cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/uncommon/p/1236478/a-lot-of-anti-ai-people-seem-very-illogical-in-their-concerns-and-how-they-address-it-an
Before I lay my opinion here, let me say that I know that most closed-source AI companies have terrible business ethics and some of the AI companies seem to be corrupt. But that doesn't change my opinion about how people choose to deal with AI dangers that they have opinions about in illogical manner.
I understand that AI companies keep saying bullshit to bump their stocks price which feels dumb for the vast majority of tech power users.
I also understand that garbage journalism is increasingly trying to collect clicks from Anti-AI people even if they downright don't provide facts but rather keep pushing conspiracy theories and uniformed opinion pieces.
Yet, I find it weird how people deal with their perceived AI dangers and concerns.
IMO, AI is a technology and you can't ignore technologies like they were never invented. You deal with them and react to their developments accordingly.
You can basically just regulate it(by your country government) and adopt to it as a person.
For me a lot of Anti-AI people seem to act like conspiracy theorists in terms of how illogical they are.
I wish I could tell them that:
- Protesting in front of for profit AI companies is useless, pushing your government to regulate them is more productive;
- Not everything touched by AI is rotten and blessed by the devil. furthermore, not everyone should become Anti-AI as you are. If a open source project used AI it does not mean that it will collapse on itself and be full of bugs and security holes for example. Some open source projects use it and they seem to be doing great, other don't and it's ok. If a company decided that AI might fit a use case they need they won't necessarily go bankrupt and fail because of this;
- Thinking about the creation process of any media piece rather than the quality of it seems also stupid. To give an example about how this harms the artists, take a look at David Revoy comics. He get accused of being AI artist Every time one of his comics get posted on social media(Reddit and other social websites) or chat spaces(despite being one of the rare artists who create open-source comics);
- Creating AI free spaces without a need does not benefit anyone. A good example to show my point is the memes community on Lemmy. The community banning AI doesn't benefit anyone and doesn't really have any point than labelling it as "AI free" space without any need.
Overall, I think it would be more logical for Anti-AI people to be risk oriented rather than technology oriented in their concerns and to understand how to really address them strategically and practically rather than waste their time and energy in acting on a theatre for no one.
the way any piece of media is created is directly responsible for its quality, it's impossible to consider one without considering the other. people make things good by thinking about them, spending time on them, focusing on the details. ai cannot make art because the part where making art happens is exactly the part that ai eliminates
I am confused.
Your comment seems to be againest my opinion, yet your logic seems to support me.
If AI created a low quality art, then it's a low quality art. It's creation proccess didn't matter in your opinion about the art piece.
ai cannot create high-quality art, for the reason I explained above. therefore if art is made with ai, it will be low-quality. if it is low-quality, I will have a bad opinion of it. therefore the way it's made will have affected my opinion.
if you can't follow that type of simple syllogism, I can understand how outsourcing your thinking would be appealing
AI art had won awards.
In theory, nothing is preventing AI art from being high or low quality.
Which simply voids the comment/Opinion I am replying to.
Which means both AI and human artists can create high quality or bad quality art.
So the question now, if you saw high quality piece of art that you suspect it's created by AI, will you focus on the quality or the creation process?
Imagine actually thinking that technical competence is the only component of how people evaluate art
Both obviously. Like the scribblings of an average preschooler are more artistically relevant than any A"I" generated image for the simple fact that the preschooler is a sentient being with thoughts, feelings, some intentionality, trying to achieve some goal or do something in this actual physical world.
And it is an indictment of Western culture IMO that people are so fucking uneducated and uncurious that they don't even have enough critical ability to develop a theory of art beyond technical competence.
It depends on what criteria you use for high quality. In the case of art, I would consider that creativity and novelty are important factors for high quality, and GenAI, by its nature, can't be novel or creative. The fact that it has won awards tells more about the contests than about the art itself.
GenAI computationally generates stuff based on its training data and it cannot go beyond that training data in significant ways. For tasks that require this kind of "mediocrity" and predictability, like for example language translation, it's competent. For tasks that require creativity or intuition, it sucks.
The sad thing is that is being pushed as a replacement for everything, which it's clearly not.