Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do believe that AI is inevitable tbh.
It's possible to be both a bubble and the future. The Internet for example created a bubble, but it currently defines the world as we know it.
I suspect AI will be the same.

I just want to come back to that argument, “What if a person can’t sing or play an instrument but can write lyrics? Shouldn’t it be okay to use AI?” No. Work with others who can sing and play. Do you think every artist writes their own songs? Do you think every songwriter is a performer? Stop inventing BS to justify your sociopathic selfishness.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I just want to come back to that argument, “What if a person can’t sing or play an instrument but can write lyrics? Shouldn’t it be okay to use AI?” No. Work with others who can sing and play. Do you think every artist writes their own songs? Do you think every songwriter is a performer? Stop inventing BS to justify your sociopathic selfishness.

I don't think this argument is very fair. We've had tools to make creative processes easier, which puts the creative ability in more people's hands for years.

Digital cameras put photography into everyone's hands to the point that everyone has a high quality camera in their pocket. Is it unethical to put the photo-developers out of their jobs?

I think AI putting a particular quality of art in the hands of people who otherwise couldn't access it is a good thing.
Because let's be honest, no one was going to get paid to paint a picture of Shrimp Jesus.

For example I use AI to pretty up battle photos a bit.
For most people AI is kinda a neat tool to play with but not anything they'd pay for.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I think AI putting a particular quality of art in the hands of people who otherwise couldn't access it is a good thing.
Because let's be honest, no one was going to get paid to paint a picture of Shrimp Jesus.

You clearly don't spend enough time on the internet because that's exactly something people do pay for.

And using AI to generate images or music doesn't suddenly make you an artist or a musician. I can't play any instruments, you know what I do? I play Guitar Hero, not use a thief algorithm to steal for me and make slop.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I do believe that AI is inevitable tbh.
It's possible to be both a bubble and the future. The Internet for example created a bubble, but it currently defines the world as we know it.
I suspect AI will be the same.

AI is here to stay, but generative AI is far more limited in scope than it is being sold as. It just creates the illusion of being able to do a lot of things.

It is probably also a dead-end due to the requirements for the massive volumes of training material required, which get less effective if they include AI output.

The technology is fantastic for creating pattern-recognition programs in applications where a pattern needs to be reliably recognised, like scanning histology slides for cancer*. It is also great at automating low-quality-to-mediocre slop content, which is the most visible use and one which is more of a blight on society than a boon. It can be good at summarising text, but personally I've seen poor results with this the moment anything technical is included, because generative AI doesn't understand anything (it only recognises and regurgitates patterns) and doesn't know what is and isn't vital data.

Because it doesn't do a good enough job at most things to warrant being a paid service, on the whole, there is going to be a real crunch when the actual value collides with the massive costs of training AI even to the mediocre level it is at currently.

I don't think whatever the big AI of the future is will be a generative AI derivative (although it may include a component of it), because it is just too inefficient. If humans relied solely on pattern recognition, we'd be far, far more stupid.


*This particular form of AI is being done far more ethically and usefully than the large language models.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I just want to come back to that argument, “What if a person can’t sing or play an instrument but can write lyrics? Shouldn’t it be okay to use AI?” No. Work with others who can sing and play. Do you think every artist writes their own songs? Do you think every songwriter is a performer? Stop inventing BS to justify your sociopathic selfishness.

It's only one side of this debate that ever seems to get nasty and personal.

AI has never ghosted me after taking my money
AI has never "forgotten" a commission
AI has never had a depressive streak and paused working for six months

Forgive me for not giving a damn about an artist's livelihood when artists have done all of those things. To me, personally. I don't need to "invent BS".

Is it "sociopathic selfishness"? Maybe, but why should I care about the environmental impact of my AI use when I don't care about the environmental impact of literally any other activity I undertake?
I play games with little plastic models, I order from Amazon, I fly internationally for my job. If I don't care about my impact for any of those activities why would AI use be the one thing where it impacts my decision making? If that's sociopathic selfishness then at least my sociopathy is consistent.

Is music inherently better because it's made by a person? For some people, sure. Me? I don't care about live experiences, I care about the end result that hits my ears, some of which is AI generated and I enjoy, some of it is AI generated and I don't. Some of it is made by humans and I enjoy, some of it is made by humans and I don't enjoy.

