Nope. No.

In my job I write a lot of bullshit sentences that I'd rather a machine write for me. But the solution is to make it so I don't have to write bullshit sentences, not to get a machine to write bullshit.

But if you don't write more bullshit sentences, who's going to pay for AI to summarize by getting rid of your bullshit sentences?
If your job is anything like mine, the entire reason for those blshit sentences is to fool a machine at Google into putting your website higher in their search results.
So now it's bullshit Ai writing stuff for another bullshit Ai to judge. Consideration for humans is non existent.

Honestly I'm so sick and tired of the creative types giving the same shitty takes on AI over and over again

"WhY Is AI MaKiNg aRt iNsTeAd oF RePlAcInG JoBs wE DoN'T WaNt"

Maybe because it's much easier to create a plug in for photoshop than it is to build and program a robot that can identify and unclog your drains?

Like it really seems like these people think AI engineers sit in meetings and go "okay, we can either free the working class from their chains or end world hunger. Which one should we pick?"

"That's boring, can we just automate erotic anime art instead?"

"Mike you're a genius"

As an engineer who works on machine learning for physical systems:
This conversation is happening, it's just not engineers who decide what's getting built. We absolutely can automate shitty jobs nobody wants, and with a better economic system we'll do it. We've been overdue to end involuntary labor for a century.
Also people keep rejecting the drain clog robot idea because they're afraid of pipe robots attacking their butts.
- I'd like to say that no matter what direction we go into the future, I am definitely not okay with a pipe robot attacking my butt.
- Also people keep rejecting the drain clog robot idea because they’re afraid of pipe robots attacking their butts.
  We already have the drain clogging robots, though. They are widely used by utility companies to force the payments in places where disconnecting other utilities is illegal.
- Lol
Not too long ago, everyone was saying that art was the most difficult thing for an AI to do. That's why everyone had this utopian view of machines doing all the work while humans just spent their days making art.
Art was supposed to be the insanely difficult something that only humans could do.
- It still is. It mixes and matches shit together but real art is something it can't do.
- I have been studying/working with AI for 15 years now. And even back then "AI" art was still a thing, just very abstract.
  Any person who was talking about art being the most difficult thing for AI to do was either talking very philosophically or was just someone trying to sound smart.
Even with automating shitty jobs that no one wants, you're still getting people out of a job and the only way they have of making money. This is kind of how people reacted when Boston Dynamics showcased its warehouse robot. It seems that we need a universal basic income first, but no politicians are willing to do that at least until unpleasant jobs are automated. There's a bit of a chicken and egg problem there. And, on top of this, companies don't care that much about automating shitty jobs because the people in them get low wages, so they don't cost the company much to employ.
- when we invented cars and got rid of horses in NYC, did we weep for the people whose job it was to shovel horse shit off the streets every day?
  OH THOSE POOR HORSESHIT SHOVELLERS. REPLACED BY THAT HORRIBLE NEW TECHNOLOGY. Now we're burning fossil fuels and have rubber micro plastics in our food and water! We should never have had ICE cars. They took our jobs!
  TOOK ER JERBS!!!
Also, screwing up art has less severe repercussions than, oh... almost anything else.
Edit: I'm not insulting artists, I'm insulting the competence of AI. Fuck-ups with AI art don't kill people.
Maybe because it’s much easier to create a plug in for photoshop than it is to build and program a robot that can identify and unclog your drains?
they also say this like these people wouldn't get incredibly fucked over. You're an artist, you can almost certainly find someone willing to pay for your services. A plumber who has no job? Probably not.
- You're an artist, you can almost certainly find someone willing to pay for your services.
  How many artists are you friends with? I know a fair number, and a minority are able to survive off their artwork alone.

Man never thought I’d miss crypto but here we are.

As bad as it is, this is still a step up from crypto.
- At least the crypto bros were idioting among themselves and not invading every fucking angle of modern society.
- Strongly disagree as unlikely as it sounds, crypto was much less annoying
HA! Right?

I'd say "inb4 the AI cultists invade this thread" but it looks like I'm already too late

Where do they dig these people up
- Bold of you to assume they're people.
Yeah I know. Still.

Every time someone asked me if they should worry about AI i've always replied that they should only worry about humans, especially the rich ones.

this could not be stated better.

