|
Nuns with Guns posted:
neither of them are stealing art and neither are crummy, why argue yourself into this position where its now unethical (or less ethical) even to use images from the internet for tabletop use? if you must take this ethical stance, using AI art is only as bad as using art of unknown providence online unless youre profitting off it there isnt something tawdry about it from the creative side its imo obviously more creative to generate your own npc pics rather than just search for them online.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:No it's because they're being disingenious and grasping at straws, trying to paint their opponents as worker-hating luddites. Also lmao, "the skill using this technology." Remind me again what skills and talents are involved in typing a prompt into an AI art generator. I don't agree. Let's consider 3D/CGI art, my field. We use generative AI for generating UV maps, this was something that was absolutely more of an art than a science before, some people enjoy doing it, a lot of people don't. AI provided a tool some people use, as part of a broader workflow. This isn't straws, this is brick. Game engines have people experimenting with generative prompts to create prototype levels I. E placing assets not just code.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
Ibram Gaunt posted:gently caress you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:06
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Ignoring the stealing/stealing and going right to the topic of "containment" I agree low effort AI posting should be discouraged, but well used efforts not. Yeah this is about what I've been feeling is probably the line, personally. Like not a probe even but we have a "hey look I found a cool art" thread or two with sourcing already, and it's okay to have the AI thread as a complement to that. But posting some AI assets to help someone out with session prep or something in another thread where it's relevant to an ongoing conversation is fine. I guess like looking at the "post that escaped containment" it was objectionable since it was JUST a post of AI stuff that wasn't contributing anything to the thread. That's reasonably objectionable, same as if someone just posted some cool art they found outside of the threads for that. But I think a lot of people make a pretty alright case for AI helping them actually prep and play games, and if that's how they're doing it, fine, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:11
|
|
|
I'm temporarily halting the thread in order to catch up. There's reports, there's direct "gently caress you" attacks, the temperature is way too high. Should be re-opened within an hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
OK. Apologies for closing the thread, on review there wasn't anything so bad that it was necessary, but I was alarmed by the amount of reports filed and posts in the queue. Kyrosiris posted:I know I don't post in TG very often but this is the same read I've gotten. It feels like Leperflesh has a position and just wants takes that support that position. I do have a position, of course. How could I not? But my job as a moderator isn't to enforce my position. If I was going to do that, I'd just make a rule. I'm also part of a moderator team, and I'm not going to make a rule if Antivehicular disagrees with it. I want to reach a consensus, it's clear from this thread there isn't going to be a TG-wide happy consensus, and I hope that means reaching a compromise instead of having to enforce a blanket ban. But that compromise, again, doesn't have to resemble my own position, and I'll enforce a blanket ban if that's the only viable solution that serves the TG community. Nuns with Guns posted:I saw your earlier post, but I didn't think to +1 it. I did say earlier that if a thread is here for it, it needs a reboot with a better premise, and something like that seems reasonable. This seems like at least part of a compromise, if we can reach one - if we do have an AI art thread in TG, it needs a reboot with a much better OP and rules endorsed by the mod staff. Several posters have voted firmly against even this, but several have clearly voted for it. Fajita Queen posted:This is why calling all this poo poo AI is inherently bad and leads to breakdown of any kind of discussion about it, because many of these things are not at all the same or even related to each other. Let's constrain this discussion, as framed originally, to posting images or text generated by an "AI" program, as referred to colloquially, however inaccurate that label. There's a huge world of other applications for this family of technologies, but those aren't really relevant to the TG discussion. Magnetic North posted:The fact that this feedback thread is getting substantive talk about the topic of a given policy (talking about AI and local maxima and artists) instead of the policy itself (should this be quarantined, allowed, etc) seems subideal to me. It's just another place for the tiresome posts and just exacerbates the issue. I saw this in some of the SAD threads I bookmarked until they got suffocated in garbage posts and closed. I agree. I want to talk about the policy. But it seems it's impossible to discuss the merits of a policy without getting into the motivations for it. Grey Hunter posted:Here's a scenario, we have a great RPG stories thread. So, this would be a different compromise position - an AI thread exists, but posting some level of AI-generated "stuff" would be OK if there was effort, e.g. not spamming. Quite a few posters have indicated their intention to respond to posts like this with derision, though, and I'm not liking the idea of a bunch of derails every time someone does that. HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:In regard to consent, when a