The Perfect Response

Yeah, except royalties in music are almost always a joke. Those artists are going to make much less off their AI voice than if they actually appeared in studio and the end product is going to be worse. If AI cost the same or more, there would be no market for it. Relevant story about Hollywood actors who sold AI likenesses.

Even if it was actually "ethically trained", the end result is still horrible.

Also, paying to have an AI Snoop Dogg in your song is the lamest shit I've ever heard.

That AI was trained on absolute mountains of data that wasn’t ethically gained, though.

Just because an emerald ring is assembled by a local jeweler doesn’t mean the diamond didn’t come from slave labor in South Africa.

AllenAi has datasets based on

GitHub, reddit, Wikipedia and "web pages".

I wouldn't call any of them ethically sourced.

"Webpages" as it is vague as fuck and makes me question if they requested consent of the creators.

"Gutenberg project" is the funniest tho.

Writing GitHub, reddit and Wikipedia, tells be very clearly that they didn't. They might asked the providers but that is not the creator. Whether or not the provider have a license for the data is irrelevant on a moral ground unless it was an opt-in for the creator. Also it has to be clearly communicated. Giving consent is not "not saying no", it is a yes. Uninformed consent is not consent.

When someone post on Reddit in 2005 and forgot their password, they can't delete their content from it. They didn't post it with the knowledge that it will be used for ai training. They didn't consent to it.

Gutenberg project... Dead author didn't consent to their work being used to destroy a profession that they clearly loved.

So I bothered to check out 1 dataset of the names that you dropped and it was unethical. I don't understand why people don't get it.

What is wrong? That you think that they are ethical when the first dataset that I look at, already isn't.

It's incredible seeing this shit over and over, specially in a place like Lemmy, where the people are supposed to be thinking outside the box, and being used to stuff which is less mainstream, like Linux, or, well, the fucking fediverse.

Lemmy is just an opensource reddit, with all the pros and cons

Thanks for making my point. People don't understand and therefore can't consent and therefore it isn't ethically sourced data.

Did you read the whole comment? You understand that I was sarcastic and I followed it by be hinting at the idea that "she didn't say no" is not considered consent in e.g. sexual encounters, raising the question why would it be here?

So we agree. You just misunderstood my comment.

What's an "untrained bot"? Did they code it from scratch themselves? I find it almost impossible to believe it wasn't just a fork of an existing, unethical project but I'd love more detail

& they'll get that data one way or the other

You might be replying to an idiot, but did you really need to report him?

Everything is accelerating climate change. I don't see how your wish to hurt people you don't know (kinda weird btw?) has anything to do with it.

Easy. Don't work a job or pay rent. Anarchism already exists. It just exists in the crannies (like right in front of you) where other domineering primates don't beat you with sticks or boss you around. You don't fix the system. You ignore it.

think more. if i draw something that looks nice on paper, and at the same time am fine with asking chatgpt to solve a math problem, why would my views on ai affect me being an artist or not?

You have no comprehension of relevance.

Ideas are not art.

no one has had an original idea since the early 20th century.

PROJECTING

The early 20th century? I'd say physical philosophy would beg to differ, and do you see how you just killed your own argument by citing a time period? I think ideas don't have value and that intellectual property stifles innovation. You had me in the first half, where I assumed you meant that people don't just intuit new ideas from nowhere, then you cited a date and lost me.

GREAT article on copyrights and sampling. I learned a LOT, mostly that people are making all sorts of dumb rationalizations as to why their version of sampling is perfectly fine, when it's not.

Hitler

Oh, you had to deliberately Godwin a perfectly good point. Take my upvote nevertheless 😂

"Disinformation spreading" is irrelevant in this discussion. LLM's are a whole separate conversation. This is about image generators. And on that topic, you position the tech as "energy guzzling" when that's not necessarily always the case, as people often show; and profit-driven, except what about the cases where it's being used to contribute to the free information commons?