I'm very conflicted about this. I'd reckon that the majority of us working on these AI and robotics systems do so to try to make the world a better place; so that maybe one day people won't have to slave away in warehouses all day and pee in bottles because they can't take the time to use the bathroom. Those good intentions always get corrupted by corporations and greed. So do we stop trying to push the envelope? Do we not try to make the world a better place for fear that it'll be corrupted? I really just don't know

Regulations are supposed to help keep corruption and greed driven bad actors from running rampant and misusing new technology.
The problem isn't innovation. It's the extremely wealthy people throwing their money into lobbying against any regulations that would limit how they're allowed to utilize new technology like AI. Can't have things like ethics getting in the way of raking in all that money.
In the US this problem is pretty extreme because we have corporations funding our politicians via things like super PACs. It supposedly doesnt influence any politicians decisions, but we all know it must. People don't throw around that much money during election time for shits and giggles. Somebody is getting something out of it somewhere.
is it really corpo corruption? majority of ai art 'enthusiasts' do so in the guise of 'democratizing' art but they harrass artist by scraping their work and dming them that they will be out of jobs and will die poor.
- Which like, you think this is news to any artist? Everyone is already passing around the same $20, lol.
- I guess you know me better than I know myself. Thanks for the info.
So do we stop trying to push the envelope? Do we not try to make the world a better place for fear that it’ll be corrupted? I really just don’t know
I think we probably need to stop having massive corpos that force people to piss in bottles, seems like the correct answer to me.
- You're right. I have no idea how to do that, though. One could argue that the solution to that problem would also serve as the solution to the problem of people losing their jobs to automation/AI.
The answer is ethics, and refusing to work on topics that are contrary to ethics. can you really complain about corporations corrupting everything if you are the one enabling them by letting them corrupt you?
- Yes? I've got bills to pay and literally every job I can find is unethical. I'd rather seize the factors of production than try to find a nicer capitalist.
- the difficulty here is that not everyone is able to make that choice. people who want to be ethically driven in their work also have to maintain employment to meet their needs, and may be assigned work they might personally choose not to do.
  i feel fortunate to have employment in line with my ethics and values, including that i work for a non-profit. if i lose this job, i may not have the option to wait for something similar when there is rent to pay.
  i think it's worth making the effort, though.
Very often scientific breakthroughs lead to horrible unforseen outcomes (I doubt the first people to create a recipe for black powder forsaw the havoc it'd cause) - but y'all should've seen this coming.
Automation always leads to less workforce being needed pretty much without exception. Thousands of craftsmen were put out of work by industrial machines, replaced with women and children paid dirt poor wages. Automobiles ended the era of horse and buggy (not so great an ending for the horses at large). Shorthand stenographers were put out of jobs by the type-writer. Computer was a job title before it was something that fit in your pocket.
Bottom line: If you invent something that automates X - everyone who does X will begin to lose their jobs to your automation.
Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.
- Either we stop developing automation solutions, or we end requiring people have occupations to live.
  UBI.

Probably could have used AI to rewrite that to make it easier to read.

Unlikely, ai would just have removed meaning
- It would have condensed the essence of that text to a sentence or 2. Because it if fuller of necessary drivel than a SEO website.

So what, Luddite? Make it even harder to transition to a non-capitalist world? Banning AI will make it harder, it's much easier to transition to a post scarcity world when the tech to do so already exists and is accepted.