person posts a composition on the internet, they are consenting to their work serving as inspiration for others. If a neural network is included in those "others", I'm not terribly bothered. People are pretty mad at you, for good reason, because this is a pretty bad take. People posting their art online for the last 30 years had no intention of sharing it with software capable of reproducing their style. The question of whether AI training is a form of fair use will be tested in court, but irrespective of the legality, the ethics are absolutely not as pat as you claim. That there is an ethical debate is at the core of this controversy and simply denying the validity of that debate is never going to fly, in TG or probably anywhere on SA. Fivemarks posted:You moron. Ibram Gaunt posted:gently caress you. Stop that. This is the TG feedback thread. However much folks disagree here, reducing the whole discussion to swearing at each other is outside the bounds, and emptyquoting swears is simlarly unhelpful. This is a warning: engage helpfully or don't post, I'll issue probations for further posts like this. Ominous Jazz posted:Look at this loving post and tell me this is the kind of poo poo you want to encourage God. I'm... ambivalent. No, I guess I don't wnat to "encourage" that take, but I'm also pretty put off by the level of vitriol, and dismayed by the number of posters who are confidently asserting their anecdata constitutes proof of some side or another in the "do artists use AI" derail. I think you're maybe right that, even in a "containment thread", reasonable calm discussion is probably impossible. I'm not sure if TG rules should always force discussions to be reasonable and calm. Anger is a legitimate human emotion that deserves an outlet. But angry slapfights are generally prohibited becuase the anger crowds out any ability of other posters to participate. As is clearly happening here. Nuns with Guns posted:I do agree it's drifting, but I guess my wider point is just that I don't think anyone's going to protest a containment thread for AI tools and art used in TG places. Multiple posters in this thread have specifically protested that. From both directions: some people are sayign they want to be allowed to make effortful posts containing AI images anywhere in TG, and others are saying even a containment thread is too much tolerance. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
I think there should be a limit and a distinction Using AI to supplement an artist or to assist a GM? Sure that's fine. but when money and theft of intellectual property- Generating an AI image inherently fucks over artists, while using art from an artist and crediting them, y'know, doesn't, even if you didn't pay them, so long as you aren't using it to make money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
So did you come up with an opinion on anything or what
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:52
|
|
|
There was a point raised on both sides that I think also deserves some attention (and I was about to edit it into my post but the thread was closed): requiring sourcing for ALL images posted in trad games would be a good idea (in a reasonable/good faith standard, ie "i found this on a pinterest moodboard" is a reasonable note) so people can also go look up where shared traditional art from sourcebooks, inspirational media, etc comes from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:53
|
|
|
Arivia posted:That’s literally just Jarlaxle you can use D&D art for him. I thought all the anger about generative stuff was because people were stealing art, and now you're telling me to steal art?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:55
|
|
|
Roadie posted:I thought all the anger about generative stuff was because people were stealing art, and now you're telling me to steal art? Yes. Be gay dark elf, do crimes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Arivia posted:There was a point raised on both sides that I think also deserves some attention (and I was about to edit it into my post but the thread was closed): requiring sourcing for ALL images posted in trad games would be a good idea (in a reasonable/good faith standard, ie "i found this on a pinterest moodboard" is a reasonable note) so people can also go look up where shared traditional art from sourcebooks, inspirational media, etc comes from. Yeah that's under consideration too. Ominous Jazz posted:So did you come up with an opinion on anything or what I already had one, and it's shifted, but I want to discuss with Anti first.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 18:56
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I agree. I want to talk about the policy. But it seems it's impossible to discuss the merits of a policy without getting into the motivations for it. I think this is a huge mistake. "So long as the discussion never stops, no one gets to sit down" is not the correct answer here. It's already dragging down discussions in multiple places. This thread is an object lesson in that. If it's unquarentined, the derails and bad posts and complaints about the bad posting make other places bad. Unlike previous issues, this is a large enough issue that potentially no thread is safe. I cannot for the life of me understand your timidity here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:10
|
|
|
