No need to get defensive. I don’t have any objections to you using “ai” and feeling all clever about it. Your brain rot is your own responsibility.
2 Likes
Yeah you are exactly right if theres a copyright notice that prevents AI usage like the ‘noAI’ license on sketchfab then it should be respected.
Theres a question about whether legacy licenses are actually protected and whether they should be … the licensing system allows invention and innovation to create loopholes.
The researchers who were making the legacy license era ‘cutting edge’ image based AI were quite possibly cutting ethical corners with the work because as pure academic research it cant do any harm. As people wanted to try them out and as the technology became more utlizable the licenses became a problem because individuals and groups had observed and caused action about the implications of the technology.
The other problem is that a modern strong artisitc method involves gathering source material for inspiration, also known as ‘concept art’. The source material is not directly copied by the artist, but elements could be here and there just to creare the image. Some artists seem to prefer to use AI image generators for their source material, because it gives them results.
So if that is the way its done now, then what can you do about purchased or free artwork? Then game developers are indirectly using it anyway.
Ive seen videos of artists beginning by tracing over older images in photoshop. The colors are different, then some picture elements are different, but something started out the same. Is that wrong?
Theres an argument that the AI shouldnt be polluting the culture with ‘slop’ - definitely a point to consider before publishing AI generated images.
Since you’re not using AI how can you know it’s effects?
I’ve been coding since the 80s. I find my self learning new stuff from using AI.
But maybe you need a rotten braint to do so…
I have something better than “using”. I know how it works.
2 Likes
Means you did studdy ML ? I also know how ML and AI works. That’s why I’m using it.
1 Like
i know ai music when i hear some
1 Like
I know how anabolic steroids work. That’s why I’m using them.
Is that rhetorical or are you really using ?
You be the judge.
One thing I reallize about you is that just like AI, you have to have the last word right 
1 Like
Steroids can cause more harm than good, they can cause bone weakness and increased heart size (trenoble for example). I wouldnt bother, but ive always been an athlete anyway.
I can see the point in saying ‘open the flood gates’ and ‘let people do whatever it takes to achieve their potential’.
There is just a problem of artistic over saturation, its probably like a culture suffering from hypertrophy. I find i am overwhelmed by the sheer volume of all that ‘quality’ triple A artwork being truly scenic and epic at every step in every big game … then i realize thats the mistake, they shouldnt overwhelm the audience … a bit like the critisism of Mozart (or was it by Mozart) :
“too many notes”…
Again being the old guy here. Back in the 80s/90s there was sooo much trash music. Non of it needed AI. The quality of the resutlts is only one aspect. But the masses enjoyed the manuer.
Hollywood has the same problem without AI. Today they can mainly just repeat them self. Good ideas are like a mine, once it’s out there you can only copy it not reinvent it.
To me AI is just another tool. I won’t go back to writing 6510 assembler on a 40x25 text editor.
2 Likes
If by “AI” you mean generative neural nets then here’s a thing to consider. A fundamental characteristic of a tool is that it’s more useful the more skilled the practitioner. With “ai” it’s reverse. The more skilled and knowledgeable you are, the less useful you’ll find “ai” to be. It’s an anti-tool. The closest analogy to it are human performance enhancement drugs. That’s why I mentioned steroids earlier.
4 Likes
Well, most famous artists used substances to improve their performance. Like Jimi Hendrix, Arnie (for the stereoids) the list goes on.
1 Like
That doesn’t change the fact that you’re in the minority according to the study.
There are a few things muddying the waters. The AI companies are arguing fair use. Which means that copyrighted works can be used in “education and research” without monetary recompense. The lawsuit against Midjourney, the first one filed against AI using copyrighted works - is still going. I found this list of AI cases and a briefly scan seems to indicate it isn’t going so well for people fighting the legal fight against AI.
Disney’s recent deal with OpenAI may also change things. Disney invested money in OpenAI, and at the same time, let OpenAI use their content for 3 years. Now they’re going after Google because they have this deal to point to and can say only OpenAI can use them. (I believe that in three years, Disney is going to have a noose around OpenAI’s neck during renegotiation because they’ll want to keep the content.)