I would encourage you to read up on who the Luddites really were. In short, textile workers who were being forced into underpaid and very dangerous work making cheap shit. They broke some machines and wrote some threatening letters to try and achieve a ban on child labour and a minimum wage. Then the government responded with executions and penal transportation.
When people complain about AI (including the above screenshot), it’s almost always just complaints about Capitalism. Yeah, big corporations are pushing AI hard. Yes, they are trying to replace workers with AI. These are not AI problems, they are Capitalism problems. People do know it’s okay to criticize Capitalism instead of just the things that Capitalism abuses, right?
And it’s like they don’t see the ways that AI can help in the fight against Capitalism by empowering individuals.
Plus, AI is not solely the providence of corporations… and even if they are in the lead on advancements, they won’t be able to keep it locked down, either. There are community AI projects and open source/weight/etc models… and they are also advancing quickly. The libraries that interact with the models are almost all open source, too.
And while people complain about corporations scraping peoples data for training they neglect to consider that we, the community, can scrape corporate data as well… that’s ALL fair use. Attacking, diminishing, or destroying fair use benefits rich corporations infinitely more than it benefits us plebs and community efforts. “License your training data” is something only deep pockets can achieve. If I want to train something and have to pay for training data (which, btw won’t ever be reproduced/redistributed)… I can’t do that, you can’t do that… 99.999% can’t do that.
The fear of Capitalists replacing us all with software has somehow managed to make people miss the forest for the trees. AI isn’t the enemy - not any more than the cotton gin, the telephone, or the internet - Capitalism is.
- And the resource consumption? Is that made up?
- You put that much better than I could have, but I agree with you 100%.
Luddites were 100% on the right side of history, as they were complaining not about technology but about the way it was being used as leverage against the lower classes. Your opinion of them is the result of an easy smear campaign, from the same people that are wielding technology now against you with your blessing.
Nah man it’s just another grift ban the fuck out of it. It might be artificial but it isn’t very intelligent.
- Ah, cool. So then you will be coding me a neutral network framework in about 2 seconds then? C# please, object oriented and with proper comments to indicate what it's doing.
  Wow, you're super slow. This whole "not ai" thing sucks.

AI bad!

This is correct in more than one way
- It’s really just mocking the people who think anyone really cares. This is a tidal wave that’s gonna wipe away everyone who doesn’t embrace it. The genie is out of the bottle, love it or hate it, it’s a tool that’s only going to get more powerful. And it doesn’t care if you hate it, it’ll still come for the lowest hanging fruit in every industry
  So if that’s your job, it’s time to level up your skills, and embrace the technology in order to use it to your benefit. The people who are going to benefit are highly skilled people who can use the tools to be even better. The ones who are gonna be wiped out are the lowest skill people who fight it

AI art is real and good from a socialist viewpoint. AI in general is great tech and I love it, I want more of that and less of the corpos and the bourgeoise "b-b-but my IP!" artbros

I can see where you're coming from, but I think there's also an anti-socialist angle to the way it's being used right now. It further alienates the artist form the art, enabling the extraction of their labor by the owners of the algorithms.
If the source code and data sets of the AI were in the public domain, or as easy to access and modify as the art they take advantage of, it would be more compatible with socialism. As it stands AI is being leveraged as another tool of capitalist exploitation to funnel even more money into big tech stock valuations.
- I mean, Stable Diffusion is open weight, the code is there too, so is the paper, and it is free as in free beer and incredibly easy to use thanks to the open source community. In the same vein, Mistral is a good fairly libre LLM.
  I think the problem is that when people hear AI they think DALL-E and ChatGPT whereas to me that's just weird corporate alternatives.
  The way people interact with technology has been so commercialised and basically repackaged into less tech and more something akin to products for the average person and it's a damn shame. Crypto to them means something something NFT hot potato, to me it has always been about buying drugs and circumventing laws. To them - internet is ads, to me the internet is how I avoid ads that I see way more of IRL. Algorithmic content in my internet browsing experience is basically non-existent.
  As a result there's a cultural divide there where us slightly more tech-savvy folks live in a completely different world where for us it quite literally really isn't the case. I'm happy to reach across that divide and educate so we can actually modernize the left because no matter what - this isn't going away.
  But I think a lot of artbros don't really want to learn or discuss this, and when you have irrational, baseless reasons for hating AI art like blatant falsehoods i.e. "it's all just theft look at this totally not img2img example of my art!!!" or cultish nonsense about "souls" or "culture" or "spirit" or "human spark" or whatever other spook du jour, it's impossible to argue.
  This is made even worse by the fact that at least from what I've seen, currently proposed regulations will only lock in corporate control on the models by ensuring that only those with the capital can meet those regulations or pay fines for not meeting them, and the artbros pushing for them without understanding anything about tech play right into the corpos hands.
  It's ironic, the same types in my xp will often will joke about some unhinged code monkey on the orange website thinking he knows everything about politics just because he is the smarterest programmer in all of JS bootcamp, yet they fail to see that by repeating the silly theft and appeals to nature etc. arguments they are playing into the same trap of ignorance in that they don't fully understand the tech they're drawing conclusions about.
I see AI art as mostly a toy. As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific. The thing with intellectual property is that currently, its necessary so that artists can be paid for their work, but it last way too long. I'd be in favor of limiting to twenty years since publication. This would allow artists to monetize their work, even handsomely, if they produce something outstanding, but it would stop cultural landlords like Disney from arising.
- As in, you can easily create nice looking pictures, but it falls flat when you want something specific.
  Although if you personally can't draw, and therefore can't actually put your idea on the canvas exactly as you think of it, it isn't that far off from commissioned art once you learn how to use inpainting.
  You iterate each part until you end up with the results you are happy with.