Communist Thoughts posted:neither of them are stealing art and neither are crummy, why argue yourself into this position where its now unethical (or less ethical) even to use images from the internet for tabletop use? I'm not sure how it's not stealing? It's taking someone else's thing without their consent? The cops aren't going to kick your door down and I'm not expecting royalties to be paid out for every cropped goblin token in the world, but it's still someone else's work being used without authorization. I'm not sure how to talk past a basic difference in feeling in ethics like that, but it's just kind of the default temp "I get the impulse and nobody's perfect" vibe I'm at. Leperflesh posted:Multiple posters in this thread have specifically protested that. From both directions: some people are sayign they want to be allowed to make effortful posts containing AI images anywhere in TG, and others are saying even a containment thread is too much tolerance. The thread existing isn't necessarily wrong. I think there's issues that would come up with it being a "containment zone" because I'm not sure those work very well, and individual posts are going to get challenged there in a way that might get heated though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:12
|
|
|
I feel like that because something is contencious leading to the thought "and this is why we're thinking of banning it" is a little unfair. I feel like the fair thing is as long as people are being civil and abiding by the exactations set out, then it should be fine. If in either situation someone is spamming or providing consistently only low effort ai crud, or if someone is being overly aggro in response to someone's good faith effort to put in effort to their use of AI output, then it should be fine to discourage both and let the acceptable continue unhindered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
did /pol/ work as a containment zone on 4chan?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:15
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:I think this is a huge mistake. "So long as the discussion never stops, no one gets to sit down" is not the correct answer here. It's already dragging down discussions in multiple places. This thread is an object lesson in that. If it's unquarentined, the derails and bad posts and complaints about the bad posting make other places bad. Unlike previous issues, this is a large enough issue that potentially no thread is safe. My timidity, at letting a discussion go for one day, before imposing blanket rules on the whole forum? I don't understand your objection. Or are you saying I should hand out probations to everyone in the thread who wanted to argue for or against policy by describing justifications? Those justifications hinge on what AI art is and what it's used for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:21
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:The thread existing isn't necessarily wrong. I think there's issues that would come up with it being a "containment zone" because I'm not sure those work very well, and individual posts are going to get challenged there in a way that might get heated though. The Industry Thread is a containment thread for industry chat, which is sometimes heated. We tell people not to e.g. poo poo on Games Workshop in the GW thread, at least not if it becomes an extended derail - same with dumping on Wizards in the D&D or Magic threads. It seems to work for that purpose. I don't think an AI art & generated text type thread should be a "safe zone" where no criticism is allowed, but it also shouldn't just be a barrel of fish for whoever wants to slide in and take shots, either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:23
|
|
|
Edit: it was a dumb easy dunk that I'll pass on
Ominous Jazz fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 9, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:24
|
|
|
Fivemarks posted:did /pol/ work as a containment zone on 4chan? IIRC every forum on SA is a containment forum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Fivemarks posted:did /pol/ work as a containment zone on 4chan? Come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The Industry Thread is a containment thread for industry chat, which is sometimes heated. We tell people not to e.g. poo poo on Games Workshop in the GW thread, at least not if it becomes an extended derail - same with dumping on Wizards in the D&D or Magic threads. It seems to work for that purpose. When the term "containment thread" gets tossed around, it usually means something that's very contentious and a lot of people don't like seeing discussion of. There was the "hell thread" containment thread that combined gamergate, fat people hate, and I think Doobie's Dog House discussion in GBS for a long time, for instance. The Industry, D&D, MtG, and Warhammer threads are all specific topic threads, but things do migrate between them all, as relevant. There's not some big push to isolate all "Industry" talk in the Industry thread. Honestly, I think a lot of the non-RPG stuff tends to stick to the MtG, Warhammer, board game, etc. threads as far as industry matters go unless it's something really big. I think you can still run an AI thread like those other threads though. There's a similarity there in that a lot of the worst features could be dialed back by telling people to chill out when things get too intense and out of the scope of what a thread can cover. Plus dialing down hostility just for voicing opinions that are counter to the thread's settled opinion. On small scale things at least, not someone paying a "just asking questions" game around bigotry or moon-logic stuff like that "if you posted your art online, that means you already consented to have an AI 'learn' from it" that is over a line.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:My timidity, at letting a discussion go for one day, before imposing blanket rules on the whole forum? I don't understand your objection. Or are you saying I should hand out probations to everyone in the thread who wanted to argue for or against policy by describing justifications? Those justifications hinge on what AI art is and what it's used for. Why is there a time-minimum before action instead of a sensibleness-minimum? You're allowed to make rules like that as far as I know, and it would immediately kill the bullshit. It's not especially different than the various "lighten up on the doomerism" policies you see proposed in some threads or subforums (don't know if any have been enacted, but I recall the chatter from somewhere).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
