Incorrect. They sabotaged the machines because sewing machines are easier to use than hand-sewing tools, which they were skilled in, and that more difficult skill commands a higher price. They were being fired because they refused to accept a lower wage, or made redundant because their employer didn’t need as many tailors to make the same number of garments. It had absolutely nothing to do with learning a new skill.
This buries the lede a bit. The conflict of interest between employer and worker is the entire Luddite movement. It has nothing to do with sewing machines, as I said – they were merely the impetus for the resultant labor movement.
This is patently false. The Luddite movement was, at its core, a protectionist labor movement. It was concerned with preserving the livelihoods of its members, who worked in textile factories. In a society absent the greed of companies, the Luddites would not need to worry about being laid off en masse to be replaced with cheaper, less-skilled workers. They could continue sewing high-quality handmade goods for those who wanted them, and those who used sewing machines could mass-produce clothing for those who needed it. As a labor movement, Luddites were opposed to their wages being threatened, and they were threatened because the new technology meant companies could get away with hiring people who would work for less. That’s it.
Ironically, if you asked ChatGPT about this exchange, it would most likely tell you that I am correct, because it’s trained on Wikipedia, where this information can be found.
GPT proponents like to draw comparisons to the Industrial Revolution because they conflate a technology being automated with it being efficient. For something to be efficient, it must be faster than doing it manually (or doing it the previous way), and precise when done correctly. All previous revolutions in technology are about efficiency, which improves productivity. Sewing machines are faster than sewing by hand, and generally more precise. Electronics are faster than gears (note: there is plenty of backlash against inserting electronics into situations where they are less precise than machinery. This is generally done because it’s cheaper, not better.) Compilers are much, much faster than humans writing binary code, and they are precise – a compiler in production will never produce code that doesn’t run.
GPTs do not meet either of these requirements. They are not faster than programming by hand, chiefly because they are also not precise – they can definitely generate code faster than a human could, but that code is prone to be riddled with errors and inefficiencies which evaporate any time savings that they may provide, either in manually checking and debugging the output, or in feeding it back into the GPT until it works, or in refactoring the spaghetti codebase that it inevitably produces.
Again, there are some purposes for which LLMs are revolutionary, like translation. When tuned correctly, it can be precise enough for this purpose, and much faster. Programming is not one of these purposes, and neither are almost any of the purposes for which GPTs are currently being sold. They are snake oil.
None of this logic is emotional. You do not need to point out the many, many other flaws and issues, practical and ethical, with the technology to see that it is nonviable. You simply need to recognize when you are being sold something.
No one is replicating human-level, let alone superhuman-level, intelligence before we understand how humans achieve human-level intelligence. And we are nowhere near that.
There is no ghost in the machine waiting for people to screw around with neural nets enough that they suddenly achieve consciousness. I don’t have to prove a negative. You have to provide proof that this is possible.
LLMs do not perform intellectual labor. They generate statistically likely text based on a prompt. They do not have any understanding of any task that you ask them to do, and they are not capable of evaluating the validity of their own output, which I think most people would say is a prerequisite to performing any kind of intellectual labor. Therefore, I assert that those times are still well ahead of us and staying put.
Unfortunately, this will not prevent some people from being conned into believing otherwise, and outsourcing their intellectual labor to software that is not capable of performing it. We will live to see the consequences of this.
Apart from hijacking this thread, I don’t think there is a category for Chit-Chat. So probably not appropriate even in general and even as a new thread. Anyway, it might be mathematically possible for Verstappen to win, but very little chance of doing so IMHO. More chance of Hikaru Nakamura winning the candidates now he has qualified.
As for this AI topic, TBH, I am getting really bored of the AI discussions going round and around in circles. But since the OP asked here is my opinion:
AI is an amazing example of what code can do. Genuinely close to magic IMHO. But all the tall tales and marketing hype about it’s usefulness is just that, hype to keep the investment merry go round turning. There is just no chance that investors are going to see any real return on their investment unless governments start ploughing in our national wealth chasing the AI gold at the end of the AI rainbow. As for using it for scripting, for simple bits and bobs, it can find code snippets for you much quicker than a normal search online does, with all the usual caveats about hallucinations and junk output. It is not a teacher, a guide, a mentor or a collaborator in any way. Don’t be fooled by the hype or promises for the future. It is not intelligent any more than my calculator is.
