• Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    9 days ago

    Lol careful posting anything that isn’t negative about AI on Lemmy. They hate AI here

    • fjordbasa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think it’s more of a dislike for low effort fluff- just so happens that the new hotness for that kind of junk is AI

      • Grimy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        9 days ago

        Lemme is very pro-piracy so that’s kind of a silly statement. It’s also worth noting that AI is clearly transformative. Collage is literally legal, how could AI be stealing?

        The problem is that it’s making the field hyper competitive by “stealing” jobs, but photoshop and photography did this as well in their time.

        No one cried about translators losing their niche because of Google since just like generative AI, it benefits society as a whole in the end.

        • Furbland@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          [Lemmy] is very pro-piracy

          There’s a bit of a difference, I’d say. Piracy hurts massive companies that already have tons of money to spare and (to be frank) don’t need any more. AI hurts individual artists that barely make a living as is. It’s like comparing Robin Hood to whatever the inverse of Robin Hood is (OpenAI, I guess). Point is, I have zero issue with generative AI, I do however have issue with the companies behind it. If all of their data was sourced ethically, and the people creating the training data actually got compensation, I’d be fine with it. Everything can be a tool for high effort and low effort content, it’s just increasingly insulting to creators that their work is being stolen and then twisted into something with considerably less effort that makes more money than they could ever hope to make. In other words, dead internet theory.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            9 days ago

            I mostly agree with what you are saying but I do think sourcing it ethically is a pipe dream.

            It’s impossible to get all that data from individuals, it’s way too complicated. What’s already happening is the websites are selling the data and they all have it in their terms of service that they can, even Cara the supposedly pro artist website.

            The individuals are not getting compensated and all regulations proposed are aimed at making this the only option. If companies have to pay for all that data while Google and Microsoft are paying premiums to have exclusive access, the open source scene dies overnight.

            It really seems to me like there’s a media campaign being run to poison the general populations sentiment so AI companies can turn to the government and say “see, we want regulations, the public wants regulations, it’s a win win”. It’s regulatory capture.

            I’m also pro piracy and use it myself for all my media. I still consider it theft even if moral but I understand your point about it stealing from artist. I just don’t think any current regulation will help artists. Personally, I advocate for copy left licenses for anything that uses public data but I sadly have never seen any proposed law or government document mention it.

            • Furbland@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              9 days ago

              I also agree that ethical sourcing is pretty ridiculous given real world constraints, but I’m holding out hope that someone figures it out.

              • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 days ago

                It’s not hard to figure out, it’s just not economically viable to set up a system for it when the alternative is just not worrying about ethics and doing it anyway. We struggle to get companies to pay slightly more for recycled plastic than virgin plastic, this isn’t any different.

            • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 days ago

              “it’s too hard to respect copyright of all the little guys so we’ll just not” is an insane take. If you can’t do it ethically don’t do it at all.

              • Grimy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                8 days ago

                You are being manipulated as to think giving all the power to big data and big AI companies while squashing open source is in your best interest.

                Don’t do it at all isn’t an option. Doing it “ethically” means websites like Getty, Deviant art, Adobe getting a fat payday while giving our whole economy to Google and Microsoft. There’s potential serious job loss coming our way, and in your perfect world, all of those jobs lost would go straight into OpenAis or Googles pocket as a subscription service since any other option wouldn’t be afford to build a model.

                It is regulatory capture.

                Please actually try to understand my points instead of knee jerk reacting all over the place because of their media campaign. OpenAI wants regulations, anthropic got caught literally sending a letter to California telling them they approve the new bills.

                I’m being pragmatic, I know any regulation is just meant to build a moat and kill open source, I know the artists are never going to get paid either way. I’d rather not have 2-3 subscription services be our only option and kill open source for what amount to literally no gain for individuals.

                Reddit got paid 60 mil for their data, I posted a shitload of content back in the day and still haven’t gotten a dime. I’m sure companies like Getty will do the right thing though, right?

                I’m sorry if I’m being harsh but you are being a mouthpiece for the people you hate.

                • Furbland@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  I agree with JustARaccoon’s reply to your comment, and also this is really turning from a respectful debate into a ridiculous argument for something most everyone thinks is wrong. The artists should get their compensation. I don’t care how “improbable” it is, it needs to happen.

                • JustARaccoon@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 days ago

                  Are you done putting words in my mouth? Where did I say anything from the arguments you’re fighting against? I couldn’t give less of a shit what open ai wants, I’m not fighting for open ai, I’m fighting for all the artists who’ve been told again and again copyright infringement against big corpos is a no-no but now we have companies doing the same thing to them and it’s treated as an inevitability. For all I care open ai should be investigated for profiting from data they acquired through the loophole of being non-profit.

                  What do any of the concerns over the way data acquisition happens have to do with open source? Open source the software, acquire the data ethically. Prosecute anyone using datasets with unlawfully acquired data to the same extent you’d prosecute copyright infringement because that’s what it is. No middle ground. There’s a shit ton of data in the public domain, use that instead of scouring artstation and written books from living writers. Is it not easy to sort or of less quality? Boohoo. If you want better data pay the artists and writers.

                  Instead of this doomerposting “we’re gonna get the short stick either way might as well get something fun out of it” is exactly why we’re having our livelihoods trampled over.

          • Grimy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            9 days ago

            It’s very weird for a community that’s generally tech savvy. I think there’s a lot of manipulation going on. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that almost only anti-AI articles get posted but I’m also against baseless accusations so I mostly shut up about it.