No Stupid Questions

In the US? Soylent green all the way. If we had any ability to constrain capitalism from destroying art for profit, AI wouldn't essentially be a legal IP theft machine.

We thought it was bad when iheart took over all of the radio stations and the record labels started making bands to sell derivative music to the masses. AI is going to destroy any remaining ability for small artists to make profit off their work. It already has in quite a few spaces.

I still think it's problematic to be making money off of AI music due to the nature of how the systems are trained. I do think it's significantly better when people are upfront about it in the way you describe. I have a huge problem with Spotify boosting it on their platform with no mention of the artist being AI anywhere, though.

All very good points. Now the brakes are off and the corps can just churn out generic crap at an even more aggressive rate. Who knows, maybe the onslaught will end up pushing more people away from corporate content in the end. Or it'll kill small art creators more than companies already have. I'm choosing to have hope that enough people will make a conscious effort. Time will tell. Thanks for your thoughts!

Yeah man, were rapidly approaching a point where society is "post-evidence". Seeing isn't believing anymore and a very large chunk of our society is built on the idea of proving things with audio/photo/video based evidence. I fear that our systems aren't protected against the volume and physical accuracy of what's becoming increasingly arbitrary to generate at home and at scale.

The legal system has some standards for evidence, but public discourse certainly doesn't.

Does an AI exist that uses no copyrighted products for its training?

i agree with your statement and because of this trap i chose not to really answer op's question

there is nothing more or nothing magical in carbon atoms that makes them superior when it comes to relaying/processing/genarating signals.

I think it’s highly contextual.

• Like, let’s take Lemmy posts. LLMs are useless because the whole point is to affect the people you chat with, right? LLMs have no memory. So there is a philosophical difference even if comments/posts are identical.

• …Now let’s take game dev. I think if a system generates the creator's intent… does it matter what the system is. Isn’t it better if the system is more frugal, so they can use precious resources for other components and not go in debt?

• TV? Could inevitably lead to horrendous corporate slop, a “race to the bottom.” OR it could be a killer production tool for indie makers to break the shackles of their corporate master. Realistically, the former is more likely at the moment.

• News? I mean… Accurate journalism needs a lot of human connection/trust, and LLM news is just asking to be abused. I think it’s academically interesting, but utterly catastrophic in the real world we live in, kinda like cryptocurrency.

One can wobble about all sorts of content. Novels, fan fiction, help videos, school material, counseling, information reference, research, and advertising, the big one.

…But I think it’s really hard to generalize.

‘AI’ has to be looked at a la carte, and engineered for very specific applications. Sometimes it is indistinguishable, or mind as well be. But trying to generalize it as a “magic lamp” like tech bros, or the bane of existence like their polar opposites, is what’s making it so gross and toxic now.

And I am drawing a hard distinction with actual artificial intelligence. As a tinkerer who has done some work in the space too… Franky, current AI architectures have precisely nothing to do with AGI. Training transformers models with glorified linear regression is just not the path; Sam Altman is full of shit, and the whole research space knows it.