It’s great..for the people who already know how to code and just want quick snippet of something that they forgot. At least they can fix those AI vomit snippet and make it usable for themselves.
I feel like AI we got now should really mean Automate Intelligent.
I would like to ask ChatGPT to plot opinions as data points in an appropriate multi dimensional space so that we xan see the difference between what ChatGPT ‘reckons’ and what the rest of the posts seem to reckon.
i think it whould be gread if something like github copilot (basicly a code optimezed version of microsoft copilot wath is a version of chatgtp) was in the assetlib as a extention it could save a lot of time if you have to do somthing basic like player movement
Getting usage examples of api that I’m not familiar with but I want to learn.
Giving me ideas of how the api can access data or if methods exist (similar to point # 1).
Do you think it’s good for those just learning?
That depends on what you’re learning, and depends on your current skill level.
If we hold that developers must at least know the difference between good vs wrong vs mediocre code, then we must at least acknowledge that this skill comes from study and experience, for which AI is certainly not a substitute.
I don’t think that AI is good for beginners because there is so much more to learning code than code itself. It’s not the AI cannot help, but rather it helps too much (and when it hallucinates, it does more harm than good). When we learn, we have to actually learn, not just get an answer from a chatbot.
As learners we train, leading to memorisation (‘muscle memory’), deeper understanding of abstract concepts (e.g. recursion), and commiting mistakes from which you (hopefully) learn from. E.g. it’s difficult to truly grasp Design Patterns until we’ve actually implemented it on our own (and failed). It’s difficult to understand what code is doing simply by looking at it; it’s better to type it out and run it and then perhaps raise an error. That’s how we learn.
But if by learning you mean beyond basics, then certainly, even for myself, I’ve learned from helpful AI suggestions.
For actual work?
If we hold that developers don’t need to learn to code deeply, which by extension means that they don’t need to know much about code quality as long as it ‘gets the job done’, then AI (and its development) is certainly a reasonable replacement.
I’m a pipeline TD by profession. Some devs in our company use AI, some don’t. However, I can tell you in this point in time, we rely on professional developer experience to hold our pipeline together.
In our outfit, devs needs to know not just code quality, but also need to listen and to production and technical staff, interpret their needs/concerns and translate them to maintainable (maintainable by other developers, present and future) code in the framework of a pipeline that’s been a continual work-in-progress for more about 2 decades. AI is a great tool, but just icing on the cake in this situation.
On the side I make games for enjoyment. I enjoy thinking about the code I will make, how I will organise my rules, my structures, how I implement my custom-built node graphs. I like building stuff. So when I use AI, I use it at a level that makes sense for me, as one who knows the reasons why I’m into game dev. After all, if I try to relegate AI to do the stuff I enjoy doing, what’s left to enjoy?
I think that, for some people, if they don’t want to use AI for X reasons, it’s because they enjoy doing stuff on their own. EDIT: and perhaps they’re more efficient on their own!
What things you find it does well, and what it fails at?
I’ve yet to use things like IDE helpers Copilot, but I hear that it could spot all sorts of errors. I like linting for the same reasons, except that every error-spotter may tend (initially) to appear patronising.
For LLM chatbots, I like the fact that I can spout out some shorthand query like qt signal checkbox and it knows what I want and gives me the reference. Granted I can use Google for this, it’s sometimes just more convenient especially how some chatbots lay out the documentation… So yes, I use it as a glorified search engine – sue me.
What it fails at? AI hallucinates. Even well known libraries like Qt are misrepresented on occasion. (That is good reason why AI is not a good learning tool for beginners.)
After posting myself, I read this, and I thought: wouldn’t be a good learning drill to generate AI code, and then go through your non-AI method of figuring out why it doesn’t work?
If we know that AI code can be potentially broken, we can still use the opportunity to learn. It gives us its attempt to the code, in the similar way someone in StackOverflow might. We just don’t have to take it for granted that it’s the final answer just because it’s AI.
If we treat AI as an oracle, we’ll be disappointed. But we treat as a something that can inspire something else (like learning or practicing own iniative), then it’s trying to transcend imperfect tech (as all tech are).