I'm baffled. Why there is all this urgency.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:Why is there a time-minimum before action instead of a sensibleness-minimum? You're allowed to make rules like that as far as I know, and it would immediately kill the bullshit. It's not especially different than the various "lighten up on the doomerism" policies you see proposed in some threads or subforums (don't know if any have been enacted, but I recall the chatter from somewhere). There's a time minimum because not everyone logs in and posts every four hours, and this is an international community. Everyone in TG deserves a chance to weigh in before we set a sweeping policy for the whole forum. Moreover, there is clearly not a plague of posting of AI images all over TG that would make this an emergency. Nuns with Guns posted:There's not some big push to isolate all "Industry" talk in the Industry thread. With respect: yes, there was. It began years ago and was well established before I became a mod. Confining extended conversations about the misdeeds of game companies to the industry thread has been an ongoing general success, even while yes, brief discussions in other threads are permitted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
Low effort white noise "look at this picture/backstory I generated with AI" posts are annoying and should be banned. But there's lots of other annoying non-AI low effort white noise posts that should also be banned. Effort posts that have AI aspects to them are fine and should be allowed anywhere on the forum. I also suggest making an anti-AI containment zone thread for people to talk about various issues they have with AI stuff in so they don't spam up the rest of the forum with it, because it's usually not going to be on topic for Trad Games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:03
|
|
|
Colonel Cool posted:Low effort white noise "look at this picture/backstory I generated with AI" posts are annoying and should be banned. But there's lots of other annoying non-AI low effort white noise posts that should also be banned. Effort posts that have AI aspects to them are fine and should be allowed anywhere on the forum. This does, in fact, seem like a more analogous to the industry thread solution than the proposed reverse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
I mean, I'd rather the moderation team take a bit longer to come to a decision rather than roll with a gut feeling, because sometimes gut feelings are wrong, and just because the correct solution feels obvious to some of us, it's not necessarily that obvious to everyone. In terms of actual policy I'd like to see... Just posting "AI"-generated content with no accompanying analysis or conversation about it: bad, not encouraged, not even in a "containment" thread. A general agreement that "AI"-generated "art" and "text" is yanking stuff from non-consenting creators without even crediting them: also bad, not encouraged. Using their actual art and just plain crediting them is better than that. That sharing the source as best as you're able to find it(i.e. "this seems relevant to the convo and I had it lying around in my Miscellaneous Images folder for a few years, I've since lost track of the source, though" or "it was in this social media post, I'm unsure of the original source" are acceptable) for art and writing: is good manners. And... people keep bringing up this theoretical situation where someone posts something "AI"-generated alongside an interesting analysis or statement, and I just can't imagine this scenario ever happening, unless it's about the technology that generated it. Actual "AI" output is void of meaning, intent or emotion, the things that make actual art more interesting than just dumping a bunch of random colours on a canvas. It can never say anything, you can never be impressed by anyone's skill and the only emotion it inspires is a mild "heh" when the "AI" has coughed up a combination that seems particularly nonsensical. But sure, if it should ever happen, in the extremely unlikely case that I'm wrong, then I guess that merits a policy of: fine, okay, but try harder next time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
I think you're asserting a lot of things as fact that a lot of people on the ai side vehemently disagree with and it would be better in service of an acceptable compromise to agree to disagree and respect people in having different opinions. It's not constructive to be absolutist on things that come down to subjective personal opinion in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:holy poo poo please gently caress off. Nowhere have I talked about profit because I don't want this stuff to make a profit. What I want from AI is to enrich human lives through free and open source software. I'm coming at this from a personal perspective in a non-profit, academic setting. Are you wanting to extract money from the researchers who create and train these algorithms? Or does it mainly matter when corporations are profiting from these algorithms? Maybe we're on a misunderstanding here. Leperflesh posted:People are pretty mad at you, for good reason, because this is a pretty bad take. People posting their art online for the last 30 years had no intention of sharing it with software capable of reproducing their style. The question of whether AI training is a form of fair use will be tested in court, but