It is so funny to see that AIBros are exactly like Creeptobros/NFTBros of their time. Saying that "you're gonna miss out", "you're luddites" and all that jazz. So what's next? They gonna tell me "have fun staying poor" too? Lmfao.

Just like the former, they are completely okay with stealing from others, cuz they are literally worthless without the data they have hoarded outta so many people.

They should keep going, so that more people will see them for what they truly are. :P

Lol it's hilarious watching the Lemmy community tie themselves in cognitively dissonant knots trying to decide whether they hate AI more or whether they hate capitalist ownership and hoarding of information more.
You guys all go off just as hard at the piracy community here, right?
- Me when I steal from thousands of artists for anime ass looking eyy-ayy image I worked so hard to find the right prompt for (those capitalists were hoarding information and now I, clearly the good guy in this scenario, am freeing em)

Man, anti-"ai" folks are so uppity. Get over yourself, internet poster.

Let's talk again after your job is automated away, with no possibility for you to "skill up" because unlike in the 70s, this time the automation trend is starting from the top positions and the arts.
- Sorry man, my job is not under threat by ai. The human element to what I do currently can't be replaced. I certainly use it to help me get my job done faster though.
  The threat to "the arts" is not real. Corporate, soulless art might be a less lucrative field for an artist in the future due to image generation capabilities, which is definitely an unfortunate consequence of its development, but real art still has a human value that can't be replaced by ai. That said, I'd consider image generation to be just another tool of creative expression. Ask 10 people in a room to come up with an image with any of the image generators and you'll see vastly different levels of creativity in their prompts. The average internet hate train is just targeting this change this time around. It's exhausting seeing internet posters see something changing and decide to target that one thing until they get bored because their manufactured rage doesn't actually produce anything.
- I sincerely hope it does start at top positions. CEOs are overpaid.
So you fully embrace AI generated journalism? AI art devoid of any emotions and skill? Shitty answers to prompts that just create more problems than solving them? AI has a long fucking way to go before it can really benefit humankind.
- Ai generated journalism just made shitty journalism easier. The same shitty "top 10 whatever" sites were posting a similar level of pointless drivel 10 years ago but now they can produce more of them, I guess?
  As someone with very limited artistic skill, I think your opinion of AI art is gatekeeping. Sorry not everyone can pick up a pencil and put down the exact image they want to see. For me, it's just another tool of creativity that also happens to lowers the barrier to entry. You'll find very different ability in producing specific results among users, too. I've gotten a bunch of people at work to join me in coming up with prompts and it's fascinating to see how different people come up with different ideas, and how some definitely understand how to work with image generators better than others.
  Not sure what you mean by shitty answers. Ever asked a human the answer to something? They often get things wrong too. I've definitely googled something many times only to find misinformation and bad results. This isn't exclusive to LLMs.
  I agree with your last statement though. It's a great tool that has only been broadly publically available in its current form for less than a few years now. Certainly there's a long way to go. I just think all the doomers in these comment chains are simultaneously not giving its current capabilities enough credit, but also vastly overestimating the impacts AI generation will have societally.

AI is just a tool. It's like a computer. Right now it's possibilities look limitless, but soon we will know the limitations and it will just be another tool in our toolbox. It will drive some people out of jobs... mostly for the betterment of society, but the disruption will be hard for anyone who is working one of those jobs, so there will be complaining. For example, is it really good for society to have people reading prearranged scripts off a screen at massive soul killing call centers?

As will all technological innovations there are advantages and disadvantages. Learn to adopt the advantages and look to fix or attack the disadvantages. IMHO, the biggest issues will be in privacy and monitoring, so we should be looking for laws and protections we look to put in place to shield ourselves from this.

