[vouaobrasil]

Yes, you are right, and I advocate the following: a detailed look at each of these technologies.

However, for practical purposes, a direct definition that encompasses every situation is not necessary, but can evolve. For now, I think we do not need a precise definition and we can start with the following: AI such as ChatGPT, LLMs, image generation tools like DALL-E and ohters, should be restricted.

As for YouTube's algorithm, I agree it is also dangerous. For now, I have restricted the use of direct content generation algorithms, in other words, all content can reasonably said to be human generated in terms of writing, composition, etc.

In other words: AI that makes any creative decision in making content should be banned. Other algorithms should be carefully debated.

[danielbln]

Banning automation technology because it could put workers out of business.. isn't that the textbook definition of a luddite? Also, are you saying no creative people are using these technologies? It's not all "enter 1 prompt, get image, call it a day", they are tools that can be and often are part of complex chain. Creatives that don't want to use these tools are probably going to be superseded by creatives who do.

What's your take on generative fill in Photoshop?

[vouaobrasil]

I am a luddite. What's wrong with that? I don't believe that all technology is bad, but that AI has reached a stage sufficient so that the order of magnitude of the changes it can affect are too damaging for humanity. I do believe that AI has become advanced enough to pose such a risk to us.

Some creative people are using these technologies, and while it is quite human guided NOW, at some point, the guidance that humans put into it will lessen. That's not to say that AI will ever produce a work like Dostoevsky --- maybe it won't, but it WILL be enough to eliminate most creative jobs, and reduce them to being at most being supervised by people who don't have much of a passion for creative works. And that's a shame, because it will remove the passion of creativity from society.

Generative fill: I don't use it, and that's part of my personal ban. It goes too far. I only use traditionl editing techniques in my photography that works with basically what is there.

Yes, you can say that photography has always been about manipulation, but basically, I have a personal line that I believe I can define sufficiently well, that is far behind the line of AI.

[subroutine]

What about the youtube speech to text AI that creates automatic CC transcripts for the hearing impaired? What about the AI that translates transcripts and comments into other languages? (translation certainly makes use of creativity since not every word maps 1:1)

[vouaobrasil]

One can always say that AI has some positive uses like CC transcripts. And of course, I can't prevent the platform from making that. I only mean to say that personally, I will not use it in the basic process of video creation. If YouTube ever forces any sort of editing on my videos through AI, I will quit the platform.

But returning to the topic: even though AI has some benefits, I believe that AI in the long run will have negatives that FAR outweigh the positives, so I believe it still should be restricted.

As for translation, well, the AI transcription/translation sucks. I do attempt to put manual captions in my videos as much as I can though.

[subroutine]

So far we have identified like 10 ways you and your audience are currently benefitting from AI, but you haven't mentioned any concrete way AI is harming you.

Also, what do you mean by "forces any sort of editing on my videos through AI". Do you mean like, changing the actual content of your videos?