Is music inherently more moral because it's made by a human? Depends, any fans of Lostprophets or Gary Glitter here? Everyone's all "Support the artists" until they remember who some of those artists are.

Someone I know wrote a poem, they then set it to music with AI, and then made an AI music video. It took them about 6 months with some pretty long hours and research to go from the initial idea to the final product. They had to learn a lot of technical expertise to get the final product to do what they wanted it to do. It was MUCH harder than I expected it to be.

However, it was still shorter and cheaper than it would have taken to master the musical and video elements necessary for them to do it in a traditional way. Plus, all the other musicians and professionals they would need to pull it off.

My final verdict was that it was harder and more artistic work than expected. However, it was still a shortcut that was not worth the theft, societal issues, and environmental degradation.

I’m now getting 100+ page documents at work. AI generated. Citing hallucinated decisions and precedent, laws and regulations.

Have you any idea how much that adds to my workload? Do you understand the man hours it takes to go through that slop, let alone to explain to the sender they’ve sent utter bunk, and have to point out exactly what isn’t even remotely a thing. Or that hey, US law isn’t relevant in the UK and so on and so forth?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m now getting 100+ page documents at work. AI generated. Citing hallucinated decisions and precedent, laws and regulations.

Have you any idea how much that adds to my workload? Do you understand the man hours it takes to go through that slop, let alone to explain to the sender they’ve sent utter bunk, and have to point out exactly what isn’t even remotely a thing. Or that hey, US law isn’t relevant in the UK and so on and so forth?

In Florida, you now have to sign all court documents, stating that you did not use AI in the creation (including research) of the document.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m now getting 100+ page documents at work. AI generated. Citing hallucinated decisions and precedent, laws and regulations.

Have you any idea how much that adds to my workload? Do you understand the man hours it takes to go through that slop, let alone to explain to the sender they’ve sent utter bunk, and have to point out exactly what isn’t even remotely a thing. Or that hey, US law isn’t relevant in the UK and so on and so forth?

Makes me wonder, why not have a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Fine three faults and just kick it back with next to no explanation. Or at least just minimal guidance. Track who is sending what and send the offenders names and maybe they get ... replaced. ?

Building better worlds right.

My step son teaches collage classes and tell his students that previous students who have used ai didn't like their grades and likely neither will they. Knowing that makes me happy.

 Overread wrote:
The thing is
1) You have to be able to identify - to ah igh degree of accuracy - AI from real created content of a medium (in this case music).

Find by AI?

Fight fire with fire

Seriously though, you are correct.
The ai development will make it harder to tell a difference but as the race in WW2 with tank armor and anti-tank weapons, I believe that the only thing that could evolve fast enough to spot AI works also is AI


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kirotheavenger wrote:


I think parallels with the industrial revolution are quite disgustingly apparent tbh, and it did *not* make the lives of the workers any better.

But AI doing the jobs isn't necessarily the problem by itself. The problem is the societal expectation that you need to work for your worth.
IMO the ideal situation is for AI to do my job... but I get to keep my salary. Even double it if AI does the job twice as good as I do.
But that's not what's gonna happen.

Heavily automated machines in the Industrial Revolution set worker's rights back centuries and forced them into dangeroud and squalid working conditions as the robber barons entirely controlled access to work and therefore money and therefore food and life itself.
Even today we largely only see the industrial revolution as good for workers rights because we've exported all these abuses out to India and China et al.

This points out the biggest concern everybody should have!
Wether they ar into ai or not.
kirotheavenger Are correct.

One interesting question is what work we as humans will do considering what jobs the workers during the Industrial Revolution was forced to take?

Charax wrote:
AI has never ghosted me after taking my money
AI has never "forgotten" a commission
AI has never had a depressive streak and paused working for six months

Forgive me for not giving a damn about an artist's livelihood when artists have done all of those things. To me, personally. I don't need to "invent BS".

So, you believe that all artists should lose their jobs because some screwed you over?

That's pathetic, and definitely sociopathic behaviour. I'm glad you've admitted that.

Yeah, any business can screw people over: that's been happening since Ea-Nasir. But to then use that as justification for "all artists should lose their livelihoods, and we stole all of their work"? Utterly unhinged behaviour.

Is it "sociopathic selfishness"? Maybe, but why should I care about the environmental impact of my AI use when I don't care about the environmental impact of literally any other activity I undertake?

