3 ms·

> makes the world a worse place In what way?

Joker_vD 15d ago
Well, now instead of paying the photographers for the stock photos to use as headline pictures, people instead pay the AI firms for the stock pictures to use as headline pictures. Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.
- minitech 15d ago
  Couldn’t wait more than 3 minutes for someone’s actual position before setting up that straw man to take down?
  - Joker_vD 15d ago
    The actual position: "First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss..." Yeah, no, I'll take myself being strangely prescient this morning.
    - minitech 15d ago
      The partial comment you’re quoting is - not even a position - not something you were remotely “prescient” about
      - Joker_vD 15d ago
        Precisely. There is no need to wait for "the position" to be formulated since a) it won't be; b) it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow, not even a strawman.
        minitech 15d ago
        > it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm? * I wish
- skeledrew 15d ago
  The same could be said of commissioned paintings when photography became a thing. And yet here we are, and I doubt anyone - except maybe artists - would say the world is worse off.
  - minitech 14d ago
    Stop, stop, he’s already dead! You guys are getting straw everywhere.
ori_b 15d ago
First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss whether being able to generate AI output indistinguishable from human output can cause harm.
- skeledrew 15d ago
  And again, how is "AI or human" relevant to discussing? Given the potential of an indistinguishable discussion (which will eventually be the case). Although also eventually it's AI that will consistently provide the superior discussion experience, then... what? Those against AI actively seek out inferior experiences? Should be interesting.

Well, now instead of paying the photographers for the stock photos to use as headline pictures, people instead pay the AI firms for the stock pictures to use as headline pictures. Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.

minitech 15d ago
Couldn’t wait more than 3 minutes for someone’s actual position before setting up that straw man to take down?
- Joker_vD 15d ago
  The actual position: "First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss..." Yeah, no, I'll take myself being strangely prescient this morning.
  - minitech 15d ago
    The partial comment you’re quoting is - not even a position - not something you were remotely “prescient” about
    - Joker_vD 15d ago
      Precisely. There is no need to wait for "the position" to be formulated since a) it won't be; b) it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow, not even a strawman.
      - minitech 15d ago
        > it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm? * I wish
skeledrew 15d ago
The same could be said of commissioned paintings when photography became a thing. And yet here we are, and I doubt anyone - except maybe artists - would say the world is worse off.
- minitech 14d ago
  Stop, stop, he’s already dead! You guys are getting straw everywhere.

ori_b 15d ago

First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss whether being able to generate AI output indistinguishable from human output can cause harm.

skeledrew 15d ago
And again, how is "AI or human" relevant to discussing? Given the potential of an indistinguishable discussion (which will eventually be the case). Although also eventually it's AI that will consistently provide the superior discussion experience, then... what? Those against AI actively seek out inferior experiences? Should be interesting.