Noticed some AI evangelists try with the same kind of fake centrism, that was pretty popular during the Gamergate era. In this case, they try to set up people spamming genAI slop against “fanatical anti-AI people”. But just as many loves to pretend moderates are “far-left”, as their past-Gamergate selves pretended Anita Sarkeesian demanded state censorship of sexist videogames, as they are now pretending Hasan Piker is the most radical leftist living today (there are much worse even within the content creator sphere, such as Badempanda) to illustrate the “horseshoe theory”, the table is tilted in favor of AI adoption.
Keep seeing “Local AI has zero of the ethical concerns of corporate AI” from self-described Leftists too
I never understood that. Are they suddenly not using stolen works? I grant them that it has fewer of the ecological concerns, but it still has all of the ethical concerns (potentially more, considering deepfakes aren’t being restricted).
Anarchists dont recognize copyright as a moral or ethical framework.
I don’t see it as an issue of copyright but of consent and plagiarism.
No, but we do recognize scabbing, plus lets not forget the effects AI has had on people’s mental health. I would also argue there is a moral and ethical issue with taking other people’s work without crediting that goes beyond just copyright. Particularly so when trying to profit off of it.
Lastly, to build off of my scabbing point. If we look at prior historical cases that are comparable, like the automation that sparked the Luddite movement, I think that its easy to see how anti-AI is pro-worker. AI (like industrialization) costs workers jobs, and while we live in a society that requires you to work to live, that is bad. It is not to say industrialization (or AI in this case) is inherently bad. Just simply that until society no longer works this way, it is harmful to workers. And in case it needs clarification, artists are workers.
Also there’s the whole “people should have access to the essentials of life” ethical angle.
The societies we live with the rule systems we have will totally fuck anybody who loses their job to even otherwise ethically trained and operated Machine Learning systems.
There are far fewer fully ethical ML uses possible when in a social and legal system were losing a job to AI might mean ending up living under a bridge.
for me it’s the one-two punch - built off of theft, that then puts the people it stole from out of work. but a) it’s not accurate, and b) it’s costing trillions (and jacking up the price for components, WATER AND POWER. So why are we even going further down this silly broken road…
Which I would be up with if we lived in the theoretical left-wing anarchist utopia, otherwise big corpos will just sell independent artist’s works as their own.
Are you assuming that “AI” is always based on stolen works? Since “AI” doesn’t exist, there are many supposed “AI” applications that don’t use stolen work. Weather models for example…
https://github.com/ecmwf-lab/ai-models
Cool project, but you know as well as anyone else that weather models is what not what anyone is talking about here.
You know exactly what people mean when they say AI.
“Defining” terms for no reason is just onanism.
PewDiePie tried that, his PC dedicated for the AI learning almost burned his flat down.
He’s always rubbed me the wrong way, there’s a disengenuine vibe about him
It Pewdepie, he’s dominated the YouTube scene for most of a decade and is still posting. I highly doubt anything he’s published recently has any genuine content
Obviously he’s been bought out by Big Linux.
Jokes aside the whole Linux/FOSS arc he’s going through feels very genuine/stereotypical for someone who just recently “got” Linux.
So it was almost a happy story
Well, local AI trained only on data willingly provided for that purpose by its creators and in an environment where there is Universal Basic Income and good quality free Adult Education, has almost zero ethical concerns.
Of course this excludes most of the Machine Learning stuff, including all of the “AI” being pushed in this bubble (either not local or requires so much training data that it’s definitelly not the case that all data is “willingly provided for that purpose by its creators”) plus the broader societal environment we live in means that people who lose their livelihoods when replaced by even those limited purpose AIs are fucked.
Yeah, and living in a fantasy castle made of clouds in Imagination Land has no ethical concerns either, what’s your point?
People losing jobs to AI is also an ethical concern, not just the sourcing of the data for training AI or the dependency on 3rd parties (i.e. non-local).
One one side, that means that for some kinds of Machine Learning were the other ethical concerns do not apply, there are still ethical concerns against their use.
On the other side, if that one too was addressed, then the whole “artists are loosing their jobs” concern might become a non-issue (practicing Art as a job is generally a “have to” situation, not a “chose to”) at which point some further kinds of ML would be acceptable.
A blanket “X is bad, period!” rejection of all Machine Learning is simplistic and reductionist.
Since “AI” doesn’t exist, “local AI” could mean anything. People say that image filters are “AI”. I don’t see a problem with local image filters, etc.
A major problem with wholesale support or opposition to “AI” is that “AI” doesn’t actually exist.
Well, specifically LLM-based image generation AI, and LLMs.
And almost everyone knows that’s what’s actually meant by AI, nobody’s like “the CPU players in my fighting game have AI! Evil!” cause they know it’s the older definition of the term of just simple routine loops.