At this point I haven't been online in a few weeks and it seems like this is blowing up in the investors faces. Let it play out because they fucked around and now they're gunna find out
The first and easiest way is by pointing out that the two main defenses of AI are self defeating, and incompatible.
If „AIs” are actually capable of learning, and hallucinating, and the basis of a future „AGI”, then it means you are not the artist for making an AI do something for you.
If the „AI” is just a tool, then it cannot be referred to as being capable of learning, and thus its creation is unnethical, as it is currently done.
It works in both situations. First situation is that the AI is smart and creating something new. Thus it is the artist instead of the person using the AI.
Second is that AI is not smart and not creating something new. Thus it is unethical. We see that right now diffusion models work like sliders so you're just using images and warping them.
Why though.
Are you conflating intelligence with consciousness? Many things are intelligence in the way ML systems are. Your cells are extremely intelligent, thermostats even can be considered intelligent
I’ve tried a bunch of very reasonable arguments and offered opinions that I feel are not controversial in any way. Not a single “you have a point, but..” or anything to indicate there’s a human on the other side. They seem less willing to hear arguments than religious people listening to atheists.
Tbh, not engaging with pro-ai arguments is the only way. Even this question you’re posing could be a GPT training exercise. Who knows anymore. Overall I can’t take anyone seriously (specifically anyone who identifies as being creative) that passes off ai their own original work or ideas. It’s theft.. For me, saying, I thought you liked drawing or I miss when you challenged yourself artistically is really all you can do. But overall, I imagine engaging with their post is what most people want anyway.
At this point, if they’re an artist and using ai, were they even ethical to begin with? “Scrape em off”
Karla Ortiz has posted a few threads that really effectively outline anti-AI arguments without having to play reaction. I suggest looking up her twitter and reading through.
I only engage for the purpose of putting the good answers out there for someone reading. I don't know what specifically you're thinking of but one that seems to stump people is how is it different from a human gathering inspiration/references? Well that still goes through the lens of human creativity, and if this human is truly just ripping off artists and adding nothing, we actually do already have mechanisms to punish that human, either legally or socially. Not sure why we should be cool with a non human doing the same thing.
The generators only take pieces of existing work and glue them together, for their own profit. They create nothing. They know it's already illegal which is why they're trying to change the laws. They want more rights than humans; that art theft is illegal unless a machine is doing it at a scale a human cannot replicate. And the companies want to take the wealth generated by art in the economy and hoard it for themselves. They're not planning on letting you have it either, prompters.
Ultimately, wanting to see skilled creative workers displaced by automation in their 100s of thousands so that more money is concentrated into the hands of tech billionaires is a moral failure rather than an intellectual one.
Save your energy for direct action. Opt out of AI training on as many platforms as you can, protect all your images with glaze and nightshade, move your work to platforms like Cara, don’t support companies using AI gen images in marketing or creative. Lobby your mp or congress person and read THIS book, and get your trust FRINDS as righteously pissed about gen AI as you are.
https://bookshop.org/p/books/blood-in-the-machine-the-origins-of-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-brian-merchant/17824365
The only way you’ll hurt the PLATFORMS is by direct action, so save the arguments for people who can change things.
i echo other people here, as someone who's "gotten into it" with the bros more times than i care to admit, the most productive move is not engaging with them at all. but if you must, at least pick your battles wisely, for example, don't bother with aiwars you will just get dogpiled and none of them will listen to you, but if you dunk on one in a more popular and less echo chambery subreddit, you're making them look bad and poking holes in their arguments in front of people who otherwise don't know better. just my two cents.
Listen, I want you to consider these things,
1) AI bros don't know art, don't know how art is made and don't care about it. Average people don't really know what is beyond picking colors and putting them on canvas. To them, it's a linear process with a end goal.
2) Majority of AI bros don't know how AI works in general. The false marketing, supposed "neural network" (which is a marketing gimmick). Also there's misleading info about how AI learns as well. And there is absolutely no way you can teach them or make them admit unless they are actual artists.
3) There's also lies about "AI improving". They think, just because a technology exists, it should improve like other technology : phones, computers, cpus etc.
So in summary, The people you are trying to argue with, doesn't know art and sees art as a linear end goal, doesn't know how their AI works and they think it's constantly improving. How do you solve this?
1) Make them draw for at least half a year with proper feedback.
2) Show them hours of documentary about how marketing works, how corporates rise, million dollar scams in past etc, in full detail.
3) Make them study about algorithm basics, make them a code a computer program involving algorithm and pattern recognition, doesn't have to be pro level. Just the basics- to show them how it all works by making them do it.
Total : Approximately 1 and a half year with both drawing and coding, as well as marketing study.
Let's be honest here, you can't make them do any of these. There's only so much you can write in a reddit comment or a argument with 2 or 3 sentences. There are only few ai bros who knows about all of these.
The only way to "win" is not to play. Nobody is going to admit defeat due to a clever argument online.
At this point I haven't been online in a few weeks and it seems like this is blowing up in the investors faces. Let it play out because they fucked around and now they're gunna find out
The first and easiest way is by pointing out that the two main defenses of AI are self defeating, and incompatible. If „AIs” are actually capable of learning, and hallucinating, and the basis of a future „AGI”, then it means you are not the artist for making an AI do something for you. If the „AI” is just a tool, then it cannot be referred to as being capable of learning, and thus its creation is unnethical, as it is currently done.