Plastic models are far less problematic than the wide-scale use of AI - and as for the rest, again, that's just sad.

Everyone's all "Support the artists" until they remember who some of those artists are.

Simple solution: don't support *those* artists. Did that not cross your mind? Or were you just looking for an excuse not to care?

 warhead01 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m now getting 100+ page documents at work. AI generated. Citing hallucinated decisions and precedent, laws and regulations.

Have you any idea how much that adds to my workload? Do you understand the man hours it takes to go through that slop, let alone to explain to the sender they’ve sent utter bunk, and have to point out exactly what isn’t even remotely a thing. Or that hey, US law isn’t relevant in the UK and so on and so forth?

Makes me wonder, why not have a 3 strikes and you're out policy. Fine three faults and just kick it back with next to no explanation. Or at least just minimal guidance. Track who is sending what and send the offenders names and maybe they get ... replaced. ?

Building better worlds right.

My step son teaches collage classes and tell his students that previous students who have used ai didn't like their grades and likely neither will they. Knowing that makes me happy.

Sadly we’re a statutory body, and people have a right to come to us,

We can and have banned people in the past. But it’s rare, and is usually due to abusive behaviour.

Sgt_Smudge 819011 11824030 wrote:So, you believe that all artists should lose their jobs because some screwed you over?

That's pathetic, and definitely sociopathic behaviour. I'm glad you've admitted that.

I think this kind of response is unhelpful to anyone.

Firstly, you're jumping straight to some pretty serious insults. No one has ever changed their mind for a strong enough insult. You just make yourself look unreasonable and justify the other person's opinion.

Secondly, it's just a foolish stance to take. Your stance is tantamount to saying people have the right to work their passion and therefore someone has the responsibility to employ them as such.
But who? Who should be paying artists? Am I obligated to pay someone to photoshop my game pictures? Is it unethical for me to edit them with AI? Is it unethical for me to play around with photoshop?

I also just don't think we can stop AI, it's quality is coming on leaps and bounds. If it's going to do the jobs better than people (and doing an artist's job instantly and freely is just a level of convenience that cannot be matched by a human) then it will be replacing people.
I think we should be focusing our energy on advocating for ethical AI use and a post-scarcity society.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Sgt_Smudge 819011 11824030 wrote:So, you believe that all artists should lose their jobs because some screwed you over?

That's pathetic, and definitely sociopathic behaviour. I'm glad you've admitted that.

I think this kind of response is unhelpful to anyone.

Neither is wanting AI to screw over all artists because of some bad commissions, but sure, call out one and not the other.

Firstly, you're jumping straight to some pretty serious insults. No one has ever changed their mind for a strong enough insult. You just make yourself look unreasonable and justify the other person's opinion.

Counterpoint: the shark was already jumped by the poster for saying "Forgive me for not giving a damn about an artist's livelihood when artists have done all of those things.", and then in their own words, admitting that maybe their behaviour was "sociopathic selfishness". They're the one who embraced that insult, not me. I'm just agreeing with that.

I fail to see how calling out the foolishness of that poster justified their opinion in any way.

Secondly, it's just a foolish stance to take. Your stance is tantamount to saying people have the right to work their passion and therefore someone has the responsibility to employ them as such.
But who? Who should be paying artists? Am I obligated to pay someone to photoshop my game pictures? Is it unethical for me to edit them with AI? Is it unethical for me to play around with photoshop?

No? That's not what I'm claiming at all.

I said that if someone doesn't appreciate the art that those artists do, then "don't support *those* artists". I didn't advocate that artists *need* to be employed. What I did advocate for was that if you want art, do it yourself, or get an artist* to do it.

*Artist refers to anyone who creates art. They don't need to have gone to a creative college or been in practice for years - if you edited a picture in photoshop (not AI), then your part in that contribution was artistic, and you are an artist. Now, if that picture was stolen, then you're still an artist, but also a thief. AI art, because it has absolutely no original or creative endeavour, is *only* theft.

Art is available to everyone. If you want to improve the quality of it, you can practice at your art. If you don't want to risk someone screwing you over, do it yourself. That doesn't include using theft tools to do it.

I also just don't think we can stop AI, it's quality is coming on leaps and bounds.

