AI/LLMs AI art bans are going to ruin small 3rd party creators

How is a ban on something I don't use in my business going to ruin me?
AI is pretty interesting, and LLMs have made a big splash lately, but let's be clear. As it stands now, AI is not an acceptable substitute for human labor, aside from any legal or moral issues that might arise. From a business standpoint, I think the cultural landscape for it is a landmine field, I think it is very risky to invest in a product people are turning against, and which doesn't have hardly any decided case law (in the US, they determined a piece of software cannot be the nominal author of a work, whoop de doo). Generative AI, in its current form, has three potential actual uses:
It may not ruin you, but it is already having a severe negative affect on a lot of people. Today I heard a segment on the radio about how farmers and grocery stores are using AI to become much more efficient, which is curbing the amount of excess food they have. Many charities and food banks which relied on that excess being given to them to hand out to the hungry are now struggling. Many more poor and homeless Americans are going hungry when they otherwise wouldn't.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It may not ruin you, but it is already having a severe negative affect on a lot of people. Today I heard a segment on the radio about how farmers and grocery stores are using AI to become much more efficient, which is curbing the amount of excess food they have. Many charities and food banks which relied on that excess being given to them to hand out to the hungry are now struggling. Many more poor and homeless Americans are going hungry when they otherwise wouldn't.

Uh, what network was this on? I'd love to actually see the data on this.
 



Today I heard a segment on the radio about how farmers and grocery stores are using AI to become much more efficient...

And, in the retail side, it is apparently used to support surveillance pricing, which generally isn't to the consumer's benefit.

....which is curbing the amount of excess food they have. Many charities and food banks which relied on that excess being given to them to hand out to the hungry are now struggling. Many more poor and homeless Americans are going hungry when they otherwise wouldn't.

Kudos to the charities for finding that approach, but for crying out loud we can do better than be reliant on corporate waste to feed people. That's dystopian stuff right there.
 

After reviewing this context I am done with this particular conversation.

Mod note:

Folks, so you are aware, passive-aggressive or indirect commentary on moderation in-thread is still commentary on moderation in-thread.

It is often good for a warning point and a threadban. So, please refrain from following this example.
 

I mean, I myself am trying to find it, but like... what network were they affiliated with? NPR? CBS? ABC? Did you get an author/host name out of it? Any name? Just really interested in the piece, because I've seen a lot on the opposite: AI largely being used to do stuff like aggressively markup pricing.
The host was Bill Handel on KFI 640am here in Los Angeles. I did some poking around and found these.




The first article makes a questionable statement. It says that AI is reducing surplus food, but says that doesn't mean that food banks will get less, because it can't eliminate all surplus. If you reduce surplus, and food banks rely on surplus, the amount the food banks receive has to go down.
 

Nope, it's not.

I do it find it hilarious/ironic when people who won't trust AI instead cite Wikipedia. Remember when more traditional sources... like encyclopedias...tried to convince us we should never trust crowdsourced info? That it couldn't possibly be reliable? How they would find examples of errors and say, "See!??!!? You can't trust this stuff! Buy our encyclopedias!!!"

Almost eerie, isn't it?
When I check the sources in Wikipedia, they have (so far) always been consistent with the information provided in the Wikipedia article. In the AI summary from a web search, when I check the listed references they often directly contradict the information in AI summary. For purposes of fact-checking basic scientific information, I’ll stick with Wikipedia (or even an encyclopedia!). Now, if I want to plagiarize some art, clearly Wikipedia is going to come up short.
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top