The AI Red Scare is only harming artists and needs to stop.

[Thomas Shey]

That's probably a sticking point. As long as you consider AI a tool (as I would do), I'd say the acting party are the people using the AI as a tool (or selling it's use to others) - so they are using other artist's creating for commercial ends without permission or recompensation, which sounds morally wrong to me.

Are the same people wrong if they use other artists to develop their own art style and carry over some elements of those artists' styles? Because I can promise you that happens all the time. In the case of people aiming for anime styles, they're rarely even shy about it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure.
So, maybe this thread isn't for you. That's okay.

I don't think saying that I think a lot of people are saying thing with assurance that I don't think is so clear is inappropriate for this thread. In addition, I think the presentation of some views as a given are tantamount to begging the question (i.e. it assumes part of the discussion rather than arguing it).

 

[Necropolitan]

Are the same people wrong if they use other artists to develop their own art style and carry over some elements of those artists' styles? Because I can promise you that happens all the time. In the case of people aiming for anime styles, they're rarely even shy about it.

For the millionth time, that's not what AI does.

If you want to claim that an AI being fed information and blindly and uncomprehendingly applying it according to its code is the same as a human taking inspiration then prove it.

 

[Umbran]

I don't think saying that I think a lot of people are saying thing with assurance that I don't think is so clear is inappropriate for this thread.

Don't read into it. I didn't say it was inappropriate for you to say. The word "inappropriate" did not appear. Nor did any other admonishment.

I said that, if nobody here seems to have wisdom, maybe it isn't a thread for you.

Like, if you don't like smooth jazz, you can make negative statements about smooth jazz, but you really aren't going to get much out of a concert of smooth jazz.

 

[Professor Murder]

I feel bad sometimes. I have people I care about who are keen on AI. But yeah. It is literally an existential threat to human culture. It must be fought.

 

[Shardstone]

I feel bad sometimes. I have people I care about who are keen on AI. But yeah. It is literally an existential threat to human culture. It must be fought.

No, the humans trying to use AI to further exploit us are the existential threat.

 

[Professor Murder]

No, the humans trying to use AI to further exploit us are the existential threat.

"AI doesn't kill culture. People kill culture."

 

[Shardstone]

"AI doesn't kill culture. People kill culture."

Hm I concede. I am anti gun for this same reason. AI indeed needs restrictions.

 

[Professor Murder]

Hm I concede. I am anti gun for this same reason. AI indeed needs restrictions.

That is my position. Harsh restrictions yes, but I am not so naive to think the technology is leaving.

 

[cbwjm]

AI is going no where, it's essentially the next Industrial Revolution. Sir Peter Gluckman and his team produced an international report looking at new technologies, AI was one of them.

Peter said the desire to regulate and govern technology was understandable.

However, he said the risks needed to be weighed against the benefits.

"The conversation needs to go beyond the simplistic narrative of it will create a nirvana or destroy the world," he said.

"The reality is in the history of humankind, all technologies get used.

Taken from: 'Good and bad purposes' of new tech examined in new report. It's a short article, which basically just provides some of his comments.