Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9313900" data-attributes="member: 18">This is such a funny "I'm an American and I can't imagine not being one" take.It's also a straight up misunderstanding of what "concern troll" means. That's not what it means, [USER=467]@Reynard[/USER]. A concern troll is someone who actually supports something (or at least in no way opposes it), but pretends to be concerned about it in order to cause a problem - typically to derail debate in a different direction:"a person who disingenuously <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a91dd87b2f06add1&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1049GB1049&sxsrf=ACQVn09wSXsaFcV7p3YkB1nYzfLu-aL4TA:1712744087905&q=expresses&si=AKbGX_rLPMdHnrrwkrRo4VZlSHiJJ8VmJYuUVXG2TuEiYeaq8mpMN0CWFUKmkTjPP4iiooMXvr37mlSH12OYk2f3zAt2tTPgARZxfwNm1hfnSJiFfjzaeeU%3D&expnd=1" target="_blank">expresses</a> concern about an issue with the intention of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a91dd87b2f06add1&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1049GB1049&sxsrf=ACQVn09wSXsaFcV7p3YkB1nYzfLu-aL4TA:1712744087905&q=undermining&si=AKbGX_okpkrXRdHQwZu4Fe0iRe3uaZ-QO1kC3mBs6Q5s9vuKlKEcatSqBN3egDiBFcPy4ZOfmeEvOgfhq7JWmCQ6Wq5hqEKXPQBS4xbj_4qYT6NOMJ4cPPo%3D&expnd=1" target="_blank">undermining</a> or <a href="https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=a91dd87b2f06add1&sca_upv=1&rlz=1C1ONGR_en-GBGB1049GB1049&sxsrf=ACQVn09wSXsaFcV7p3YkB1nYzfLu-aL4TA:1712744087905&q=derailing&si=AKbGX_rLPMdHnrrwkrRo4VZlSHiJw88Mw9xdnDNScBXyar1nPOrVEYGPS0yBFwTUo2twJSJU5IZAg0affd0jtUNwnufTJ_vTFdjjIYWf82otkcZ8tGFKWCA%3D&expnd=1" target="_blank">derailing</a> genuine discussion."Some might even suggest that bringing up general labour issues in art whilst making wild and sweeping assertions about art is exactly that kind of behaviour, even, which is beyond ironic in this context, though I doubt that was your intent.And no, artists not being paid as much as they "should" be doesn't mean it's okay for them to be replaced entirely, and it's clear that, by and large, the public agrees.Sure but that doesn't support your point at all. It just looks like the "concern trolling" you brought up. I'm not saying you are doing that - but that's exactly what concern trolling looks like! It looks like someone bringing up a separate issue that they pretend to care about, in order to distract from or derail discussion of a different subject.The reality is, as much as "Marvel" (not exactly a great example, given they've been known for bad business practices since the 1960s or earlier!) might be using somewhat exploitative practices, a huge of number of actual artists around the world are getting paid money for actual art, and further, AI art needs them to keep making art, because it'll stagnate really rapidly if they don't get new input.Again, you don't seem to understand how this directly undermines your own point. Fiverr or the like lets people get paid for art - art has, sadly, never been a big money business for most people involved. That doesn't support the idea that AI art is just opposed by "Karens" (jesus wept lol - Karens are the exact sort of people who see no problem with it). Sure, small press stuff has never paid well. That's not going to change. That was true in 1984, in 1964, in 1904, just as it is in 2024.You essentially seem to be saying "Well art isn't a big money business, so it's fine if it becomes one where it is big money, but that money is just going to small number of corporate entities in California rather than to actual artists".No, we haven't* - your comparison to GMOs is very bad one, and unsupported by any rational argumentation on your part (merely an admittedly amusing bit of vitriol), and your painting of all opposition to GMOs as mindless Karen-ism is very hilariously culturally American and shows you have blinders on re: GMO usage and regulation worldwide. If we switched your place of birth on your character sheet to, say, Germany or Britain or India and pressed "update character", you simply wouldn't even have considered saying that.The terrible business practices associated with early GMO usage (particularly that of then-Monsanto, now-Bayer), essentially convinced even countries which were pro-GMO initially to heavily restrict and monitor their usage. The real risk, as we've seen isn't horizontal gene transfer or such exotic scenarios, but rather very simply that businesses who promoted GMOs initially cannot be trusted and were aggressively litigious - and that's not actually profitable for them in the longer-run! Those bad practices (of which aggressive and litigious use of GMOs was only a part of a larger set of bad practices) sunk Monsanto and caused Bayer's merger with them to be described in the following terms:"Owing to the massive financial and reputational blows caused by ongoing litigation concerning Monsanto's herbicide Roundup, the Bayer-Monsanto merger is considered one of the worst corporate mergers in history."Divorced from the bad business practices of a lot of the early companies involved, GMOs seem so far to be broadly harmless, though the evidence of their real benefits (as opposed to good marketing) are surprisingly somewhat scarce. To be honest I expected GMOs to offer such obvious benefits that they'd be undeniable across all crop farming sectors, but that hasn't happened - benefits have been basically non-existent for most - the exceptions being maize and soybeans (and to a lesser extent cotton).But GMO vs non-GMO is a completely separate issue that's disingenuous to mix in with this issue. It doesn't even resemble this issue, and it's notable that outside the US, GMO crop usage tends to be pretty heavily regulated - allowed, often, to be clear - but regulated in ways normal crops are not. It's not been the game-changer people suggested it would be either.* = EDIT - Wait, you probably mean we've had the AI art argument repeatedly literally, not metaphorically right? I'm keeping this because I think it's important context re: GMOs but otherwise, yeah we have - note that I did not start that argument this time!Re: an AI assistant doing certain tasks, sure - but I already agreed that was pretty valid and helpful - AI has a real role as a gap-filler with certain tasks (so long as energy/computation costs can be managed/reduced/onshored/inhoused) - what's it's not so great for is replacing more creative roles.</blockquote>

Verification