AI only continues to be unstoppable if people continue to use it. If everyone were to reject its use, I promise, it would stop. It just requires people to actually commit to stopping using it, instead of saying "we can't stop it".

If it's going to do the jobs better than people (and doing an artist's job instantly and freely is just a level of convenience that cannot be matched by a human) then it will be replacing people.
I think we should be focusing our energy on advocating for ethical AI use and a post-scarcity society.

If AI should be replacing anything a human does, it should be replacing the menial labour parts of our lives, not the creative. And, let's not forget, the only reason AI can do an artist's job instantly and "freely" (ignoring the staggering environmental cost) is because it steals from them. If I took someone else's art that had already been made, and passed it off as my own, I didn't create it "instantly".

Hell, I don't even oppose analytical AI. But if generative AI solved all it's ethical problems, maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Those ethical factors include:
- Energy consumption
- Drive for profit
- Theft of art and IP
- Misinformation
- Exploitative content
to name a few. But until those are resolved, we should not accept generative AI. These were issues which were identified over half a decade ago during the creation of GPT-3, and were ignored. The best time to halt development of AI was then. The next best is now.

I actively avoid using LLMs if at all possible and will switch software if they integrate in a way that requires me to use it or automatically uses it (like Google LLM summaries).

I've never felt such visceral disgust towards a new technology in my life.

I look forward to the actual monetary cost of token usage becoming clear and people dropping the tech as they have to pay the actual price for it rather than the current investor subsidised loss-leader version.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Hell, I don't even oppose analytical AI. But if generative AI solved all it's ethical problems, maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Those ethical factors include:
- Energy consumption
- Drive for profit
- Theft of art and IP
- Misinformation
- Exploitative content
to name a few.

I find it interesting that you don't list unemployment of white collar workers in there. Why is undercutting the enployment of artists so unethical but not anyone else?
AI also doesn't stop anyone doing art. In fact it empowers them to create art greater than they could otherwise. The only art that AI stops is it undercuts your ability to *sell* art, which is a whole different thing. If you personally enjoy oil painting you are just as at liberty to do so in a world of AI as you were before.
AI is a tool like any other. When digital cameras came out you could just as easily have been there yelling about how developing film was an integral part of photography and digital was a simply inferior machine product.

I also don't buy the "theft" argument. Every human creative ever has looked at and drawn inspiration from what has come before. Sometimes to the point of literally copying it as closely as possible.

I also disagree that we can stop AI. As you so rightly pointed out, AI is heavily subsidised by the tech giants right now. Because AI isn't for us, it's for them. They're coming for our jobs, and none of us get a vote on our own employment.
Levelling your anger that some Average Joe that just wants a picture of his OC without the talent to draw more than a stickman, the desire to wait a decade in practicing, or the money to throw at an artist, is just a complete misdirection of your energy and misunderstanding of where the ethics lie.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

I find it interesting that you don't list unemployment of white collar workers in there. Why is undercutting the enployment of artists so unethical but not anyone else?
AI also doesn't stop anyone doing art. In fact it empowers them to create art greater than they could otherwise

The lack of mentioning AI replacing workers in other sectors is likely purely a function of this thread focusing on AI Music; which has spilled a bit into general art replacement.
However yes AI is coming for customer support; fastfood workers; coding; lawyers - basically people have thrown AI at any role which in some way uses a computer or can use a computer. Couple AI to machinery and you can throw most manufacture on there as well.

Artists are not special, its just the focus of this thread.



Also AI doesn't allow someone with zero artistic skill to become an artist. It allows them to become a prompter, which is not artistic skill.

Artist vs prompter is just semantics. Whatever you want to call it, it they produce art.
Unless you want to define art as specifically human made, but then you're arguing photographers aren't artists.
I'm certainly not arguing prompting is of equivalent calibre to something like a painter, but I think it is largely irrelevant to the argument. If I want a pretty picture of X, AI enables me to obtain something better, faster, and/or cheaper than I could have achieved myself or commissioned.
Whether or not prompting makes you an artist is entirely immaterial to whether or not it's ethical to use AI image gen

And then if you personally believe that art is materially improved by a human touch, you are absolutely free to continue doing so yourself.
I don't see the reason or value in shaming others for doing so.