This also brings me to the thought of why anyone would even use AI code as-is. It almost feels that some don’t like coding at all or find it wearisome to think about coding problems (I personally know of some). Mind you, I don’t find anything wrong with that. Consider that we hold varying attitudes to coding as means to an end. We may argue about the points of why AI rules/sucks but our goals, and even our skill level and interest, may be very different.
@Ethos I’d like to start by saying that I appreciate your impassioned and well thought out responses. I agree with you on most points overall when it comes to LLMs.
I can understand your point of view on that.
I also believe that you have a very specific point of view and that you are defending artists, but are not someone who makes their money with art. Based on your past comments, I am led to understand that like me, you have decades of experience in software development. And therefore like me, you most likely are paid well enough that the current economic climate does not affect your day-to-day life. (I could be wrong.)
I have had many friends over the years, who are musicians, photographers, painters, actors, stand up comedians, etc. They all struggle financially for a large portion of their career. Many of them have other jobs to keep them going. To solely support yourself with art, you have to be focused on making enough money to survive.
I feel like the phrase, “people doing less art in order to make more money” is a false equivalency - comparing our feelings for corporations who exploit us to make money from artists just trying to survive financially on their art. I do not think you intended it as such. I just feel that the truth is more nuanced than a quote or sound bite.
I’m not sure I agree with this assessment. I started using Godot because unlike Unreal and Unity, I don’t have to pay royalties to use it - and I would like to make money with my art - enough to support myself. I kept using it because I love the engine. The team is fantastic and they continue to improve the engine by leaps and bounds.
Yes, there are lots of hobbyists who use this engine with no plans to make money. But I’ve been rather active on this forum for over a year now and a lot of people who come here have plans to make money, or are actively publishing games to make money with Godot. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, as I’m not going to cons or on Discord, so the other parts of the Godot community could be completely different.
Fair enough when it comes to their motivation. I don’t know what drives them. But they are getting paid money to do it. There are 8 people last I checked who get paid to work on Godot and they are collectively called “The Godot Team”. I’m glad they get paid to do it. I hope they are getting paid well to do it because what they do is freaking awesome. I’ve been in software development for three decades. I know how hard it is to maintain the pace they maintain.
You may have been referencing the hundreds of people donating their time. I would agree that they are not doing it for money. I am a huge fan of contributing to FOSS projects. My contribution has been to answer programming questions to the best of my ability for the past year on here, and to try and help people learn more about software development practices and how to debug their own code (things I feel LLM AIs sucks at doing.) I happen to have a lot more free time than disposable income at the moment. So I contribute my decades of experience training junior developers to trying to help people here. Sometimes I get things wrong, (especially when it comes to Godot features or how the engine works internally) and when I do, I correct myself.
I disagree with the premise of your argument here. Not all photographers are putting out slop (AI or otherwise). Not everyone is Olan Mills. Just like not every store is Wal-Mart. And so a tool that edits like them is important to them. But again, artist small business owners have to make money in a time of rampant inflation where people are spending less money on things like art.
I think it is unfair to judge artists for using available tools if it means the difference from making enough money for rent and food and having to find another job that is not art to support themselves.
I’m not a professional photographer, but I do know that a lot of business is word-of-mouth and referrals, and the rest is people liking the pictures you took. Whether a photographer cleans up the pimple on your face by hand or AI - you will never know or care. And to your point, the AI might do it better. Certainly faster, and it’s automating a tedious task.
Knowing that a photographer is busy is usually a sign that they are good. The tools they use behind the scenes is honestly a black box. so yes, these are things that people consider when paying artists, but most customers in any industry don’t care how the sausage is made as long as they like the sausage.
Yes. Anyone can also take a photo with their smartphone that has facial recognition, built in editing software, and takes all the technique out of using a camera and creates high-quality photos. The introduction of the high quality phone camera was devastating to the photography industry and drove a lot of people out of business. And everyone has a smartphone.
This to me feels like another false equivalency. Because pros are not using the same software that amateurs are. They are using something with a lot more bells and whistles to streamline the editing process by applying existing custom techniques by the photographer developed over years.
