“S3rios rigorously haunted the comments section, desperate for a debate. They knew all the moves. The bad faith retorts, the non starters, the ways to demand people to summon data wothout doing homework on their own. They were ready. All they needed was someone to take the bait.”
" Oh yeah, lets not listen to any of the critiques! They might have actually good points, and we sure don't want to start understanding the subject. We're just here for... *checks notes* shits and giggles? "
You may be itching to debate, but let's be realistic for a moment: it's not reasonable to expect a nuanced critique of the entirety of a 3 hour video within two days of its release.
It is though, because (no offense to Alex) none of the arguments made are new arguments. People have had years to come up with plausible responses and they haven’t done so.
How do you spend half a year doing “research” and not reach out to any of the artists you’re villainizing here? You literally have ominous music when you introduce Karla. Wtf? Shit journalism my dude.
genuinely disappointing to see a video from you that refuses to engage with the actual points artists are making about ai and instead wastes three hours of my time arguing against a different point than the section title advertises. what happened man… i respected your work
It's incredible that you somehow haven't come across this in your 6 months of research and deliberately are avoiding talking about machine learning people like Ed Newton-Rex and whistleblower Suchir Balaji who are backing artists in their claim.
He is a grifter? I’m sorry but someone who worked for Stability AI and was the lead on building their audio model only to quit because of their stance on training on artists work is not a grifter to me.
A grifter to me is someone who pretends they are something without the merits to back it.
I can see that argument. I’ve seen a lot of people trying to pull variations of a similar schtick in the space and it does irk me. BUT before going there with him how about you read up more on him and his reasons for doing what he does?
Well I do think it's an interesting video, as a leftist who's both skeptical of copyright and a hardliner against AI, but who also has to test AI tools in the course of my work as a tech journalist.
Other controversy aside, why didn't you address the biggest problem with AI: that it doesn't work?
Like, okay, let's say it's not the worst thing for the environment, and let's pretend we can arrive at a non-copyright based structure that protects artists.
None of that matters when AI tells me to eat toilet paper as a heartburn cure (a real thing that it really did).
I do think there can be such a thing as ethical AI, but it would need to be built after the current version of AI is destroyed.
You might find "Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence" by Dan McQuillan to be an interesting read. He approaches it as a communist.
We often see the question of AI represented as "little guy" vs "Big Tech." The truth is far more complicated. Our enemies are not only Big Tech, but other large interest groups that have no problem leaving independent creators, labor, and the environment to burn.
Being a leftist is being right but too early. I don't like how text models sound so confident when they're incorrect, or how cheap the images look, or that I was made redundant with AI being a partial justification, but you make a good point about how corpos stand to gain from the backlash too
I understand these takes. I disagree with them. I don't think that means you're a bad person or shilling for AI, intentionally or otherwise. I think it's good that we agree that, regardless of whether genAI is inherently bad, under capitalism it's a nightmare. But there is more to criticise AI for.
Jfc, can you summarize whatever point you're trying to make for those of us who don't have 3 hours? Cuz I'll be honest, I'm trying to engage in good faith here, but the title makes you sound like a fed and I straight up do not have time to see if you counter that perception.
The video is essentially “You are forced to concede these points on AI because your political ideology is opposed to capitalism. If you disagree with my points, then you hate creators and love big business. Now go buy an Incogni plan”
Negative hysteria around nuclear power was bad. Negative hysteria around GMOs was bad. Negative hysteria around AI will be bad. And in every case it only served even worse business interests in the end. I have no expectation this will go differently if it takes hold.
Ppl are mad at this video! But you’re usually extremely thoughtful. So I can’t wait to see if they hate any slight nuance, or if you’re actually shilling for these evil companies.
I don't really think he's shilling those companies in any way, he just debunked a bunch of common talking points about ai and than said that yeah, it's a bunch of assholes that own those ai companies
he was really critical of OpenAI during that video
Yeah. He was mostly criticizing common critiques of ai and basically saying the actual technology isn’t inherently bad, it’s capitalism that is. Which duh. Lots of thought provoking stuff.
Oof. This video was a tough watch as someone very critical of AI, but you gave me a lot to think about and consider. Most of my critiques are about the tech corps deving AI, so I'm excited to see how you discuss that in the next part. Thanks Alex!
Don't take this as hating, but this is flawed esp. in regards to who Andersen and Ortiz are and what they do.
