|
I expect very little good from AI because of what it is being purpose-built towards. it's not going to be here to make our lives easier, it will be here to better extract profit for the benefit of a specific class of investor or owner-of-many-things. One thing I expect it will be really good at in the meantime is further destroying "community," since so much of community is online and it will be even more numbingly difficult to navigate seas of inauthentic communication and signal-to-noise ratios blown into bits even more efficiently than it was in an age of mere botting
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2023 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
The Artificial Kid posted:Not really, I'm arguing that human beings also have things that could be called "prediction anomolies". That's almost exactly what's meant in a bayesian approach to perception and hallucination https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/142/8/2178/5538604. Purely for the sake of my own curiosity, were you at one point a reader or contributor to the LessWrong community
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2023 06:09
|
|
|
In the battle between AI and the creative arts, i expect the worlds of business, law, and politics to join forces and do what they've done since before i was born: marginalize and disappoint the actual creators
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 02:04
|
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:It's been wild watching staunch leftists do a complete 180 and suddenly take up arms to protect capitalism. Wild. This point completely captured my attention, because it is an opposite conclusion to what's actually occurring. Leftists and anyone else vaguely class conscious or tech skeptical are coming to the same conclusions against these art "generation" AI systems because they are a corporate tech projects that steal work from artists with the ultimate impact of further financial marginalization of art and artistic talent being a way to sustain yourself. It's not taking up arms to 'protect capitalism,' it's taking up arms to keep capitalism from becoming an even more stagnant and repressive environment where the range of tasks you need to be able to do to survive continue to constrict and exclude different forms of human talent. In this case, unsurprisingly, the means by which creative works (and the livelihood of the creators, ultimately) are supposed to be protected is copyright, which we all think needs to be applied even if you've created a fancy algorithmic paint mixer that steals millions of art pieces at once instead of one by one. Your conclusion is like watching leftists be generally in favor of reversing the destitution trend of american schoolteachers and demanding pay minimums for degree holders and deciding that the driving impetus is that they must just really love capitalism so much if they're trying to increase people's payday. Kavros fucked around with this message at 21:48 on Jan 5, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2024 21:44
|
|
|
KwegiboHB posted:I keep hearing this and yet it looks like the total number of artists jobs are going up instead? I want to know what the basis of this claim is or a reason why the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics is wrong please. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/arts-and-design/home.htm Ok. Look carefully at the tense I'm using in my post. We're telling you we're worried about what is likely going to happen, and you respond with "well I'm not seeing an effect NOW? so what could the problem really be?" This is a novel disruption still ultimately in its earlier forms. While there's really dark indicators flickering up here and there, most of us are responding in concern to the logical conclusion of what will happen to artists if we just normalize stealing from all artists now as long as you do it with a generative AI project. Which is bad. . Small breather here, before we move on to the bullet points about "bad for artists? but, i am looking at line, and line going up??" . ok, here goes: 1. I would be entirely unsurprised that any broad category of jobs is increasing in the US in the immediate present, because most of them are, even accounting for various periods of churn in separate industries. 2. This doesn't even touch on what substantive elements within that category are potentially expressing negative change, i.e.: general wage reductions, stability of work concerns, work variety constriction. 2a. See, if someone tells me "sales jobs are going up!" but the overall trend is that salaried sales positions are being decimated and people in sales are grim about their employment prospects, you can't counterargue with total job statistics 2b. For instance, a situation in which the total number of job losses are covered or surpassed by increased staffing in lower to minimum wage telemarketing sales departments is not one where you can throw the total job numbers at me and say "well it sure looks like it's going just fine to me?" 3. The value of what a person can create as a visual artist or as a writer needs to be preserved by valid ownership of that artistic expression, full stop. Kind of a distinct point, but one that bears repeating.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2024 04:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 06:23
|
|
|
Finally, I've run across one of the first political trailblazers with the courage and foresight to use AI art to advance their campaign message! And it's everything I could have expected! https://www.voteliccione.org/post/for-every-child-a-shield-to-every-school-a-dog
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2024 10:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 19:42 |
|
|
Serotoning posted:This is why education needs to be privatized ASAP. There's not enough incentive for education to change, or at least to change fast enough, to meet the demands of the modern world. A profit incentive applied to teaching would cause a rapid revolution in how we teach kids and prepare them for the world. We're decades into charter experimentation with no discoveries that suggest privatization will improve anything.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 05:35
|
|