In gaming terms, it’s the difference between someone asking ChatGPT to make them a shader for explosion particles that are randomly generated - and having an AI plugin that chooses from the shaders you’ve made over the past decade or so and attaching them to explosion particles based on the size of the explosion, the type of projectile, etc. Allowing you to then replace it, tweak it or leave it as is because it is the choice you’ve made in the past for grenades in all your games.
The same argument was made for years about Max Martin, who made a lot of popular music since the 90s for many different artists. He has a formula and it works. And a lot of people think his songs are crap. But they’re still #1 hits. I’m not saying it’s good that either of these things happen. It is what happens though, and we as individuals cannot change what is popular in the zeitgeist.
Is it? Have you heard the song? Sure, some of them will suck. But I think what’s much more frustrating than AI slop is music generated by AI that is likable. Because if no one liked AI music, etc. it wouldn’t matter.
I think the same arguments can be made for musicians as independent contractors. If they want to fight and buck the TikTok 8-second trend, they have to find an audience and a way to monetize their music - because you can only do one gig at a time. And it’s hard to put food on the table as a gig musician.
In both these cases, you are competing against corporate machines that want to put individual artists out of business because they only care about money. I believe, anecdotally, based on the artists that I know, that individual artists want to make art and money.
I agree with all of this.
I agree with that sentiment. But here’s where my personal struggle comes in. The wave is already sweeping us away in my mind’s eye. I can either get swept toward the beach, fight in the undertow, or surf the wave. I don’t like the wave, but I cannot control it. How should I as an individual, survive it?
That is what I am attempting to do, by debating these points and getting different opinions on both sides of the argument in multiple forums. And I truly do appreciate your opinions and thoughtful responses. As I get older, I find myself less and less willing to accept change in my life, and so I am trying to keep an open mind while I make a decision. Because my initial response to LLMs after using them was “F*ck all LLMs and everything they create.”
I recently put out a test to see what people’s opinions are. I entered a game jam last week in which I used AI-generated music. I then was very clear in my jam entry, on my itch page, and in the description of the game to tell people I’m using AI-generated music. I’m seeing what people think, knowing that I did so. We will see what happens when the voting ends.
My hypothesis is that if the music is good enough, and I am ethically disclosing how I made it, that people will still enjoy the game. I don’t know what will happen. To do this as ethically as possible, I entered a game jam with no prizes, and whose rules explicitly allowed AI-generated content as long as it was disclosed. (I say as ethically as possible, because there are ecological power consumption ethics that I have concerns about.)
Some people may think it’s slop. But I spent time crafting what I wanted and discarding things that sounded like crap to me until I got something I liked. I wrote lyrics. I decided on a theme, style and instrumentation. Personally I don’t think it’s slop - but that depends on one’s definition of “AI Slop”. My definition used to be anything created using generative AI was “AI Slop”.
Now, my definition is more along the lines of: Anything created by generative AI without any guidance of, or thought towards, the artistic quality of the output generated.
Well, let’s not be so hasty-- the current economic climate does affect my day-to-day life, for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with LLMs. Unless, of course, the economic decisions made by the current administration were made using the assistance of LLMs, which, frankly, is highly likely.
But I understand the point you’re trying to make. I don’t make a living off art, or off my game, or my writing, for that matter, mostly because I don’t care to invite the kind of entitlement that paying money for something tends to invite, and I have the uncommon luxury of comfortably supporting myself with programming.
What I do do and have done for almost a decade is support artists financially. I spend my STEM money on their products, and assist them in running their businesses. My argument is, as previously mentioned, not emotional in nature. Generative “AI” almost universally produces worse content than is made by a skilled, passionate human. This is sort of tautological to the software; it simply produces statistically likely output, which is not creative in nature, but in fact sort of anti-creative: it regresses to the mean.
Maybe editing photos isn’t the most exciting or creative pursuit compared to taking them. But, as I said, I would personally prefer a photographer who edits their own photos to one who runs them through an AI filter, because if editing were something that needed to be automated, you wouldn’t hire someone to do it their way. When you’re planning a wedding, you generally have an artistic vision behind it, and you want someone who understands that vision and will create appropriate, memorable content for you to remember it by.
