Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HeinrichTheWolf_17 t1_iz9lyjj wrote

The Genie is out of the bottle 🧞‍♂️

That’s what I think, everything else is philosophical.

127

crua9 t1_iz9xt9h wrote

^

This

See, back in the day people were litterally antiwriting because they thought it would make people forgetful. People were anti car, TV, and so on. People were anti books, computers, internet, and now crypto. And like everything there is people anti AI.

Do they have worries? Yes. But are they founded? Not really. They think AI will kill us. But they never ask why. Like do you go out of your way to kill random bugs and germs for no reason? Same here

Now should people worry about it taking their jobs. Yes. But that is a good thing. There needed to be an economic shift. It hasn't happen, but there needs to be changes. Too many hard working people can't really survive on what they have, and they basically turned into a lifetime slave. AI is likely to fix this.

46

KidKilobyte t1_izc5evg wrote

Nick Bostrom would like a word with you.

I will include the following quote from Contact:

We pose no threat to them. It would like us going out of our way to destroy a few microbes on some ant hill in Africa.

Interesting analogy. And how guilty would we feel if we went and destroyed a few microbes on an ant hill in Africa?

7

mootcat t1_izh3vne wrote

It isn't that our demise is particularly desired, it's that it is ultimately an inconsequential side effect of AI exponentially scaling an objective.

Max Tegmark (I beleive) compares it to us worrying about destroying an ant colony while constructing a highway. It isn't even a consideration.

1

crua9 t1_izhiomb wrote

Here is a back and forward

Person A: Max Tegmark (I beleive) compares it to us worrying about destroying an ant colony while constructing a highway. It isn't even a consideration

Person B: Do you like your fridge or should we go back to ice boxes? Keep in mind fridges save lives because you can store medical stuff.

Person A: wants fridges over ice boxes

Person B: the biggest industry in the world and history was the ice industry. What killed it was the fridge.

So pick killing the biggest industry humans ever known. But in return countless people can get medical stuff, food can go to more places, and so on. Or keep that industry, all the people working it in the job, etc. But have everyone who is living today thanks due to the fridge dead.

There is always outcomes to every choice. Sometimes good and sometimes bad. But a simple risk assessment shows way more lives and way more good will come with AGI. And like the fridge. Even if you delay it, it will still come out at some point.

1

mootcat t1_izhwgxu wrote

Are you not aware of the existential risk that AGI/superintelligence poses?

I'm obviously pro AI, but it's also the greatest risk to humanity and all of life.

1

crua9 t1_izhwoib wrote

Ya it is a risk. But this is my viewpoint

  1. It makes our life better (good)
  2. It doesn't really change anything (whatever)
  3. It makes things worse (well I guess now is a good time to die)
  4. It kills us all (we all die one day anyways, and it isn't like my life is getting better)
1

SumpCrab t1_izaqmuy wrote

The debate I see is about attribution not necessarily about the existence of AI art. There are many people sharing AI art without saying it is AI generated. It should be treated no different than any other piece of art, we expect a piece to be labeled with the medium and the artist.

As a hobby artist, I'm excited about AI art, but there still is something to be said about a piece that a human being has spent hours or days to create using their earned skill and talent. Things should be labeled as such.

Edit:https://www.reddit.com/r/lotr/comments/zeoweh/gandalf_paper_art/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Here is an example.

10

Artanthos t1_izcmvky wrote

They want attribution, which would lead to royalties, on all art used as training material.

Which is not how it works with human artists. We, as humans, learn from others and use that knowledge to develop our own way of doing things. A human artist does not assign attribute to every other artist he learned from or was inspired by.

3

SumpCrab t1_izcp20j wrote

Even with human artists there is a line that can be crossed between "inspired by" and plagiarism. Some AI work has fully cut and pasted actual artwork with a bit of embellishments. That is wrong and if used in a commercial way, may require royalties.

But that isn't the gut reaction people are feeling when encountering AI artwork.

The real issue is ensuring that man-made art is appreciated and that AI art is labeled as such. There will always be people who create art. With a singularity there are going to be many folks without work and they will choose to push paint around a canvas for fun. I think there is value in maintaining separation between man-made and Computer generated.

Personally, I also have issues with digital artists calling pieces "paintings". It suggests a certain medium has been used when it hasn't and the way an image is created is often as interesting as the piece.

5

SwipesAndCrappiness t1_izgsyc6 wrote

> The real issue is ensuring that man-made art is appreciated and that AI art is labeled as such.

From everything I have seen the major issue is attribution and financial compensation. I personally see no direct connection between AI art and human art in how it makes me feel. I have seen some AI art that has touched me very deeply just as I have seen some human art that has done the same.

I have some good friends who are artists and honestly feel for them. And I am an aspiring fiction writer looking at the same issue for myself (although thus far these tools have also been hugely helpful for my own productivity so its not all bad). But I think the reality is that when anything changes from being difficult/rare/expensive -> easy/common/cheap it changes everything about that area of life.

2

Artanthos t1_izdtqf7 wrote

Yes, there is a line that can be crossed, and I would expect AI to be held to the exact same line as a human.

If the art is substantially different, it should not matter what training data was used,

As for appreciation: that is up to the beholder. It’s not something that should be legislated.

1