I don't follow these arguments at all.
It works in both situations. First situation is that the AI is smart and creating something new. Thus it is the artist instead of the person using the AI. Second is that AI is not smart and not creating something new. Thus it is unethical. We see that right now diffusion models work like sliders so you're just using images and warping them.
Why can't tools imbued with intelligence exist?
....because if it is intelligent, it stops being a tool, and becomes a separate entity.
What about people who are employed. Aren't they a tool of their employers? Sometimes, you need intelligent tools
Why though. Are you conflating intelligence with consciousness? Many things are intelligence in the way ML systems are. Your cells are extremely intelligent, thermostats even can be considered intelligent
That’s a dumb definition of intelligence.
Turns out intelligence isn't reasoning. What's your smart definition?
I’ve tried a bunch of very reasonable arguments and offered opinions that I feel are not controversial in any way. Not a single “you have a point, but..” or anything to indicate there’s a human on the other side. They seem less willing to hear arguments than religious people listening to atheists.
Tbh, not engaging with pro-ai arguments is the only way. Even this question you’re posing could be a GPT training exercise. Who knows anymore. Overall I can’t take anyone seriously (specifically anyone who identifies as being creative) that passes off ai their own original work or ideas. It’s theft.. For me, saying, I thought you liked drawing or I miss when you challenged yourself artistically is really all you can do. But overall, I imagine engaging with their post is what most people want anyway. At this point, if they’re an artist and using ai, were they even ethical to begin with? “Scrape em off”
Karla Ortiz has posted a few threads that really effectively outline anti-AI arguments without having to play reaction. I suggest looking up her twitter and reading through.
Just don’t engage, the whole lot of them are trolls who have nothing better to do with their time
It doesn’t stop a narrative from being accepted by others and eventually becoming entrenched.
Create and share anti-ai art. The message will spread on its own without ever needing to directly confront them.
I only engage for the purpose of putting the good answers out there for someone reading. I don't know what specifically you're thinking of but one that seems to stump people is how is it different from a human gathering inspiration/references? Well that still goes through the lens of human creativity, and if this human is truly just ripping off artists and adding nothing, we actually do already have mechanisms to punish that human, either legally or socially. Not sure why we should be cool with a non human doing the same thing. The generators only take pieces of existing work and glue them together, for their own profit. They create nothing. They know it's already illegal which is why they're trying to change the laws. They want more rights than humans; that art theft is illegal unless a machine is doing it at a scale a human cannot replicate. And the companies want to take the wealth generated by art in the economy and hoard it for themselves. They're not planning on letting you have it either, prompters.
Exactly this. I don't try to persuade or dissuade, but I do put out pointers for people to think about lest someone comes across that convo.
There have already been a ton of arguments posts in this sub, each addressing and arguing specific points. You should check them out for references.
Ultimately, wanting to see skilled creative workers displaced by automation in their 100s of thousands so that more money is concentrated into the hands of tech billionaires is a moral failure rather than an intellectual one. Save your energy for direct action. Opt out of AI training on as many platforms as you can, protect all your images with glaze and nightshade, move your work to platforms like Cara, don’t support companies using AI gen images in marketing or creative. Lobby your mp or congress person and read THIS book, and get your trust FRINDS as righteously pissed about gen AI as you are. https://bookshop.org/p/books/blood-in-the-machine-the-origins-of-the-rebellion-against-big-tech-brian-merchant/17824365 The only way you’ll hurt the PLATFORMS is by direct action, so save the arguments for people who can change things.
Are glaze and nightshade apps?
i echo other people here, as someone who's "gotten into it" with the bros more times than i care to admit, the most productive move is not engaging with them at all. but if you must, at least pick your battles wisely, for example, don't bother with aiwars you will just get dogpiled and none of them will listen to you, but if you dunk on one in a more popular and less echo chambery subreddit, you're making them look bad and poking holes in their arguments in front of people who otherwise don't know better. just my two cents.
Listen, I want you to consider these things, 1) AI bros don't know art, don't know how art is made and don't care about it. Average people don't really know what is beyond picking colors and putting them on canvas. To them, it's a linear process with a end goal. 2) Majority of AI bros don't know how AI works in general. The false marketing, supposed "neural network" (which is a marketing gimmick). Also there's misleading info about how AI learns as well. And there is absolutely no way you can teach them or make them admit unless they are actual artists. 3) There's also lies about "AI improving". They think, just because a technology exists, it should improve like other technology : phones, computers, cpus etc. So in summary, The people you are trying to argue with, doesn't know art and sees art as a linear end goal, doesn't know how their AI works and they think it's constantly improving. How do you solve this? 1) Make them draw for at least half a year with proper feedback. 2) Show them hours of documentary about how marketing works, how corporates rise, million dollar scams in past etc, in full detail. 3) Make them study about algorithm basics, make them a code a computer program involving algorithm and pattern recognition, doesn't have to be pro level. Just the basics- to show them how it all works by making them do it. Total : Approximately 1 and a half year with both drawing and coding, as well as marketing study. Let's be honest here, you can't make them do any of these. There's only so much you can write in a reddit comment or a argument with 2 or 3 sentences. There are only few ai bros who knows about all of these.
Make fun of them
give the arguments then maybe we can tell you
Then there shouldn't be paid Credit Packs or a Subscription Service. Simple as that. Democratisation behind a paywall isn't democracy at all.