Maybe you have consumers who aren’t as discerning and will take content that is more generic. That’s fine. Not everyone has discerning taste. But let’s call it what it is: slop. Generative “AI” will be perfectly at home in, say, mass-produced Marvel movies. I don’t begrudge people who use it for their job to produce those more quickly. I’m just skeptical that the cost/benefit ratio is actually going to pay off for them in the long run, or that they’re going to keep their jobs or their current paychecks if what they are doing can be automated by neural networks the way sewing machines automated sewing.
There’s a reason that artists today are often highly resistant to AI beyond just that it’s fundamentally built on plagiarizing their work: they have a trade and are already paid too little, and they are trying to protect it, like modern-day Luddites (non-pejorative).
I certainly didn’t mean to imply that nobody on this forum plans to make any money off their game. (It was merely a statement suggesting that you’re likely to find a lot of anti-AI sentiment on this forum in particular.) That would be quite an absurd statement. Indie games are generally sold for money. But successful indie games are also generally made because their developers had a specific vision, and Godot devs are likely here using this engine, and not Unity or Unreal, both more popular and better-supported, or Game Maker, which has more successful projects to its name, because they like the Godot mission. The Godot mission is FOSS. And FOSS isn’t about being alienated from your craft, churning stuff out so other people can finish it for you like you’re on a factory assembly line.
I can’t think of any artists I admire, let alone listen to, who make music that way… but I don’t generally consume slop. And I’ve never shopped at Wal-Mart, though I don’t look down on people who do. As you pointed out, the fight over artistic integrity in the music industry has been raging long before GPT came to exist, but one can at least argue that Max Martin, who was doing the work long before GPT existed, had developed a skillset that was extremely successful and apparently not easily imitated, which is laudable, even if most people who enjoyed songs he helped write probably have never heard of him. My favorite songs are not #1 hits, but I do listen to Imagine Dragons on occasion, so I’m not pure and virtuous.
I’m sure you can make a lot of money this way. I just disagree that that can be considered “crafting.” It’s OK to produce slop for a living. It’s also OK to have another job that supports you so you can do art that is meaningful. Take Philip Glass:
Throughout this period, Glass supported himself as a New York cabbie and as a plumber, occupations that often led to unusual encounters. “I had gone to install a dishwasher in a loft in SoHo,” he says. “While working, I suddenly heard a noise and looked up to find Robert Hughes, the art critic of Time magazine, staring at me in disbelief. ‘But you’re Philip Glass! What are you doing here?’ It was obvious that I was installing his dishwasher and I told him I would soon be finished. ‘But you are an artist,’ he protested. I explained that I was an artist but that I was sometimes a plumber as well and that he should go away and let me finish.”
As far as your game jam example, I’m sure your game is fine. But it would probably be even better if a human being had created the music. If you had partnered with a musician to do so, perhaps the process would have been more meaningful to you, and you might have even gotten a result that was closer to what you had imagined rather than “good enough.” Maybe you could have deepened your bond with another human being. Many people will choose not to play it if you ethically disclose its AI content, myself among them (I avoided The Finals for this reason). Many more won’t care.
As others have pointed out above, this is getting off-topic. The thread is about opinions on using AI for scripting (or developing games with Godot in general). My opinion, as I’ve needlessly elaborated upon, is: it sucks for that. It always will. LLMs will make you a dumber person. Do not use them to avoid learning skills that you actually need, including thinking critically.
Good afternoon! I’ve been reading through the entirety of this thread and decided to pop-in. I saw your suggestion and just wanted to note that, as a graduate student preparing to graduate with a Master of Science in Computer Science and a graduate certificate in Data Science, this is very much doable. What you described was actually a semester final project I and a close colleague collaborated on. Namely, what you are describing is known as a Semantic Set Relationship Mapping, implemented through Natural Language Processing (NLP), a particular subset of Data Science as a field of study (which in itself is a subset field of study with respect to AI, as is Machine Learning and Deep Learning, respectively). For my semester-final project, my colleague and I implemented a Word2Vec Python module after collected a total corpus (i.e. text-based dataset) of two subreddit communities (i.e. r/Conservative and r/Liberal), recorded between the years of 2016 and 2020, for purposes of sentiment analysis to determine potential biases insofar as political discourses are concerned. For purposes of your prescribed experiment, we could implement K-Means Clustering or K-Nearest-Neighbors (KNN) as what is known as our post-processing predictive classification heuristic, as well as a variety of data preprocessing techniques for our text-based corpus of this thread (these could include looking at Stopwords, which are words found to be most frequently used at the end of each sentence composed by users on this thread, or Stemming and Lemmatization, in which we break words down from their presented respective formats to their root words, such as breaking down the word “running” to "run or “stopping” to “stop”, etc.). A web crawler could be deployed via Python to record all collected records, each record pertaining to one user comment on this thread, with various attributes (i.e. columns) of data pertaining to username, timestamp of post, text of comment, quantity of likes for each post, sentiment posed as a classification variable (i.e. negative, neutral, positive) of end users towards their respective views regarding generative AI for use in Godot indie video game development, etc.