As I mentioned earlier, Joe Schmoe getting an AI portrait of their OC character is not the problem.
The problem is the barrage of money hungry AI slop, AI replacement of workers, and also the 'death of fact' with AI videos and pictures creating disinformation. None of these are affected by shaming Joe Schmoe.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, Joe Schmoe getting an AI portrait of their OC character is not the problem.
The problem is the barrage of money hungry AI slop, AI replacement of workers, and also the 'death of fact' with AI videos and pictures creating disinformation. None of these are affected by shaming Joe Schmoe.

You realise that Joe getting an AI portrait using an AI service IS part of the Money Hungry AI slop.
It's also means that Joe won't now go and pay Bob to make that portrait of his character; or buy the character portrait pack of 20 portraits that Jane made and adapt to use one of them. That means Bob and Jane now have directly less income because Joe is now giving that money to AI. Heck it means that the website Bob and Jane use to sell their art is now flooded with thousands of prompter-artists who can spit out art as fast as AI can make it. So long as tokens are cheap/free they'll spam those sites like crazy; even when tokens go up; so long as their barrage of art generates enough sales to cover tokens - they'll keep going.

 Overread wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, Joe Schmoe getting an AI portrait of their OC character is not the problem.
The problem is the barrage of money hungry AI slop, AI replacement of workers, and also the 'death of fact' with AI videos and pictures creating disinformation. None of these are affected by shaming Joe Schmoe.

You realise that Joe getting an AI portrait using an AI service IS part of the Money Hungry AI slop.
It's also means that Joe won't now go and pay Bob to make that portrait of his character or buy the character portrait pack of 20 portraits that Jane made and adapt to use one of them. That means Bob and Jane now have directly less income because Joe is now giving that money to AI

But this is good for Joe as Joe has saved a significant chunk of money. Joe probably doesn't have that much oney. Also, a lot of the images and stuff people generate isn't stuff they'd pay money for. It's low level stuff that would largely have just not been made otherwise.
Remember AI companies are pretty open about the fact that very few users are even willing to spend a small amount on AI subscriptions. The amount of money you'd have to shell out to get a picture quality equivalent to AI would buy you probably *years* of AI subscription. Artists really aren't losing much money to AI.
This is basically the "stealing bread from the mouths of the poor" argument of the 1800s when the wealthy would be expected to pay servants to do any menial task, except you're applying it to *everyone* whether they have the money or not. It's silly.

. Heck it means that the website Bob and Jane use to sell their art is now flooded with thousands of prompter-artists who can spit out art as fast as AI can make it. So long as tokens are cheap/free they'll spam those sites like crazy; even when tokens go up; so long as their barrage of art generates enough sales to cover tokens - they'll keep going.

This is the real problem, and it's got nothing to do with normal people doing normal stuff with AI.
Companies like Etsy absolutely need to seriously crack down, which needs the help of AI companies to properly encode 'watermarks' into their generated images. Which we're already starting to see, but governments need to be taking action. Although therein lies another problem - the internet is exploding in relevance to our lives and it's little better than international maritime waters, it's a lawless wild west. I hope the UN could take a break and do something useful in establishing good and strong international internet regulations. Although I have little hope such an international treaty system could ever keep pace with developments.
But the point is shaming Joe Schmoe for not paying struggling isn't addressing the real issue. In fact it's worse, it's diverting attention away from the real issues and putting the blame on people with little to no control over any of it, just because they're easy to reach. It's like paper straws all over again.

At the moment AFAIK all of the companies make a loss on each use of the technology even for subscription users. There might be some cases where LLM is actually making moeny but for the most part it's burning massive amounts of it.

So Joe is really getting a subsidised access to a service in the "destroy the existing industry" move as we've seen with other silicon valley ideas like Uber, which then later jack the price up when they've gotten rid of the other options. Personally, I think it will fail this time, because the output of the LLM is so ephemeral and low in value.

They are hoping they can simultaneously create more demand for the services (dependency would be better than demand) and reduce the price per token. I'm skeptical they'll be able to get the price down that low, because the methods used are so incredibly hardware and energy intensive. It seems thermodynamically impossible for them to overcome the cooling problems they have given how hot they run the processing units, and running them that hot wears them out really rapidly requiring a replacement rate that is really crazy.

And of course, all this extra energy is being used mostly for pointless slop, and is probably the absolute dumbest reason to accelerate global warming that could ever have been conceived. I'm genuinely blown away by how people have jumped on board with this given how trendy it was to be protesting for Fridays for Future a few years ago.

