it's a bit weird people forcing their views on others. Don't use it if you don't want, let other people use it if they want or not use it if they don't want. wtf with putting ourselves above others.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Not sure if it’s the best use of my time to spend it convincing someone who’s already asking in bad faith. This argument has been going on for years now, learn how to Google.
also, while we are discussing it, I have never been able to engage in a discussion with you without you making it a personal attack. You have a platform, it would be great if you use it to show constructive argumentation, that backs your ideas instead of escaping / making it personal every time.
Because it’s a waste of time 🤷♂️ I've spent hours on slow, constructive debates and every single time they just revert back to their original views because they weren't interested in changing in the first place. This is a question of ethics and integrity, if you don't have those then I can't help you.
I think the core issue is that the very essence of genAI relied on stealing work from artists and now it’s being used to replace them.
Only if there had never been any theft would it be comparable to any other type of technological progress that came before it, with reasonable pros and cons.
I personally don't have an opinion about the stolen data question. I see both sides of the argument and could align to both. I understand why artists do feel strongl about it, it makes sense. Personally, I'll wait for laws to be decided and come in effect, and align to that.
I also think it's not the core of the issue, because some companies have already sourced their data in a clearly legal way (with their own material), so even if we decided sourcing data in the wild is illegal, the AI gen question remains in the case it's sourced legally.
- Artists won't go extinct, genAI can't actually replace a creative brain and the understanding of the creative process.
- Some artists will add genAI in their workflow.
- Artists with genAI experience will be more valuable than others.
- Artists that have rejected genAI are in a worse place.
- Correct
- Correct
- Hugely incorrect. GenAI experience is like saying 'experience with Google'. Only if anything, having that experience on a CV will make plenty of studios immediately reject the candidate.
- Wildly incorrect. Rejecting AI means they're committed to actual skill.
It reminds me something about procedural generation 15 years ago, when things like houdini started. There was, at a lower scale, some fear that the creativity was taken away from artists and replaced by an algorithm and that we would hire less artists. (tbc)
"understanding correctly" about something that is clearly affecting livelihoods, jobs and the environment is kind of like not knowing lions are dangerous but letting 10 of them loose in a town and going "ohhh. Right. Yeah I guess they do hurt people huh?"
Now, it really sucks if many creative jobs disappear. And that may be what's new here compared to before. Because, especially when we work ourselves in creative industry, it feels like creative jobs are superior for self realization. But are they really or are we biased?
Maybe we should as a society decide that not all jobs are equal and creative jobs should be protected in a way others jobs aren't. And then we should pass laws for it. Not sure that would work at a global scale though.
Nobody said "force their views on others". It's like smoking: If someone lights up a cigarette next to me, I'm going to ask them nicely to not, or get up and leave. I don't want anything to do with it.
Its like smoking if instead of buying your own tobacco you take a bunch of my houseplants, and a bunch of everybody elses houseplants, and roll up the dried leaves in there, and then nobody wanted to hire me anymore while also blowing smoke into my face.
Well, the person in the original post did say it and confirmed in a post below yours. Also, that's totally fine to not want to do anything with it, or don't want to work with people who do. But that's not what the post is saying.
The third point is perfectly valid - telling someone who wants to avoid AI (which is *most people*) that someone is using it is perfectly fine, and someone who is in favour won't care. Someone without a firm opinion might ask questions about it, which is also perfectly fine.
I am not sure about the "most people" because the ones who don't want to avoid AI are mostly silent to not get eviscerated online. So it's hard to measure.
I agree with the way you put it though, in that case, yes. But that can quickly turn to harassment with social media.
If the company is using stolen data to make a profit, it's not a good use case. That's like arguing sweatshop labor is fine if the clothes they make are given to cute orphans.
I don't have an opinion about the stolen data question. I see both sides of the argument and could align to both. I understand why artists do feel strongl about it, it makes sense. Personally, I'll wait for laws to be decided and come in effect, and align to that.
Comments
It could make people feel better if they would understand what is the actual scale of the issue. My guess is that it is not as big as we make it.
That is why I personally choose to have a zero tolerance policy against the use of GenAI.
It's about protecting others, and protecting creativity.
I do agree with protecting livelihoods. Why only creatives though? :) Other jobs are at risks too, but I see how it's more obvious with creatives.
My only claim: we need to understand exactly the impact to size the problem correctly and react accordingly.
Only if there had never been any theft would it be comparable to any other type of technological progress that came before it, with reasonable pros and cons.
I'll copy what I answered in another thread as the same quesiton came up. (tbc)
It's no good trying to save the dodos when they're already extinct.
I am not sure if having the best intentions can protect us from worse outcomes. What if the fear we are feeling drives us towards the wrong road?
I'd like to suggest another angle (next post)
- Some artists will add genAI in their workflow.
- Artists with genAI experience will be more valuable than others.
- Artists that have rejected genAI are in a worse place.
- Correct
- Hugely incorrect. GenAI experience is like saying 'experience with Google'. Only if anything, having that experience on a CV will make plenty of studios immediately reject the candidate.
- Wildly incorrect. Rejecting AI means they're committed to actual skill.
We're talking about "supposed" technological and societal progress, as it always happens. Some jobs disappear and some appear. Or sometimes we were needing some jobs in million and then we needed a only few hundreds. https://www.thinkautomation.com/future-of-work/10-jobs-lost-to-technology
- judge them
- refuse to work with them
- warn others away from them.
Using generative AI in a creative industry barreling towards collapse should be radioactive.
I understand the drive to protect something we love, but I tolerance, humility and being open minded is important.
There are good and bad use of AI, nuances matter.
I agree with the way you put it though, in that case, yes. But that can quickly turn to harassment with social media.