My sincerest apologies for the rather long post. I just wanted to share this, as your prescribed experiment was one I have experience with.
Good afternoon! I’ve been reading through all comments posted on this thread and noted how your previous posts in particular stood out to me, both as someone who wants to one day get into indie game development, and as someone who has a variety of friends of play various video games, watch various television series and movies, listen to various forms of music, etc. At my old undergraduate university, I had a close friend of mine who lived across the hall from me that last year or so of my undergraduate studies. He himself was very much a gamer, and we had many discussions together of whatever video game of the day found in mainstream consumption he was interested in and consuming at the time, from Spiderman 2 to SMG4’s The Amazing Digital Circus. I myself always just listened to him, as I was constantly busy and didn’t really have a whole lot of time to play video games or watch TV anymore as I used to and would like, though, I recall a conversation he and I had concerning what does and does not constitute a “good” video game. I asked him this question, as I attempted both an Advanced Video Game Development course (this was in Fall of 2023, just as Unity introduced their Unity Runtime Environment fee, so we used Unity before the department was prompted to switch from Unity to Godot), as well as an additional elective course in Computer Graphics Programming (in which we were introduced to OpenGL as well as Blend). Unfortunately, both of those courses were ones I had to drop as my courseload proved too difficult to maintain them both, however, when I attempted my Advanced Video Game Development course, our class (which held approximately 5 or 6 students in total) had a discussion on what makes a “good” video game, to which my contributions included that video games are a piece of artwork, no different than those pertaining to literature, the visual arts, music, animation, television, movies, cinema, etc., and, thus, may be utilized to express a political or philosophical theme. I noted how, in both aforementioned courses, many of my classmates (who were themselves gamers) made various comments, both in-class and via online course discussion threads, concerning, to me, rather vague statements about “focusing on graphics” and “making the story good”, though, in my view, what does this mean? I asked this question to my friend and was met with similar answers. I responded that, if I were to ask 10 gamers or 10 fans of any given genre of media consumption (e.g. film, cinema, animation, etc.) what does and does not constitute a “good” piece of media in keeping with their respective interests, assuming all 10 included individuals shared the same medium of interest, odds are I would get 10 different answers. One notorious example I often admit is that I myself actually enjoyed watching the Scooby-Doo spin-off show titled “Velma” which garnered a lot of hatred in various online discourses, as well as distaste for its content and story from many of my friends. Thus, obviously, my taste as to what does and does not constitute a “good” animated series diverges from theirs. Hence, the question I have to ask you, after all of this, is, how are any of us to judge a piece of artwork (e.g. video games, animation, music, etc.) as “slop” (e.g. “AI slop”) if that same piece of artwork may hold interest or value in someone’s eyes, even when they understand generative AI to be involved in its implementation and development? How are we to trust the judgement of anyone who deems a particular piece of artwork as “slop” over that of another, and by what metric?
If the creation of said media caused X number of artists work to be used without their permission, to cause them to lose their job and livelihood, then I believe we have a quite nice metic to categorize something as Slop. Simple as that.
