[ronsor]

People repeat "generative AI is all evil garbage" because that's what the media (which is very afraid of AI, might I add) has told them.

It's also funny to see AI turn people who normally dislike copyright into die-hard copyright lovers.

[vundercind]

So far, it's really bad at actually replacing human labor in pro-social ways while being a supercharger for various antisocial jobs, like scam artist or astroturfer. The main "beneficial" use for it today is replacing wasteful labor that probably didn't need to be done in the first place—which is why an AI version is fine, because it didn't matter to begin with.

My wife and I both work in the field, I on the tech side, her on the creative side, and she's been in it since the earliest days of industry trying to adapt these tools. There's a lot (like, holy shit, so much) of effort and money going into it, but so far it's only marginally helpful for non-evil jobs.

[fwip]

I didn't say that? It is foul and unpleasant to behold, based on my experience of viewing it repeatedly over the last 5+ years.

It would be nice if you didn't assume that anybody who doesn't share your opinion is mindlessly regurgitating slop.

[ronsor]

I was speaking in response to most of the general "pervasive negative attitudes" mentioned, not you specifically. Although I'm curious where you viewed generative AI content repeatedly 5 years ago; it was effectively non-existent outside research circles then.

[fwip]

If I recall correctly, that was about the time that Google started demoing its generative AI "deepmind" - a particular demo of a frog comes to mind. The commonality of AI content has certainly increased since then, I didn't mean to imply it was commonplace back then.

[sakjur]

People might care for culture. I’m very much in favor of a reformed copyright that strengthens indie artists, conservationists, and remixers and weakens Disney et al.

It’s also a matter of fact that we have the copyright we have that’s prohibitive to people and favors corporations. It’s upsetting to see how a bunch of Silicon Valley companies stomps right across those lines with impunity, while people like Aaron Swartz are persecuted and threatened with decade long prison sentences for crimes that in my mind ought to be much less upsetting.

If copyright was fair, training of AI intended for non-personal use ought to be a sufficient commercial activity to require a license. That would stiffle the development of AI, which is what I’d argue happens to human creators under our current system.

If we had a 25 year copyright, we could easily make useful AI trained on the sum of human creation until 1999, _and_ have badass human made remixes of 80s and 90s songs — we wouldn’t have to do legal gymnastics to allow the development of useful AI, as it’d have access to quite substantial training material from the 1900s, and unlock relatively modern training material year-by-year.

So yes, I dislike AI for infringing on copyright and I dislike copyright (in its current state).