If you don't like it, don't use it. But this will be like computers, robotics, and cell phones. If you go full Luddite, you'll be left in the dust in both in culture and job prospects. This is change and change is scary, but the old adage of "adapt or die" still holds true.

I can't fucking use Acrobat Reader to view a .pdf without having whater their AI shit is shoved in my face
- Adobe Reader has been pretty mid for a long time. You might want to check out Foxit Reader, better performance and more free features.

A horse looks at a car something something. The technology is here to stay and has it's uses, the tech industry will get bored of it's limitations and a new thing will come along for us to scream at. AI has practical applications but I don't think you should dismiss it entirely on principle. I think it's about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.

I think it's about learning to use this technology practically and ethically in the long run.
If that was happening, I think we’d probably be fine with it. But it just appears almost everywhere, uninvited, as half-baked and soaked in mile-high promises.
I'm more frustrated by the haste with which it's implemented. I've seen (secondhand) instances of this Google search AI spitting out results that are either flat-out wrong (e.g., presenting fan theories as fact in response to a question about warhammeer 40k), or actively harmful (e.g., recommending self harm in response to a search for "how do I stop crying")
People who criticize AI seem to fall into 3 camps:
Bandwagon jumpers who just see people they like criticizing AI and regurgitate what they hear.
People who reject it out of principle because it would break their world view to consider the possibility that human beings could just be machines with no free will.
People who reject it because theyve seen capitalism use previous advances in automation to enrich the working class and entrench their power.
- Largely agree but I think there are one it two more camps.
  People who feel threatened to irrelevance as artists trying to use art as their primary means to make money
  People who realize that CEOs and higher up people in companies actually do intend to replace human workers as soon as they can, even before it's properly viable.
  I'm pro AI, but I largely see the AI backlash as inventing complex moral justification to oppose it when the core issues are it's impact on the livelihood of artists under capitalism.
  Obviously AI art is just as valid as human art, and there is nothing inherently special about human creations. We are actually just biological machines and our behavior and output is easily emulatable.
You can and should dismiss LLM's on principle though, because these are nothing. They're fancy Markov generators, maybe one step up from the auto-correct in your keyboard.
They're fun for researching problems and trying to further our efforts towards developing artificial intelligence, but the only thing techbros are selling is a new monkey to regurgitate the data it's been fed. The monkey doesn't know if the data is actually useful, or even if it is true, but to the techbros it "approximates a conversation" and therefore is good enough to replace jobs. AI might be cool eventually, but we are still lightyears away from anything that can think.

For the umpteenth time if it’s requiring human generated input, it’s not AI. A human is still at the wheel telling a computer what to do even if it’s doing evil bidding. It is but a program that still had a bunch of lines put in BY A HUMAN to start the algorithm. Cons are still conning.

Too many people making wild techno phobe assumptions and missing the point they are still being fucked over by another human. Not a computer. Pinning it on as AI as if we’re powerless is misinformation to what is actually happening.

I'm sorry but this sounds a lot like "guns don't kill people".
"AI" is doing tremendous damage right now to artists and many other population strata, no matter how you like to word it. I'm all for automation and I think "AI" can help humanity in many ways, but right now it's also being used to cheap out and hurt humanity at large. I don't think it's helpful at all to look away
- I’m all for automation
  everybody keeps saying this, but i don't think everybody realizes that any automation, at all, can have a negative effect. Yeah sure automating labor jobs would be nice, what are those people going to do now? Get a college degree? Good luck with that.
  We survived the automation and industrialization of farming, we'll survive this.
- Oh we doing that now? Shitty Metaphors? Ok.
  Let’s do it.
  If a person rapes you you don’t blame their genitalia. You blame the person.
  and that’s my point. Blaming a machine is sidestepping the criminal who’s manipulating the machine to rip off people. You’re guilty of your own rule for derailing from the real culprit and ignoring the human thief. They rely on that.stop enabling it.

I'm not sure you're right. Many companies ditch AI because not only is it useless, it's downright dangerous because AI chat bots are very confident in their answers, even though they're wrong most of the time.
I was excited at first, but now it's a useless gimmick. And it fucks up journalism.
But I do wanna keep the AI denoiser in Lightroom though, that shit is amazing!
- Humans are pretty confident when they're wrong too.
- i think it is here to stay, i think it's focus is what's going to change. Having AI replace a lot of janitorial tasks can be a huge boon to productivity. It's also a pretty great librarian for internal documentation. And it also probably makes c suite fuckers happy, because they no longer have to write emails.