Interesting. Please understand I do not mean to offend or incite any form of insult in my questions, I merely wish to understand more. I understand, from your reply, that AI generated content exists due to plagiarization of artists. This is, of course, true, as many proprietary AI models exist behind a black box, in which their training datasets remain hidden from society at large, shielding the Capital-owning class who own the means of production with respect to their existence from accountability, and driving proletarian artists into poverty, potentially even into existential dread, if not worse. This is, of course, to be reckoned with accordingly. I myself am in favor of a Universal Basic Income system to supplement the loss of livelihood for artist as well as any and all relevent content creators whose opportunity for financial gain were stolen from them. I am additionally in favor of open-sourcing all proprietary LLM (and all other generative AI models) so as to hold their capitalist owners accountable to the general public, subject to potential legal risks in the form of lawsuits to be paid to content creators they would have plagiarized from). However, I’m not necessarily anti-AI at all. I believe I am in favor of ethical generative AI, namely, potential FOSS alternatives that explicitly require artists to certify allowance of any individual piece of their artwork to be used with their consent, which may be revoked and removed from the training dataset at any time, complete with acknowledgement of all artistic pieces and respective artists in the training dataset to be publicly feature on a repository held by the FOSS community who maintains said LLM or otherwise generative AI model. I find this to be an ethical arrangement, though, if I am wrong, feel free to correct me and change my mind. However, your response is an answer to an unrelated issue, namely, that of the producer who exists in the production process of content, which, while very much pertinent and crucial, does not address my previous question concerning the enjoyment of AI-generated artwork and content from the consumer. If a consumer understands a particular piece of artwork is AI-generated, and, while condemning the practice that led to its implementation in the production process, yet, still finds beauty, perhaps even enjoyment and fulfillment in said AI-generated content, then, my question is, who is necessarily to tell them that their tastes is “slop”, if they may interpret beauty or fulfillment in said AI-generated artwork?
(P.S. - EDITED: Sorry for the ping, I forgot to compose my comment directly as a reply to yours.)
Agreed. There’s a large gap between bespoke and off-the-rack.
This is probably not a good example. Because it’s kinda like you and me explaining to business owners why yes a CI/CD pipeline is a good idea even though to them it makes no business sense. I don’t really think I’m explaining very well what Adobe’s software does and I think you have a different vision of it than the reality of how it’s used.
It’s kinda like if you had a post import script on all your models in your game to alter a few things and someone told you that they don’t want any post-import scripts used because they want the original natural Blender model unless you hand-modify each asset after it’s imported into the game because they wanted your artistic vision - not the artistic vision of the script you wrote. It’s not 1-to-1, but it’s the best analogy I can come up with.
In this case it would be like you taking a model and you are replacing the gold material that doesn’t show up in your game with a PBR material that does. Then you tell the AI “do that with all the other models”. Then your customer asks how you’re importing the models and asks you to do that task by hand because they want to feel like you added gold leaf to each model because that’s more artistic to them.
Agreed. And I think that protectionism is good. But I also think that it’s beneficial to see what parts of generative AI can be used. For example if a business owner can use generative AI to say "I want my website to look kinda like that, the UX/UI people can have a starting point to refine someone’s vision. Even if it starts out as “AI Slop”
Yes, in fact we report any answers that look like LLM answers, and we are often vocal when people suggest others use LLMs to answer programming questions. (That is in fact how this thread got started.)
True. But, even though I love FOSS tools, I’ve never worked anywhere that ONLY used open source software. And I worked at a company that used only FreeBSD for their desktops for three years. Sometimes to ship a product you have to use something that isn’t open source. Which is why I’m exploring this subject to begin with.
Absolutely. But even though I had access to my brother who is a professional music producer and DJ, we could not have produced what I did in the time I had for the jam. (Cause I asked him and it’s another data point.) I had to make sacrifices on my vision, because it was like explaining what I wanted to someone who ignored every other word I said. It was good enough, and was also a frustrating experience. If I had the time and money to pay someone to make music for games, I ABSOLUTELY would. And hope to do so in the future. I already support many videogame music creators.
I used to feel the same way, so I understand. And I would prefer that people do that as opposed to feeling tricked.
True. In fact three or four people so far have asked if they can listen to the game’s music anywhere else, so I gave them a playlist. Which is another data point.
On that, we agree 100%. LLMs are pattern matchers, not fonts of knowledge.