irrespective of the legality, the ethics are absolutely not as pat as you claim. That there is an ethical debate is at the core of this controversy and simply denying the validity of that debate is never going to fly, in TG or probably anywhere on SA. I don't disagree as to the existence of the ethical debate, and I agree with you that it is distinct from the legal debate. My big point in that take is that I find the harms discussed are so small (again, if they even exist) as to barely warrant discussion without actual evidence of said harms. Is this line of reasoning, to you, denying the validity of the debate? Or are you talking about the implicit consent through distribution on the internet line? Or something else? I don't know. I guess shouldn't be surprised, but it's bananas to me that my post received so much seething hatred. I really just want to leave this subforum now, or at least this thread, which I also guess is what those posters wanted. I wish there was a place to show off AI as I use it in my tabletop games without starting a posting war or being immediately told to "gently caress off". PurpleXVI posted:In terms of actual policy I'd like to see... I don't understand what you're saying the policy should be here. Are you saying that the moderators should put out an official position that "AI" generated "art" and "text is bad? With a corresponding and barely tolerated containment thread, of course. If that's what you're saying, I would personally not like that, especially the official position idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:33
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:I do agree it's drifting, but I guess my wider point is just that I don't think anyone's going to protest a containment thread for AI tools and art used in TG places. I like all of this. I think there are people who don’t even want a containment thread but I think it’s the best answer at this point. I also agree that it needs an IK and a reset. The exact kind of post I don’t want all over the place is “hey look at this cool thing I built with AI” and it’s just another dull rendition of a village with one mystery and a kindly bartender. I don’t think the mods should have to try and decide if a given post crosses that line; it’s easier and more practical to just contain all of it. Maybe there’s a nice thread in some other forum where people can argue about the ethics. It’s off topic for us. If you cannot cope with the idea that people disagree with you and that argument is purposeless, you may need to learn to cope. (I don’t care if you think it’s ethical or not, yelling is pointless either way.) I think it needs to be explicitly okay to say product X was produced with AI anywhere, because it’s important information. It would be nice if someone could say that without everyone feeling obligated to explain that it’s evil/inevitable/wonderful, but that may be a pipe dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think you're asserting a lot of things as fact that a lot of people on the ai side vehemently disagree with and it would be better in service of an acceptable compromise to agree to disagree and respect people in having different opinions. It's not constructive to be absolutist on things that come down to subjective personal opinion in my opinion. The problem is that the opinions are too heavily weighted. The opinion of the people working on the AIs are obviously different from those of the people terrified that their livelihoods are at risk. Heck, my opinion of AI changed rather a bit when it nearly completely trashed a semester’s worth of assessments and resulted in multiple students in tears and one in near collapse. Basically, if I think I should own my house and you think you should own my house, I don’t really have to respect your opinion equally, and if others do I’m going to be more scared.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
hyphz posted:The problem is that the opinions are too heavily weighted. The opinion of the people working on the AIs are obviously different from those of the people terrified that their livelihoods are at risk. Heck, my opinion of AI changed rather a bit when it nearly completely trashed a semester’s worth of assessments and resulted in multiple students in tears and one in near collapse. If it's something you can talk about, I'd be very curious about what happened here, how it went that off the rails. Thanlis posted:I think it needs to be explicitly okay to say product X was produced with AI anywhere, because it’s important information. It would be nice if someone could say that without everyone feeling obligated to explain that it’s evil/inevitable/wonderful, but that may be a pipe dream. I think it's important, at least, to make it clear when a product involved AI work(whether that's "untrimmed" AI or "we had an AI cough it up and then fiddled with it a bit"), because some of us just don't want to support that in any way. Also another point that's relevant to the ethics of AI is the revelation that at least some big AI engines use or used poorly paid developing country labour to do the final moderating pass before the person who entered the prompt got their result coughed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:46
|
|
|
