Artificial Intelligence (AI)

So much this.

Regulate to make sure that there are significant barriers to entry to the market.

I'm not naive enough to believe pr Amazon, Google and co put on their websites.

Let's start with the massive copyright infringement that has been used to train models. The mindset is 'whats mine is mine, and whats yours is mine as well'.

Copyright is a pile of bollocks though.

I'm not naive enough to believe the PR either, but I do see very intelligent people working on this on a daily basis. A lot of thought is going in to how AI will be trained and deployed and what safeguards need to be in place, and most of that work is collaborative and done in conjunction with government.

Human progress has always come at a cost, but usually it's a short term cost than benefits more people in the long term. I think AI has a huge amount of positive potential, but it needs to be harnessed properly.

Copyright is a pile of bollocks though.

I really can't help you if you think this, other than to say you have worked in tech for too long.

The only moral principles tech bros have are the ones that coincide with making them richer and more powerful.

I think AI has a huge amount of positive potential, but it needs to be harnessed properly.

Is that before or after it pushes Carbon emission reduction efforts back 20 years (which, in case you hadn't noticed, were already going far too slowly)

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/09/openai-asked-us-to-approve-energy-guzzling-5gw-data-centers-report-says/

The only moral principles anyone in tech has are the ones that coincide with making them richer and more powerful.

I'm not going to waste any time discussing this with you if you're going to make blanket bullshit statements like this.

Copyright is a pile of bollocks though.

Fair, that's why Google, Amazon, etc open source everything they do.

Damn you with your positive outlook. This place has changed 😉

Let's be honest, the two major uses of AI are going to be funneling people ever more efficiently towards buying stuff they don't need, and subverting democracy to ensure that elites have an ever greater share of wealth and power.

Surely a price worth paying for accelerated environmental destruction.

That is fine. You are mostly wrong on every moral, political, and social issue, so I am happy to be in disagreement with you. The amusing thing is your pompousness in the process.

Copyright is a pile of bollocks though.

...

I'm not going to waste any time discussing this with you if you're going to make blanket bullshit statements like this.

Last year the UK's carbon omissions were the lowest since 1879.

There's clearly more to be done, especially in relation to data centres, but that work is ongoing. As an example, AWS' Graviton servers are up to 40% more energy efficient than their predecessors. We can argue all day long about how we should be using precious resources, but like it or not, the modern world is heavily reliant on data centres and will continue to be so.

Training is not (necessarily) copyright infringement. In the same way that if I watch Shrek and then memorise information about Shrek and talk about it with my friends, I haven't infringed any copyright.

See what @frankenbike posted after me, just because I've read something and used it in conversation does not mean I've infringed anyone's copyright.

lol

If you think that is analogous you really don't understand AI.

I was just about to make the same selective quotation 🤣

My mistake for taking him off ignore.

The analogy here falls down because you have (presumably) bought a copy of Shrek or paid to see it in the cinema. If you are watching an illegally pirated copy then, yes, you have infringed copyright.

Copyright is a pile of bollocks though.

Sometimes, but it’s still very relevant to content creators and it’s also important to clients, you can now embed your images with anti scraping watermarks and there is a lot of legal work going on behind the scenes and several instances where big corps have had to backtrack on saying your content is ours to train datasets (Adobe, Meta) as people are getting very aware of their content being used for free.
I get a DACS (Design and artists copyright service)payment every year for magazine work that may appear on TV or elsewhere, it’s not much but it only takes one country or legal challenge to say that fees will have to be paid for illegal image use and ai co’s will have to pay royalties, this is already the case with ‘real’ images and written into copyright law so ai isn’t exempt. There was a list of photographers names leaked whose work had been scraped “make me an image in the style of famous photographer xxxxx” that is still going through the courts.
Would love to see a freedom of information request available where you simply ask them to ‘show me what you stole from me’!
Same with a voiceover for gaming, a famous actress who’s name escapes me got that pulled at great cost to the game company.
Big brand clients are not going near it as it means the exact same imagery can be used by somebody else and they are aware of any future litigation. It is being used for backgrounds and sets in some instances.
It’s hitting the stock image industry but that’s been on its arse for a decade or more and when high quality imagery stoped being submitted the quality drops and that’s the issue with generative ai in that it’s a amalgamation of mediocrity and will end up sampling itself once ai imagery becomes the default and new high quality content is blocked from using it.
Its shitting out shit and then eating it hoping for something tastier.

Some advertising guy said that if you follow the data you end up with tomato soup, cos everyone sort of likes tomato soup.

There is also a bit of a backlash from the consumer where they simply don’t like it or don’t trust it. As well as brands being cheapened when customers feel they charge a premium for the product/service but use ai which devalues the brand.

People will lose their jobs/careers some tasks will be made easier.
Some people will lose an awful lot of money betting on a.i.

Look, I don't have a dog in this fight (or more accurately, I don't care to join any forum dick swinging as I'm happy to be the dumbest, smallest-dicked participant in any internet discussion whether that's here, Reddit or the comments section of nudeafrica.com).

But while I'm here, ok, seriously, you don't think your comment was a bit 'blanket'? Dismissing any sense that we might want to consider the protection of anthropogenic intellectual property with one edgy aside?

Btw, I genuinely couldn't tell if the comment was in support of your view or a sarcastic comment pointing up how shaky the implied line of reasoning is.

I went to an Income for Creatives panel at Labour Conferene. Paula Orrell, Director of the Contemporary Visual Arts Network, said they had surveyed photographers who had seen a 30% drop in the number of commissions due to AI. These are people who were already on modest incomes.

Do we want creative people?

Clearly the techbros and their lickspittles are indifferent.

The equivalent would be watching a pirated copy of Shrek though.

Rights holders would probably have a slightly different view of their stuff being used for training if they actually got paid for it.

Yep, sure. But copyright is somewhat limited in applicability and it's absolutely possible that all these AI models didn't infringe any copyright during training. We will have to see what happens in the court cases

Same with a voiceover for gaming, a famous actress who’s name escapes me got that pulled at great cost to the game company.

Scarlett Johansson is the famous one. There are probably others
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/scarlett-johansson-ai-legal-threat-1235905899/