Well, I myself did not write the paper, I only composed the software for it (though, Claude as an LLM was useful in that endeavor, given various libraries in Python, such as sci-kit-lean, pandas, numpy, matplotlib.pyplot, etc. often exist with massive code bases for various projects, though, this to proved a learning experience as LLMs can be utilized as a tool for purposes of software implementation, provided their end-user understand how to wield them accordingly and direct their use cases to their perceived ends). I have included the Google Drive link to our paper, as it apppears .pdf and .docx file extensions are not listed for allowed document formats to upload on this thread:
(P.S. - This paper was not officially published, it was only a semester final project I and my colleague collaborated on.)
I’m not against AI either, it has it’s uses, especially in the field of translation, medical research, stuff like that.
However, almost all the current large AI companies work off of stolen property.
But to answer your question, we’ll never, ever know for sure if a generated work contains ONLY “fairly” acquired works of art. And that’s the biggest problem here. There’s no way to prove that the training data in it’s entirety is “fair” and does not contain stolen items. If there was some way to make that happen, then I’d argue it’s not that big of an issue if someone “enjoys” a generated work, but I will still never, ever see that as real art. It has no soul, it’s just something stitched together from other parts, presented as something new. And this has already caused artists to lose their jobs and be replaced. Even IF the source material is not stolen, you’re still causing many, many small artists to lose their livelyhood over this. There’s no way for them to compete with the cheap (sometimes almost free) AI generated slop that companies can pump out almost instantly.
And if you say “well just get with the times lol”, sure! Let’s make human artists completelely obsolete!
Good evening! Thank you once again for your kind reply, complete with sources. I agree once more that artists must be granted dignity in the form of a sustainable livelihood, as everyone else should. However, I believe I have already covered that with my previous inquiry, namely, if implementation of a Universal Basic Income may solve that issue? With respect to your initial problem posed, namely, that one may never be able to determine if a piece of art that exists within a training dataset is “fair”, I once more ask why writing laws to ensure artists have equal leverage in court to sue the Capital-owning class for wrongful use of their work may not act as a deterrent? That is, assuming we did not reside in a late-stage Capitalist hellscape we currently find ourselves within, as I understand the judge in this article to have sided with the capital-owners over authors of their designated training dataset, though, my inquiry still follows. My final question is (and, please, understand I am not trying to dismiss the hard work of artists and creatives of any sort, as many of my closest friends are authors, musicians, visual artists, etc.), when you state that AI-generated artwork has no “soul”, what, particularly, does this mean? Once more, I’m not trying to sound like a tech-bro who hates humanity or hates creative artwork (I began my college years of undergraduate studying enjoying The Owl House, Gravity Fall, Big City Greens, Amphibia, The Loud House, and various other animated series of the time of my graduation). I merely hear this word utilized a lot in creative spaces, and, much like my previous experiences with asking what the word “good” means with respect to assessing the quality of video games, movies, shows, etc., I honestly never understood what it means. Does it mean the element of human experience we hold in the production process of our work? If so, who’s to say artwork that does not include some degree of AI-generation (e.g. assets, sounds, etc.) may be incorporated into a larger project, as the artist may find a generated asset that resonates with them? Is the “soul” in this context meant to convey an element of humanity (i.e. a mirrored reflection of the human experience) the consumer in our artistic relationship holds when they consume a piece of artwork produced? If so, who is to say the “soul” in this relationship is not held by the individual who enjoys the AI-generated content, bringing their own interpretation, their own life experiences, their own feelings, their own joy, their own pain, etc. to the table when they consume it? I’m not asking this question to insult artists or creatives at all, merely to understand more.
I don’t know your experience or what projects you’re bulding, but when I try to use AI it rarely helps me, beside basic math algorithm or formulas that I’m too lazy to reseach. I recently spent days trying to implement a PID controlled camera, using AI and it was just wrong, and it just an exemple. Two days ago I used AI to help me with retargeting an animation on blender since the video tutorials didn’t work, well it was even worse, it told me to check options that didn’t exists.
When I tried to modify the engine code source, copilot tried to help and just fucked everything up I had to disable it.
“…two subreddit communities (i.e. r/Conservative and r/Liberal), recorded between the years of 2016 and 2020, for purposes of sentiment analysis to determine potential biases insofar as political discourses are concerned…”
Fascinating, thanks for commenting!
I think in the case of this forum or topic theres likely to be bias toward favouring human scripting (null hypothesis). It would also be interesting to discover what points most people comment on and how much text is devoted to the particular sub-topics.
