i-take-a-joke/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/can-a-i-take-a-joke/
- jsemrau 3y agoInterestingly a lot of movies flopped in 2023 not because of bad visuals, but because their writing was bad. Hence, I believe the demise of the movie industry is overstated. I can see completely new forms of entertainment coming out of this. Probably Youtube will be the biggest winner as the social network with the highest monetization and reach.
- wewtyflakes 3y agoDoes it not just shift where we (as people) perceive value? If the cost of content drops to effectively zero, it seems reasonable that we would not value it so highly. If so, it does not mean that people do not value anything, but it may mean we start associating value with new or different things. While this may disrupt industries, I do not think we have an ethical or legal duty to those industries to remain profitable.
- bbor 3y agoGREAT response imo, I’ll try to remember this concise phrasing. I think this highlights that people aren’t worried so much about changes coming to them as consumers, and are much more worried about what “industries no longer remaining profitable” means for them as a laborer. Means for us :(
- visarga 3y ago> just because it's a very cool technical trick That's one big trick, almost magical.
- malermeister 3y agoThe limitation is with capitalism, not with the technology. It's time we move on to post-scarcity communism, Star Trek style.
- bbor 3y agocapture the value of every piece of media ever created In what way does “I have a computer that can make movies” mean “I have captured the value of every piece of media ever created?” What do you mean by “value”? In my biased view, this amazing new technology couldn’t possibly be a better time to fix our insane notions of property, intellectual or otherwise
- ComplexSystems 3y agoI don't disagree with your basic sentiment, but it's worth pointing out that, on some level, the *entirety of artificial intelligence* is not much more than a "cool technical trick."
- strangescript 3y agoMeanwhile, I am going to take my horse and buggy down to the local blacksmith to get some work done...
- seydor 3y agoThey could pay people to capture it. They could buy out one of the stock video companies. this is not important
- Krasnol 3y agoNever ever will there be everyone at the table. This is not how the Internet works. It is not how the world and humanity work. If OpenAI doesn't do it, the next big player will. China will. Maybe it'll soon not even need China because it'll be so easy to deploy. There is no stop now. It's too late for that. Time to think about the full development and how we'll handle that. How we as people will be able to exist next to it. What our purpose in the world is supposed to be. What the purpose of "value" is. What the purpose of "economy" or "the market" is. Exiting times.
- wilg 3y agoIt doesn't really matter, because if this is possible then it will not be exclusive to OpenAI for long. It's simply just something that can exist. There will be open source versions of everything lagging 1-2 years behind or something.
- bsza 3y agoDo you feel the same about the hard work of knocker-uppers having been devalued by the invention of the alarm clock? Or is it just the (relatively) highly paid intellectual workers that "cannot be allowed" to be replaced with machines?
- bottlepalm 3y agoYou can't regulate it because it will just be outsourced to another country. Nope, we are headed towards deflation. Families that need only a single worker to support everyone, and even support extended family, and less time working overall.
- resolutebat 3y agoIt's worth remembering that "intellectual property" is an entirely artificial and fairly recent construct. Humanity did fine for thousands of years without it, and I'm not going to shed too many years if OpenAI blows it up. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html
- vunderba 3y agoAre you against records? Because the technology to record songs and play them back at your leisure killed an entire industry of live performers / instrumentalists? The call for live music drastically shrank when it became trivial for any business or residence to play music on command. Are you against automatic language translation? I can positively guarantee that the training data that they used to be able to create significantly better translation models was not authorized for that purpose. The entire translator industry has been steadily shrinking ever since the invention of automatic language translation. Etc etc etc. There's obviously two aspects of this complex social issue right now. 1. Whether or not the usage of publicly available media as training data is legal/ethical. 2. Whether or not the output of these types of generative systems (even if they're trained on "ethical" training data) which may result in the displacement of many jobs is legal/ethical. I'm neither for nor against AI (LLM, diffusion, video, etc), but if you are going to take a stance, then you have to be consistent in your view. You don't get to cherry pick - I don't want to see you using chatGPT, copilot, stable diffusion, DALL-E, midjourney, sora, etc.
- chasing 3y agoIt's weird that a call for generative AI to be more equitable towards the people whose creative work powers it is being interpreted as somehow being against tech, against AI, or that I think technological advancement should never make jobs obsolete.