So I expect the price of token usage to go up significantly in the not too distant future, and when that happens I expect we'll start to see the LLM bubble popping.

I expect the tech ghouls behind the scenes will make off with massive bank (because they know this is coming) and average people will be left footing the bill as usual (especially in areas with loads of data centres) and the tech will stick around and likely be used for lots of unpleasant and nefarious purposes by those who can afford the token uses.

Whole thing is massively dystopian imo, and I'm having nothing to do with it.

 Da Boss wrote:
At the moment AFAIK all of the companies make a loss on each use of the technology even for subscription users. There might be some cases where LLM is actually making moeny but for the most part it's burning massive amounts of it.

So Joe is really getting a subsidised access to a service in the "destroy the existing industry" move as we've seen with other silicon valley ideas like Uber, which then later jack the price up when they've gotten rid of the other options. Personally, I think it will fail this time, because the output of the LLM is so ephemeral and low in value.

They are hoping they can simultaneously create more demand for the services (dependency would be better than demand) and reduce the price per token. I'm skeptical they'll be able to get the price down that low, because the methods used are so incredibly hardware and energy intensive. It seems thermodynamically impossible for them to overcome the cooling problems they have given how hot they run the processing units, and running them that hot wears them out really rapidly requiring a replacement rate that is really crazy.

And of course, all this extra energy is being used mostly for pointless slop, and is probably the absolute dumbest reason to accelerate global warming that could ever have been conceived. I'm genuinely blown away by how people have jumped on board with this given how trendy it was to be protesting for Fridays for Future a few years ago.

So I expect the price of token usage to go up significantly in the not too distant future, and when that happens I expect we'll start to see the LLM bubble popping.

I expect the tech ghouls behind the scenes will make off with massive bank (because they know this is coming) and average people will be left footing the bill as usual (especially in areas with loads of data centres) and the tech will stick around and likely be used for lots of unpleasant and nefarious purposes by those who can afford the token uses.

Whole thing is massively dystopian imo, and I'm having nothing to do with it.

I agree with all of that, I don't think AI is going to end well for anyone (except the 'epstein class') how it's currently being handled.

My points in this thread is just that that isn't Joe Schmoe's fault and there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of tech giant subsidized tools whilst they're here.

First they came for the artists...

But hey, let's not have empathy for the people actively losing their livelihoods. As long as Average Joe gets his profile pic where he looks like a Pixar character.

Kiroththeavenger wrote:My points in this thread is just that that isn't Joe Schmoe's fault and there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of tech giant subsidized tools whilst they're here.

Please see my earlier comment about 100+ page submissions full of entirely made up citations, laws, regulations, rules and decisions that plague my professional life.

Maybe there it’s, understandably, folk not learning how to ask an open question and instead tasking whichever AI without checking its accuracy.

But, it is a dangerous tool. And right now, a spectacular source of BS and disinformation.

ByggareBob wrote:
What’s your opinion on AI generated music? Most of internet frown upon it.
There is loads of it automatic singer, grimdark tavern, the vox skull tales, nerdburglers.

I must say that I’ve filled my playlist with it.
I’m not ashamed I like AI music!

Have you got any other great artists?

It depends on me. If it's someone who actually wrote the song and then is using a Vocaloid to do the actual singing, or for dramatic Dwarven war cries ( that you wrote yourself) in the background, yay. If you're talking fully AI generated music using only prompts, nay.

kirotheavenger wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Hell, I don't even oppose analytical AI. But if generative AI solved all it's ethical problems, maybe I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Those ethical factors include:
- Energy consumption
- Drive for profit
- Theft of art and IP
- Misinformation
- Exploitative content
to name a few.

I find it interesting that you don't list unemployment of white collar workers in there.

"to name a few".
Please read what you are replying to.

Second, this thread is about AI music. Forgive me for focusing on the topic of the thread.

Why is undercutting the enployment of artists so unethical but not anyone else?

Did I say that? Did I ever say that AI was only a threat to artists?

AI also doesn't stop anyone doing art.

Yes, it does - aside from the future wide-scale level of people losing their safety of living due to the environmental impacts, readily available AI provides encouragement of people to simply plug in a prompt and generate slop, as opposed to picking up a pen and making their own. Full prevention, no - but it certainly disencourages it.