So what is likely to happen is LLM companies will divvy up the big copyright holders, Then we will start seeing Samey Mediocrity in slightly different flavors. And when that all shakes out, the arguments being made to protect artists will instead end up protecting corporate interests.
This goes back to my original question, which is: Do our opinions really matter? In the end, I think capitalist corporations are going to decide what LLM AIs are allowed to do. I also believe that AI use is going to be viewed the same as working for a crappy corporations is now: It sucks, but people gotta eat. I foresee only people financially privileged enough to be able to afford to boycott LLM products will be doing so in the future.
2 Likes
Most? Maybe most of whom you personally are familiar with. That likely isn’t many if your examples include turbo-mainstream names like Da Vinci and Hendrix.
But let’s grant you this premise, let’s say; Hendrix indeed used “substances” to improve his performance.
According to ai-bro “logic” the following line of “reasoning” ensues: Duh, “substances” caused the Hendrix. “Substances” are now widely available. They are democratizing Hendrix-ness. Any Joe Schmoe can use “substances” to become Hendrix now. Fuck you, Hendrix! Why should Hendrix-ness privileges be reserved only for you. Bring on them “substances”. Let’s all be Hendrixes. So the hordes of Joes Schmoes start using “substances”. A lot.
What happens five years down the line? We end up with millions of Hendrixes? Right? Right?
I hope you see how fallacious that argument is. Or maybe not because you already used up half of the logical fallacies lexicon during our short exchange here. But I get it. Rationalizing the irrational is not an easy task.
2 Likes
Your problem is that you’ve already made up your mind about something that is still under development. Nobody knows now where AI or computer science as such will be in five years from now.
You are trying to stop the deluge with a cup.
Unlike you I’m not claiming to be the Nitche “Übermensch”. If you’re that superior to everyone else what are you still doing here ? You should be head of what ever enterprize you’re dreaming of having.
You’ve probably heard of Steve Job telling about the Nature magazine comparing of animals and the energy they use to move forward and that a human with a bicycle is way superior to any animal in that regard. So I really have no issue taking the AI pill.
1 Like
@hasjime And you have done the same, from another POV.
Glasshouses et al.
@normalized is one of the most proficiently helpful posters on here, helping people with technical details, etc.
What have you done for others lately apart from generalizing and being snidely insulting?
Plus, Hendrix didn’t use LSD to improve his playing, that’s a fallacy, like the legend he was a heroin user. You don’t improve your playing with experimenting with drugs, quite the contrary (first hand experience), you do it for inspiration, and to deal with a bleak reality.
Btw, neither did the Grateful Dead, for example, Jerry was a strictly mainline heroin and coke user, who struggled with it, going on and off from the 60s until he died in '95.
Drug usage is rampant among musicians and many other artists, but it’s never to play or create better. Anyone pretending otherwise is lying through their teeth or simply not a musician/artist who uses drugs, or so high they are deluded about the quality of their craft while high.
Have a nice day!
3 Likes
I’m participating in a discussion that was futile from the very beginning.
But when I’m insulted I have the right to push back as well.
If you have any technical problems, I’d be glad to help.
And have a nice day too.
2 Likes
Here’s an article on Timbaland releasing what he’s calling AI/human hybrid AI-Pop.
[Timbaland] the driving force behind great hip-hop and R&B stars like Aaliyah and Missy Elliott, and the creator of undeniable hits for Jay-Z and Justin Timberlake, has a new protege. Her name is TaTa Takumi, and in reality, she does not exist, although she is more real than it may seem.
You can find four songs released by Tata Taktumi on their Spotify page. A verified artist with a legit producer attached. It’s not really my kind of music, so I cannot tell if it seems AI. But if you read the article, this is a big music producer humming tunes to it, having a lyricist write lyrics, and combining it in the same AI tool I mentioned in the first post. The face of the “artist” is a human actress Timbaland hired.
The article also mentions what’s happening with legal challenges to Suno.
Suno itself has been the target of a lawsuit filed by major record labels for copyright infringement, as its software has been trained on countless real songs. Last month, it reached an agreement with Warner Music Group, and both companies announced a partnership.
The lines are being blurred by people in power.
1 Like