In the quest of finding a middle ground, I do believe you got a little lost in the sauce.
Check Ortiz' thread(s) on your video, she is angry and she has a point: https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3lo7xz4a7q22j
Not saying to scrap it, it's too good for that and I like challenging my beliefs from time to time, but you need to either get a correction out or rewrite that segment, because it really does feel like you ignored the two women who have actual stakes in the lawsuit.
I am especially critical of the way you structured it, since it can be read as you insinuating Ortiz and Andersen are either complicit or useful idiots, neither of which is the case. Taking the Author's Alliance at face value, while disregarding the Author's Guild is also insencere or a blunder.
maybe. consider, maybe, im just pissed to see my hard work being chewed up and regurgitated with the energy use of a small city into a lackluster result of depression mush.
its not that complicated. people steal our shit, fuck up the planet with it, manipulate and propagandise people with this.
generative ai needs to be ethically trained, needs to have MUCH better safeguards, and a much better energy investment before its even worth considering.
How is handing all control over everything to corporations that have been stealing and grifting with a garbage machine "anti-capitalist?" AI is just dogshit that produces worthless garbage at the cost of stealing everything from everyone, it's terrible on its face.
The closest thing to critiquing an artist is introducing Karla with a musical sting and then immediately moving on to talk about how the humanistic rhetoric in the MOVEMENT has attracted organizations whose interests are diametrically opposed to ours, and why that is the case.
You can disagree with that, of course, but it's kinda silly to say it's a critique of any of the artists involved. He literally clarifies that the artists participating may believe in protecting small artists, but their efforts are being hijacked.
I'm sorry but he doesn't critique artists in the video.
he presents a couple of people who have been making efforts towards expanding copyright as a method of protecting ai, and points out the risks of doing that.
The entirety of the video is about rhetoric, not people, that's kinda the point.
I have watched the video. It's not based on a few clips. I understand what he's trying to do. I've watched several of his videos before this one. I'm saying that his representation of the subject matter is faulty and one-sided. Whether deliberate or not.
copyright in lengthy interviews while arguing against faceless "anti-ai" strawmen arguments on the other side. And use selective screenshots to represent their side.
Why did he reach out to the side he agrees with, but not the other on this subject?
After watching and wrestling with it, the good news/argument for AI really forgets the creators who are being ruined by it. AI is a corporate tool and I don't see non-corporate, non-abuse cases ever being what AI would primarily be used for. There were odd edge cases for NFTs too.
As I see it, if the lawsuits against AI are bad, which, I could entertain, what we're fucked either way. Are we on a track where people can just make art for our souls and income is no longer a concern? Or are both political parties pushing to make literal imprisoned slaves of poor people in the US?
Don't talk about laws you don't understand. You don't understand copyright law so don't talk like you know something that genuine experts don't. There is no exclusivity with AI gens and they are worthless to professional and their clients an distributors.
Voice Actress here. I don't hate AI because of corporations. I hate it because my voice has been used for genAI slop without my consent for the past year or so.
Way to villify people who have had their work stolen by a soulless garbage machine. Hope the ad revenue makes it go down easier 🖕
I think this video was interesting, but you hand-wave something early on that is incredibly important. The context the AI skeptic exists in is one of exploitation, your discussion focuses purely on the conceptual. I think that's the point of disconnect between you and many commenters here.
I agree. I don't know that it's even entirely a bad take. He says some valid stuff. I just think his focus away from the material comes across as callous as he made sociological arguments for material problems. I hope the second vid grounds this in actionable items. Idk, It's okay to miss sometimes.
Aside: I do think you're off-base on AI's ability to process language. Just knowing that a king is not a queen doesn't mean you know what a king is. Viewing current AI through the lens of human stochastic arguments is interesting, but feels presumptive at this stage of AI development.
There’s a section at around 14 minutes in where Josh demonstrates what happens when he sends a nonsense poem to friends of his vs chat GPT. The result is a perfect
encapsulation of something AI simply cannot replicate.
Josh is an English professor, and I think his perspective on ChatGPT and why it will never be capable of being better at writing than any human being is powerful, and something I wish Avila’s video would have considered.
