How Does AI Affect Your Online Shopping?

[Belen]

But a bad actor could develop a device for bad actors to use? It just takes one company.

Is this mandated by legislation? And if so, where?

(Sorry, not trying to sound demanding, genuinely curious)

Our members - Content Authenticity Initiative

Join the global movement for content authenticity and provenance. CAI membership is free and open to all.

contentauthenticity.org

It is a group that spans members across a wide range of groups.

 

[Morrus]

And with things that can't be photographed (like fantasy monsters), AI won't have a steady source of images to refine itself with. As more and more actual artists are forced out of the industry, there will be fewer and fewer new and creative drawings of, say, a mind flayer...so in a very short time, all mind flayer art will be indistinguishable from any other mind flayer artwork.

Yeah. All the AI bros don't seem to understand that their AI regurgitates content created by people and once you force the people out, there's nothing new to regurgitate. AI--no matter how much they claim that it does--does NOT create. People do. It'll be a snake feeding on its own tail regurgitating increasingly blandly similar content with no originality.

Sure, there will be hobbyist humans doing it. But nobody will be doing it in any kind of volume like they are now, because they will not be able to make a living creating except for a really lucky few 'elites'--think A-list movie stars, or their writing/painting/singing equivalents.

 

[Morrus]

Our members - Content Authenticity Initiative

Join the global movement for content authenticity and provenance. CAI membership is free and open to all.

contentauthenticity.org

It is a group that spans members across a wide range of groups.

Ah, it's entirely voluntary? So it just takes one bad actor to make a device which doesn't embed your code, and all the scammers will use it?

 

[Belen]

Ah, it's entirely voluntary? So it just takes one bad actor to make a device which doesn't embed your code, and all the scammers will use it?

Right now, we are working on developing the standard.

 

[Morrus]

Right now, we are working on developing the standard.

I don't really know what that means?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I always see people praising AI summaries and then I point out all the factual errors.

Which is why, again, I'm talking about people using AI to do editorial work on their own written work, and then go over it.

I mean, you can keep telling me it doesn't happen if you want, but I used to do editing for a living, so I think I'm qualified to recognize a competent job from not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And with things that can't be photographed (like fantasy monsters), AI won't have a steady source of images to refine itself with. As more and more actual artists are forced out of the industry, there will be fewer and fewer new and creative drawings of, say, a mind flayer...so in a very short time, all mind flayer art will be indistinguishable from any other mind flayer artwork.

That only seems likely in two cases: 1. Monsters with small numbers of samples in the first place; 2. No one willing to introduce variation in the AI output out the gate to produce variations (and this is entirely doable).

Now you might have a problem with genuinely new monsters (i.e. things without any precedent) but those are already low-incidence productions.

 

[Morrus]

That only seems likely in two cases: 1. Monsters with small numbers of samples in the first place; 2. No one willing to introduce variation in the AI output out the gate to produce variations (and this is entirely doable).

Now you might have a problem with genuinely new monsters (i.e. things without any precedent) but those are already low-incidence productions.

Well, sure. You can make "an orc but with one eye" or "a dragon with 2 heads". That's not creating. You can't make anything new. That's why creativity dies. We just end up with the same stuff regurgitated for the rest of eternity by an AI snake eating its own tail and puking it up for us to see.

There was a brief span in the late 20th-early 21st century where humans stupidly put their creations online not realising it would be vacuumed up en-masse by the matrix 20 years later, and it got stolen by the AI companies who made billions as their unpaid evangelists cheered them on while the whole of creativity until the end of time was based on those few decades of stolen content.

And then people started saying "why is there nothing new or interesting on TV any more?" -- hell, folks say that now; just wait!

 

[CleverNickName]

That only seems likely in two cases: 1. Monsters with small numbers of samples in the first place; 2. No one willing to introduce variation in the AI output out the gate to produce variations (and this is entirely doable).

I don't disagree, but introducing variation in the AI output isn't the same thing as creating a new image.

I mean, just do a quick Google image search for any Fortnite character. Take note of how many of them use the same color palates, the same poses, the same view angles, etc. You can find plenty that look different from one another, but you won't find as many that look interesting or creative...and as time goes on, you'll find fewer and fewer.

That's the difference I'm talking about. Introducing variation is not the same as creation.

 

[LordEntrails]

It would seem to me that, in the context of gaming products, the quality of a work is valid criticism of the work. Indeed, it is perhaps the single largest valid criticism of the work.

Haven't we already shown that some AI generated content is just as good as professional experienced human created content? And that much paid/professional RPG content can be mistaken for AI generated content? So yea, quality is important in an RPG product, but quality certainly doesn't prove or disprove who or how it was created.

One of the biggest problems with AI generated images is their potential for deception and fraud.

It's not long before we will be at the point where we can't believe any photo we see, because only a tiny percentage of photos will be genuine. And a lot of those creating the fake stuff present it as real.

Absolutely. This is why even today source is so important.

I imagine that photographic and video criminal evidence will, at some point, also be rendered valueless. It will become trivial to 'prove' somebody's innocence or guilt via AI generated videos.

I don't think this will change, because to enter pictures or video as evidence in criminal proceedings you have to prove source, and that the source is reliable. But such efforts will certainly become more central to many cases.