And also defining “This is my art, you thieving shit-bags.”
3 Likes
Now I’m reminded about the story of Stone Soup, but in this contemporary version, everyone contributes but then they have to pay to eat it.
6 Likes
The luddites were not “anti-techology”… they were anti-losing their jobs to cheaper labor. We really should use the term as it was intended, rather than the ahistorical usage to hides more history than it reveals.
At what point in history have corporations ever not used technology to save on labor costs? The only way that doesn’t happen is if you have labor playing a role in new technologies, rather than just be replaced by them. You can’t trust corporations to have the best intentions at heart, when they will do what they can to cut labor costs (meaning paying people LESS for the same or more work) every single time. That is true in every field across the board.
That reality is why the WGA is on strike right now and why SAG is likely about to go on strike. They are not being invited into the room help shape engagement with that technology, but rather management is seeking ways to use that technology to replace people making living wages (which is become less and less a thing that’s happening across those industries).
The problem here is not the artists and creatives that do this work - many of them, I’m sure, are aware of this technology and would like to engage with it on their own terms. But that’s not what is going on with how this technology is being embraced. It’s just pushing paid labor out at this point and will be used to do so, until it’s not a viable “cost-saving” strategy…
TLDR: how people make a living in a capitalist society is part of this conversation, like it or not. People don’t do this as a hobby, it’s their job that they should be compensated for… replacing that with AI crap isn’t allowing the artists to drive the conversation about AI.
5 Likes
2 Likes
I don’t want art that speaks to the experience and souls of machines. They can pay for and watch that.
2 Likes
Though honestly, stealing from hobbyists to make a profit is pretty sleazy too.
5 Likes
“I’ll take ‘Marvel ripping off creators’ for $500, Alex”
2 Likes
I dunno, this clip from the Secret Invasion opening looks pretty good to me.
3 Likes
Yes… that is exactly my point. And I believe the exact context in which I used the term.
Which seems to be exactly what people are mad about here (and also the attribution / compensation issues related to training and transfomative use).
So… yes.
But everyone knows that arts only value is as a commodity and producing it more “efficiently” is the most critical aspect!!! /s
The whole thing is garbage, if you ask me. This is yet another case of people looking for a solution to a problem that just doesn’t exist… There might very well be some great ways we can use AI, but using it to replace actual artists is probably one of the worst things I can think of…
Silly! Men get more refined as they age! /s
You do mention that, but you still seem to indicate that YOU feel that’s irrational. I strongly disagree with that.
Also, I’m fucking historian, so maybe don’t fucking cite god damn wikipedia at me…
8 Likes
Insert quote about dudes doing things way too quickly.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Not really. I’ve said in every comment that I understand this technology isn’t going away. My point is that we need to get real about what it’s doing to our society (not just AI but all technological advancement), which, among other things, is driving an accelerating wealth inequality and climate change, recognize that that’s not good, and do something about that before everything goes to hell. We’ve been kicking the can down the road since the start of the Industrial Revolution, and we’re about to kick it off a cliff. You say this has happened before and we’ve adapted, but we haven’t really.
5 Likes
But apparently, talking about an existential crisis facing humanity and how this stuff is accelerating that is “irrational” and “not interesting”…
6 Likes
(waves hand around magically) “But we’ll adapt…somehow…we always do!” /s
5 Likes
Honestly, I wish humanity could plan some shit, instead of letting a bunch of self-interested dude-bros “disrupt” everything on a whim to build up their already obscene wealth…
6 Likes
6 Likes
It’s not hard… we got scads of evidence about what has caused problems in the past, and we can think a bit more deeply about what would and wouldn’t help the most people with regards to economic, social, and cultural developments. Just because we CAN do something doesn’t mean we should or that it’s a good idea… I don’t see how putting entire industries out of business just to enrich a few already wealthy people makes sense to anyone. I don’t see how putting cultural production into the hands of machines makes much sense. We should look at what AI actually can do well, and then figure out an application for it. Right now, people are just throwing it at walls and seeing what sticks. And it’s all in service to deepening the wealth of a few white dudes…
7 Likes
This is going to be a sidetrack, but your comment reminded me of something that just happened. I scheduled my annual mammogram recently, and they sent me a link to fill out all the paperwork online, which isn’t anything new, but then there was this notice on the page about how I could upgrade to this AI evaluation for $40? And I’m like…ummm…ok, maybe that is a good use of AI, but I don’t know that, and you’ve provided me absolutely no information about what this thing actually is or how it works. Maybe it’s great, but I’m bothered by the fact that rather than give me some information I could actually use to decide if I wanted to opt for this thing, they just basically said, “Upgrade to an AI Mammo for only $40!!”
4 Likes
It reminds me a little of a conservative idea I heard once to cut education costs by replacing teachers with cheap actors who could simply memorize the lectures. The idea that students might ever have questions, let alone need differently paced explanations, apparently must have never occurred to them.
Of course AI isn’t actually replacing artists in the sense that they aren’t needed, just stretching their work without giving them anything in return. Because the question of whether something new is actually sustainable, versus simply pillaging what’s already there, never seems to occur to investors.
7 Likes