All this, in addition to my own frustration as a voice actor, that Avila’s video didn’t take into account AI voice replication, and the theft of actual human likenesses. I’m currently watching my industry fight for basic protection from corporations taking our voices—our very tools for our craft—and
claiming them as their own in perpetuity. And big studios are refusing to promise they won’t do this (we’ve been striking for almost a year because a bunch of big players will NOT budge, because they’re so eager to ride the wave of AI acceptance and never have to pay us again.)
In case you didn't know, there are zero penalties for putting the link to a video in the top post on BlueSky, and it'd be really helpful when reposting to avoid having to choose between a post where the author describes their work & a post that has the link.
It's a shame you posted your trash video here. Do you want us to do to you what we did to Adobe?
Not only is this information intentionally biased, you also haven't spoken to any of the artists involved in the lawsuits; this seems like little more than an attempt at astroturfing.
Hey, @alexander-avila.bsky.social. This video on the whole is a dishonest take and all you did was spreading misconceptions & didn't even contact the people who you are talking about.
Lmao this post tries to argue that the Author's Alliance is astroturfed because the directors are academics. Academics tend to be the authors of academic literature
One that's pretty much irrelevant to the original post. My point was that he was using bad sources from a group that obvious goes against the interest of union/guilds run by people career professionals.
The source comes from the author's guild themselves. Also they already literally back by google & none of them are there for are professional authors. Please actually read the thing.
You also willing decided to not interview or even properly represent the people in the video are. They are reachable and active on social media. But hey considering you introduced one of them with scary music. I have my doubts this was done in good faith. https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3lo7xz4a7q22j
The fact that even big youtubers are saying this is a good video also highlight how disconnected most people are with the reason why AI in it's current state isn't good overall for anyone and ending up taking the same position of the companies who you claimed to hate.
Comments
Meanwhile that misinformed video takes 3 hours for a big tech ad campaign..
I watched it, to my own detriment.
Lots of misinformation, and only pushing one side of the argument.
Supposing this is indeed the case, it is unlikely you will find the counterpoints to be all that different, and no one's mind is changed anyway.
🤷
Feel free to donate your ad revenue here: http://www.ko-fi.com/kellymckernan
A grifter to me is someone who pretends they are something without the merits to back it.
He hasn’t rejected AI training all together.
None of that money is going nor will go to individual artists
https://bsky.app/profile/keytryer.bsky.social/post/3locso3t6j22v
Other controversy aside, why didn't you address the biggest problem with AI: that it doesn't work?
None of that matters when AI tells me to eat toilet paper as a heartburn cure (a real thing that it really did).
You might find "Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence" by Dan McQuillan to be an interesting read. He approaches it as a communist.
https://youtu.be/lRq0pESKJgg?si=NZLBWCYlmdREOuN-
and was still completely on board
he was really critical of OpenAI during that video
In the quest of finding a middle ground, I do believe you got a little lost in the sauce.
Check Ortiz' thread(s) on your video, she is angry and she has a point:
https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3lo7xz4a7q22j
its not that complicated. people steal our shit, fuck up the planet with it, manipulate and propagandise people with this.
That's what the title of the video is about.
he presents a couple of people who have been making efforts towards expanding copyright as a method of protecting ai, and points out the risks of doing that.
The entirety of the video is about rhetoric, not people, that's kinda the point.
I know it's a long video but y'all are making wild assumptions based on the same handful of out of context clips
He takes time to talk with opponents of-
Why did he reach out to the side he agrees with, but not the other on this subject?
Way to villify people who have had their work stolen by a soulless garbage machine. Hope the ad revenue makes it go down easier 🖕
There’s a section at around 14 minutes in where Josh demonstrates what happens when he sends a nonsense poem to friends of his vs chat GPT. The result is a perfect
Josh is an English professor, and I think his perspective on ChatGPT and why it will never be capable of being better at writing than any human being is powerful, and something I wish Avila’s video would have considered.
In case you didn't know, there are zero penalties for putting the link to a video in the top post on BlueSky, and it'd be really helpful when reposting to avoid having to choose between a post where the author describes their work & a post that has the link.
Not only is this information intentionally biased, you also haven't spoken to any of the artists involved in the lawsuits; this seems like little more than an attempt at astroturfing.
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/artists-vs-stability-ai-lawsuit-moves-ahead-2524849
https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3loacdxeci22g
https://authorsguild.org/news/what-is-the-authors-alliance/
https://bsky.app/profile/kortizart.bsky.social/post/3lo7xz4a7q22j