In fact it empowers them to create art greater than they could otherwise.

No, it does not. AI isn't empowering, unless you consider theft to be an empowering act.

The only art that AI stops is it undercuts your ability to *sell* art, which is a whole different thing.

Because god forbid artists be paid for their labour.

AI is a tool like any other.

Simply incorrect. When I pick up a pen or paintbrush or instrument, I am not actively draining litres and litres of water. I am not wholesale stealing material from another artist (or, if I am, I am liable to be prosecuted for plagiarism). I am *producing* something: AI does not produce anything by reheated slop.

When digital cameras came out you could just as easily have been there yelling about how developing film was an integral part of photography and digital was a simply inferior machine product.

Digital cameras didn't actively steal from other forms of media, and have nowhere near the environmental and ethcal impacts.

I also don't buy the "theft" argument. Every human creative ever has looked at and drawn inspiration from what has come before. Sometimes to the point of literally copying it as closely as possible.

Drawing inspiration and attempting to recreate is not the same as literally *taking the work from someone else*. No work exists in a vacuum, but AI has no original input because of the very nature of its design.

I also disagree that we can stop AI. As you so rightly pointed out, AI is heavily subsidised by the tech giants right now. Because AI isn't for us, it's for them. They're coming for our jobs, and none of us get a vote on our own employment.

That doesn't mean you need to swallow the boot.

Levelling your anger that some Average Joe that just wants a picture of his OC without the talent to draw more than a stickman, the desire to wait a decade in practicing, or the money to throw at an artist, is just a complete misdirection of your energy and misunderstanding of where the ethics lie.

Right! Who cares if Alex the Artist goes hungry? At least Joe has a new profile picture. It's not like Joe could have used any of the other free resources to make that picture of his OC (heroforge, picrew, etc). Alex shouldn't be angry that Joe actively contributes to the systems which steal her art. Why doesn't she just do it for free, and make breakfast with the gratitude and exposure that Joe provides (if he can stop generating another three prompts, that is).

If Average Joe wants to help, then they can stop using AI. If they continue to prop up the AI industry by using it, then they're part of the problem.

And now we are getting a wee bit too angry and passive-aggressive for my taste, and I'm an ork! Hensforth, I'm no longer participating in this conversation, as I wish to be a kind orc and not one like my name suggests. gooday.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I just want to come back to that argument, “What if a person can’t sing or play an instrument but can write lyrics? Shouldn’t it be okay to use AI?” No. Work with others who can sing and play. Do you think every artist writes their own songs? Do you think every songwriter is a performer? Stop inventing BS to justify your sociopathic selfishness.

I don't think this argument is very fair. We've had tools to make creative processes easier, which puts the creative ability in more people's hands for years.

Digital cameras put photography into everyone's hands to the point that everyone has a high quality camera in their pocket. Is it unethical to put the photo-developers out of their jobs?

Semantics maybe, but AI doesn't make it easier to create, it makes it easier to steal bits of existing creations. Nothing it creates is strictly new but an amalgamation of everything it's been trained on, it's just a really elaborate regurgitation/guessing machine.
Digital cameras lowered the bar to creation in terms of turnaround time, review and cost, but no-one else was ripped off in the process.

Art has a soul and should be left to humans, and we need to keep humans engaged in creating stuff or we're just going to get stuck in an infinite loop of AI slop.
Not that it doesn't have it's uses, but those are largely left to parody and whimsy.

Digital Cameras still require skill.

The ones on phones are getting there and do a lot of auto adjustment. But for professional quality? You still need a professional photographer. One who understands apertures and exposures and focus well enough to actively play with them and get different effects on the resulting photo, whether it’s on film or a digital file at the end of the day.

Sure, it did put development labs out of business. No more Snappysnaps on the high street. But? In terms of careers and general employment, those roles were supplanted by professional photo editors. People with the know how of computer wizardry to edit an image in pretty much any way you so wish.

AI? Uses other people’s work, by no means with their consent. And puts no money in anyone’s pocket. Could be any media, it’s inherently parasitic and unoriginal.

Worse, and skirting the rules here? Is open to abuse. Not just fake nudeyrudey either. Stuff that actively and deliberately damaged the fabric of our society by presenting whatever lie you want to present to a credulous audience.