I don't like AI. I don't like technology really. My life was just fine before the webz.

Says the guy posting on an obscure, overly complicated version of a web forum primarily dedicated to Linux and other fringe technology and ideologies from a non-mainline instance lol
- I mean yeah, you may have a point or two. lol This is the cool part about it though.
- I don't like cars but I still drive because it still brings me more in life than if I didn't!

AI scrappers

Ironically enough, the rules of the competition specifically state the robot can't be autonomous.

I want AI for exactly one thing: helping me put my own thoughts into words. A GPT-3 machine trained in 2021 it's perfectly good enough for that. For everything else, I want simple if-this-then-that programming.

I've found AI useful just for programming examples. I think it's a decent programming resource especially when working in an unfamiliar language.
Outside of that it's right now a net negative in almost every case where I've seen it used. Google results are already polluted by AI-generated hallucinated crap and the bots will feast on their own excrement until it dominates the entire internet.
Let's be honest about the two reasons why the industry is pushing it. Number one, it has the potential to replace human workers at low cost and therefore is attractive to the investor class. Number two, tech investment is down in a high interest rate business climate and after the dud of VR the tech companies need a new buzzword to attract capital.
They are certainly not cramming it into your OS because they think you will actually find it useful.

Love AI. Hope it bankrupts every artist so I no longer have to hear about them bitching about "stealing art"

I don't know if you've met many artists, but they pretty much were all bankrupt before AI came along.
The only part that annoys me about that complaint is that it's not "stealing." I think it's very reasonable for artists to ask for compensation if their works are used in the creation of a commercial product, but it never has and never will be theft. Equating copyright infringement with theft is entertainment industry anti-piracy propaganda, and Hollywood really doesn't need you to be their unpaid spokesperson.
If you're an independent artist who wants to be compensated when your art is used in AI training, then do yourself the favor of understanding what you actually need to ask for. Specifically, legislation to clarify that incorporation of copyrighted materials into an AI training data set is a protected use under copyright law and requires compensation, and/or that AI image models should be established as derivative works of the images in their training. That's the legislative change they should be pushing for rather than inaccurately claiming "theft" and "stealing art."
Stealing art is when you have a painting and I don't, and then I take it, and now I have a painting and you don't. It has nothing to do with AI. Artists who oppose AI would be better advocates for themselves if they offered their criticism in accurate terminology.
- I just hate that artists are one part in a large organization who are hell bent on building walls online

ok so technically the definition of art isn't really a defined thing. The most likely point one could use is "that it isn't human" and honestly, yeah. But i imagine that's why "ai art" is the term people use instead.

Art it art, it doesn't matter what constitutes it, or how good or bad it is. If it's art, it's art. It's technically just that simple.

I also wouldn't classify it as theft, considering that's pretty similar to how human learning works. You ever look at a genre of art and notice they're all pretty similar? There's a reason. Could it break copyright? Probably, does it? No, probably not, should it? Probably.

it's funny to me that people are specifically pissing and shitting themselves about AI in particular, and not capitalism, and the fact that society is just ok with pushing it's working force out of the market if it means making less money. Where were these people when we got rid of our manufacturing sector?

You hate big capitalism fucking up your life? Me to, let's go commit arson or something (for legal reasons, this is a joke, it's hyperbolic, the humor is in the fact that committing a crime would do more for society than the following), instead of bitching about bill gates existing or whatever the fuck people do now.

Cool story. Care if I participate?

Feel free, this is a forum

Us: "We don't have any time to pursue creativity because we're too busy working!"

Execs: "There, now we've created AI to pursue creativity for you so you can work more!

Us: "..."

Execs: "... That is what you wanted, right?"

Using technology to make a post complaining about technology. The very platform being used contributes to "tech bro capitalism" but AI is crossing the line? What a weird take.

This is you.
"Using technology to complain about technology"
This is like pointing at someone who took a bus to a climate science convention to talk about the problems with air travel and saying "wow, you used mass transit to complain about mass transit"
He didn't complain about all technology though.