Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- artificial_intelligence [2025/07/23 16:43] – ultracomfy
+++ artificial_intelligence [2025/07/23 16:45] (current) – ultracomfy
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 Especially in the field of art, the proliferation of AI has found itself a crushing reputation. It is despised by pretty much everyone - training is based on what is essentially stolen artwork((Until it's not eheheheheh! Fuck you, users of Instagram, your art now belongs to Facebook! ~Message proudly sponsored by Facebook (They changed their TOS to make you implicitly agree to have your artwork used for AI training when you use the service, making it non-stolen as you "agreed" to it.))), it wrecks the environment, has a bad influence on society, it's problematic for artists who make a living off of their art((They are now competing with AI "slop" that can be generated with just a few clicks in a few seconds, outcompeting them in speed and price in a way that is so convenient as to almost negative the poor quality of AI-generated art.)) and ultimately benefits the big corpos who own and run the AI systems. There's a lot to dislike about AI, regardless of the type of application the AI was trained for.((To be very clear, critics like this speak almost exclusively about AI products for sale - not research AI used for research purposes by computer scientists. NASA uses AI to analyze trends and pattern in research and exploration data, from weather observation to the moon and mars missions. The critics I am talking about do //not// typically refer to these uses of AI, as they consider them to be good and genuinely useful applications of AI.))
-And while I can understand agree with these points as a concept, it does not lead me to the same conclusion. My then-bestfriend is staunchly Anti-AI, whereas I felt like AI wasn't the problem and that AI is //good//, it's just the way it's currently implemented that is, admittedly, bad. Like, for any of the points there is something you could respond: Yes, the artwork is stolen, but your brain too is trained on the things it sees around it. Yes, AI is costly on the environment, but that wouldn't be a problem if our energy came from climate-friendly energy sources. Yes, artists get fucked out of a market, but that's just the market - don't sell air if there's air all around us. Yes, AI art looks shit((Does it really? I'm not an art person, or anyone, really, for aesthetics and the much.)), but that can and probably will change over time. Yes, AI benefits big corpo, but they //are// offering you a service - we don't go hating on bikes just because they benefit big corpo.\\
+And while I can understand agree with these points as a concept, it does not lead me to the same conclusion. My then-bestfriend is staunchly Anti-AI, whereas I felt like AI wasn't the problem and that AI is //good//, it's just the way it's currently implemented that is, admittedly, bad. Like, for any of the points there is something you could respond: Yes, the artwork is stolen, but your brain too is trained on the things it sees around it/"if you put stuff on the internet, anyone can use it for anything"((ie. = It's your own fault.)). Yes, AI is costly on the environment, but that wouldn't be a problem if our energy came from climate-friendly energy sources. Yes, artists get fucked out of a market, but that's just the market - don't sell air if there's air all around us. Yes, AI art looks shit((Does it really? I'm not an art person, or anyone, really, for aesthetics and the much.)), but that can and probably will change over time. Yes, AI benefits big corpo, but they //are// offering you a service - we don't go hating on bikes just because they benefit big corpo.\\
+\\
 However, I don't think this is a good way to argue either of our cases. I don't think I even properly agree with any of these rebuttals, even though I //did// bring them up my then-bestfriend. It just misses the point. It's not even that this is a discussion about "I am defending AI as a concept, you are talking about the implications of AI //as// they are currently implemented in our world", because AI will always be a problem for real-world artists. The concept of AI is //always// a threat to human artists, this problem //will// not be solved. So from what I gather, the proposed solution seems to be to abolish or severely limit the permitted use of AI.\\
@@ Line 29: / Line 30: @@
 I fully believe that a similar transformation can be done with AI (regardless of whether I think that such a transformation actually //will// happen).\\
 \\
-<wrap lo>And sorry to the human artists out there, but I //really// don't think you have a moral claim to be without competition by AI. AI will compete in your space, and it will win, and I'm sorry that this is a reality but I don't see why it shouldn't be.</wrap>
+<wrap lo>And sorry to the human artists out there, but I //really// don't think you have a moral claim to be without competition from AI. AI will compete in your space, and it will win, and I'm sorry that this is a reality but I don't see why it shouldn't be.</wrap>