[doctorpangloss]

Yeah. No. This document says, “our strategy is wait and see.” It’s the most disruptive media technology since the TV. And they’re like, “whatever.” That is not the move of a “smarter” creative company. Lawyers are really, really bad at running companies, even if you have strong opinions about the law.

[exasperaited]

Disruptive does not mean good, or useful, or important, or valuable. There is no reason to jump onto a thing early just because it is disruptive: Netflix exists in a different creative world than the tech industry, and its audiences are even more hostile to the idea that AI is being used to steal from the things and people they admire than the audiences of typical tech industry disruptions. People who care about art and artists and films and actors tend not to value slop.

[danielbln]

Nobody values slop, and not everything is slop, AI or otherwise. Also, stealing is not the same as copyright infringement, unless you subscribe to the RIAA definition of the word.

[exasperaited]

AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

So just as there's no procedural difference between an AI getting something right and an AI "hallucinating", if the word "slop" describes anything AI generates, it describes all of it.

Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

Also I know stealing is not the same thing as copyright infringement. I'm talking about stealing livelihoods as much as stealing art.

[alickz]

>AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

AI is just a wrapper around a tool - it doesn't need intention or creativity because those come from the user in the form of prompts (which are by definition intentional)

It's just a Natural Language Interface for calling CLI tools mostly, just like how GUIs are just graphical interfaces for calling CLI tools, but no one thinks a GUI has no intentionality or creativity even when using stochastic/probabilistic tools

Anything a user can do with an AI they could also do with a GUI, it would just take longer and more practice

>Either everything generative AI creates is slop or nothing is. So everything is.

But then how do you know something is slop before you know if it's made with GenAI? Does all art exist as Schrodinger's Slop until you can prove GenAI was used? (if that's even possible)

[SAI_Peregrinus]

> AI has no intent or creativity, so it can be neither right nor wrong, neither good nor bad.

Values aren't required for something to be good or bad. Outcomes are. A giant meteor strike causing a global firestorm & brief ice age causing mass death is bad, but giant meteors have no values.

[exasperaited]

I am talking about intent and creativity, where values quite obviously are required, because both are meaningless without them. Which is why slop is slop.

But then I vote Giant Meteor/Pestilence 2028. They will deliver what they promise.