PurpleXVI posted:I think it's important, at least, to make it clear when a product involved AI work(whether that's "untrimmed" AI or "we had an AI cough it up and then fiddled with it a bit"), because some of us just don't want to support that in any way. I agree strongly. Everyone should get the info they need to make decisions. Even from a textual perspective, I don’t see much of an ethical difference between raw AI output and AI output that’s been edited. quote:Also another point that's relevant to the ethics of AI is the revelation that at least some big AI engines use or used poorly paid developing country labour to do the final moderating pass before the person who entered the prompt got their result coughed up. Yes. This is a problem for all kinds of technology but raising awareness in the AI context helps a little bit elsewhere too. (Similar to the art credit discussion here, I think.) Man, it would be nice if all my software came with a little graph of the salaries of the people who produced it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:I don't disagree as to the existence of the ethical debate, and I agree with you that it is distinct from the legal debate. My big point in that take is that I find the harms discussed are so small (again, if they even exist) as to barely warrant discussion without actual evidence of said harms. Is this line of reasoning, to you, denying the validity of the debate? Or are you talking about the implicit consent through distribution on the internet line? Or something else? I don't know. I think your view of the harms is challengeable (for example what prompted Paizo to publicly disallow AI art in works they sell is that someone tried to put AI art into work they'd sell - directly replacing the income of the artists who would have made that artwork), but that was not my main point. One of the opinions you stated (I'm paraphrasing) is that people who put their art online had no reasonable expectation that it wouldn't be used to teach algorithms that could duplicate their style, produce unlimited quantities of art for a trivially low cost, and potentially put them out of work. I think that opinion in particular is especially inflammatory because it's facile on its face and appears to be self-serving. Nobody putting their work online ten years ago could have anticipated that in 2022 we'd suddenly have AIs that threaten to replace them. The hate you caught is also, in part, because you also admitted to being part of the efforts to create and promote these AIs - and specifically the ones trained on other's works without their permission - implying more culpability than someone who is simply using them, and this is what makes the prior facile justification self-serving. I've declared responding with zero-content attacks off limits, and perhaps you'll see that as sufficient protection to still post in TG, although I'm not inclined to protect you from reasoned criticism in general - I don't do that for anyone in TG, on any subject, and if you find the possibility that you'll be challenged on your stated opinions intolerable, I don't think I can help you there. PurpleXVI posted:Also another point that's relevant to the ethics of AI is the revelation that at least some big AI engines use or used poorly paid developing country labour to do the final moderating pass before the person who entered the prompt got their result coughed up. Maybe you'd be surprised to hear how much underpaid labor from poor and developing countries is used across the whole software industry. It's a lot.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 21:18
|
|
|
Thanlis posted:Yes. This is a problem for all kinds of technology but raising awareness in the AI context helps a little bit elsewhere too. (Similar to the art credit discussion here, I think.) Man, it would be nice if all my software came with a little graph of the salaries of the people who produced it. Leperflesh posted:Maybe you'd be surprised to hear how much underpaid labor from poor and developing countries is used across the whole software industry. It's a lot. Probably not all that surprised, but the whole "AI" field likes to pretend like there are no human hands or minds involved past the setup phase and the occasional adjustment, so it feels doubly bullshit to then have such a vital layer of human interaction in keeping the end result acceptable at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
Is there anyone potentially willing to create an OP for an AI discussion/share thread? I think one thing we can all agree on is that we need to get the Rutibex stink off the topic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 21:33
|
|
|
I would be fine doing it, if we decide it should be done. I could also ask for volunteers, but we'd want to dictate the rules for the OP to any volunteer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 21:36
|
|
|
tbh its a "contentious issue" in that one side wants to use and discuss these increasingly common and ubiquitous tools and the other wants all discussion banned and to bully those posters (not that im feeling put upon, but thats what theyv literally said in the feedback thread lol). there is no pro-AI side wanting to subject all posters to our garbage or make fun of their soulless derivative hand drawn elfs. its just posters going "uh no, this isnt inherently morally wrong" and this issue is gonna keep coming up as more and more normies and artists start using the tools and don't understand how immoral and unethical theyr being in the eyes of the diehard holdouts
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 19:34 |
|
|
HOMOEROTIC JESUS posted:My big point in that take is that I find the harms discussed are so small (again, if they even exist) as to barely warrant discussion without actual evidence of said harms. The harm is evident enough from this very thread. You've already had people nigh-onto-bragging that they'll use AI-generated dross for their needs instead of something a person made and thus can be sourced back to ("yeah, I made this from this picrew, here's a link", or "yeah, here's the artist I cropped this from", or the actual ideal of "yeah I commissioned a bunch of token art from this artist, here's their commission link"). If you don't find that to be a harm, then there is a fundamental impasse.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2023 22:06
|
|
