I’ve been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don’t really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I’m wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I’m soliciting feedback from y’all on this, please let me know what you prefer.
AI is just a tool. if some have a philosophical or moral problem with it then they can abstain.
AI not going away, and its use will only increase. so I’m the long term it will either have to be allowed, or this sub will fade into obsolescence.
I see no value in banning it.
“AI is just a tool” is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don’t say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist.
“AI is not going away” is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future.
I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.
‘People say it’s a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!’ … what?
How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?
Most things that could be commissioned - aren’t. The money is never spent. The money isn’t real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it’s instead of, is the thing not happening.
You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’
Any visions of this blowing over should’ve vanished when it became a porn faucet.
The kinds of people who find replacing artists a “desirable purpose” do not belong in a creative community.
Having art is desirable. Only self-professed haters think it’s replacing much of anything, versus what I just fucking explained - it makes things that otherwise would not get made. No money is lost if there is no money.
Only self-professed haters? Tell that to the corporations firing people to replace them with “AI” that can’t actually do their jobs correctly.
How is that confusing to you? A hammer is a tool, and a hammer does not replace a carpenter. Tools do not replace creatives. Logically following, since AI is used to replace creatives, AI is not used like a tool.
You seem to think this is a point in gen AI’s favour.
You’re right. Which is why I didn’t say forever. People are using it to replace artists, and it’s going to die off soon. Those are not contradictory.
False. Making art is desirable. Having art is only desirable if you like the art, and AI images make me nauseous (not hyperbole). Nausea is not desirable. If you think having is better than making, you aren’t a creative.
People did doubt the internet. We have articles. But people also massively over-hyped the internet, leading to the dot com bubble. I think comparing a tech bubble to a tech bubble is a fair comparison, especially since it’s the same people peddling a new brand of snake oil.
Even if we ignore the ethics and quality of it, which many people are understandably unwilling to do, part of the problem with it is that it can crowd out everything else. It takes so little effort that where it is allowed, there is always a real chance of it becoming virtually the only thing posted
Another way that allowing it could lead to it being the only thing posted is that its presence could easily scare off genuine, non-scam creators. “AI” overwhelming the open Web isn’t just a matter of the volume of generated content; it’s also that the presence of it has prompted people who actually make things to retreat into places that require logins or membership on the assumption that these are “safe” from scraping (which isn’t always true).
A general rule against spamming should suffice to deal with that.
Is it still spam if it’s posted by different people?
That would depend on the wording of the general rule, which would depend on what exactly it’s trying to accomplish.
Presumably ensuring that other types of content don’t get crowded out. I’m not sure how a general anti-spam rule would manage that. The solution I’ve seen elsewhere is to restrict certain types of content (like meme posts) to specific days of the week
if it drowns out everything else, it means that it’s being upvoted. if it’s being upvoted, then it means the community likes it. I see no issue with a preponderance of content coming from a single tool when the community is ultimately capable of moderating it just like any other content. why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it? I respect their right to object, but I don’t think they should be able to force those values onto me. if that is their goal, then they need to articulate an issue and be persuasive, not make rules in communities in which I’m a participant.
That philosophy never, ever works for communities about specific topics, though. Too many people see it in their all or subbed feeds without looking at where it was posted
It’s also entirely possible for any individual kind of post, regardless of it being AI or not, to be legitimately decent content for a community but still crowd out other kinds of content that the community wants to promote. That’s why many places have specific days for specific kinds of content, like allowing meme posts on Mondays but not other days so that discussions still get to the top
This principle basically doesn’t allow any restrictions on any kind of content anywhere unless it’s explicitly harmful enough to raise that as a separate objection. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to upvote hardcore pornography on the news community? It’s not a practical way to actually run a community
> if it’s being uploaded, then it means the community likes it
That really isn’t how the Internet works at all. Someone uploading something just means that that person likes it. It’s not like they’re uploading based on the collective psychic demands of the rest of the community.
thanks; that was a typo. I have edited it to upvoted, which is what I intended.
‘Upvotes mean it’s fine’ is how you get /r/Funny with different CSS.