And lastly you're leaving out the ableism in being blindly anti-AI. People with artistic skills are still at an advantage over people who either lack them, are too poor to hire skilled artists, and/or are literally disabled whether physically or cognitively. The fact is AI is allowing more people than ever to bring their ideas into reality, where otherwise they would have never been able to.

Wow, using a marginalized group who are actively being persecuted as your mouthpiece, in a way that doesn't make sense as an analogy. Attacking LGBTQI+ rights is unethical, period. Where your analogy falls apart is in categorically rejecting a broad suite of technologies as "unethical" even as plenty of people show plenty of examples of when that's not the case. It's like when people point to studies showing that sugar can sometimes be harmful and then saying, "See! Carbs are all bad!"

So thank you for exemplifying exactly the kind of dishonesty I'm talking about.

I'm certainly creative enough not to resort to childish ad hominems immediately.

Astroturfing? That implies I'm getting paid or compensated in any way, which I'm not. Does your commenting have anything to do with anything?

Corporate models, yes

Yeah the corporations didn't, that doesn't mean you can't and that people aren't doing that.

I think his argument is that the models initially needed lots of data to verify and validate their current operation. Subsequent advances may have allowed those models to be created cleanly, but those advances relied on tainted data, thus making the advances themselves tainted.

It's not true; you can just train a model from the ground up on properly licensed or open data, you don't have to inherit anything. What you're talking about is called finetuning which is where you "re-train" a model to do something specific because it's much cheaper than training from the ground up.

Brother if someone made their nudes public domain then that's on them

I couldn't care less about AI art. I use AI in my work every day in dev. The coworkers who are not embracing it are falling behind.

Edit: I keep my AI use and discoveries private, nobody needs to know how long (or little) it took me.

Illegal globally? Unless there's international cooperation, funding won't dry up - it will just move.

It's already here dude. I'm using AI in my job (supplied by my employer) daily and it make me more efficient. You're just grasping for straws to meet your preconceived ideas.

Such a strong point, can't believe I didn't think of that.

"If you facilitate AI art, you are a shitty person"

There are ethical means to build models using consentually gathered data. He says those artists are shitty.

Didn't they? Did they get consent from the mathematicians to use their work?

Ive responded to a lot of that elsewhere, but in short: i agree theft bad. Capitalism also bad. Neither of those are inherit to ai or llms though, although theft is definitely the easy way.Art can be automated, nature does it all the time. We cant do it to a high degree now, i will concede.

Quality is of course low, its new. The progress in the last year has been astounding, it will continue to improve. Soon this will no longer be a valid argument.

I agree, modern ai is horribly innefficient. It's a prototype, but its also a hardware issue. Soon there will be much more efficient designs and i suspect a rather significant alteration to the architecture of the network that may allow for massively improved efficiency. Disclaimer: i am not professionally in the field, but this topic in particular is right up mutiple fields of study i have been following for a while.

Edit: somehow missed your edit when writing. To some extent every tool of productivity exists to exploit the worker. A calculator serves this function as much as anything else. By allowing you to perform calculations more quickly, your productivity massively increases in certain fields, sometimes in excess of thousands of times. Do you see thousands of times the profits of your job prior to the advent of calculators, excluding inflation? Unlikely. Or the equivelent pay of the same amount of "calculators" required for your work? Equally unlikely. Its inherit to capitalism.

Thats a lot of different questions in a lot of different contexts. If my parent decided to upload their conciousness near the end of their life into a mech suit covered in latex(basically) that was indistinguishable physically from a human(or even not, who am I to judge) and the process of uploading a conciousness was well understood and practiced, then yes, I would respect their decision. If you wouldn't, you either have difficulty placing yourself in hypothetical situations designed to test the limits of societal norms, or you abjectly do not care about the autonomy of your parent.

Child, I have no issue adopting. If they happen to be an artificial human I don't see why that should proclude them from being allowed to have parents.

Spouse, I'm not going to create one to my liking. But if we lived in a world with AI creating other AI that are all sentient, some of which presumably choosing to take a physical form in an aforementioned mech, why shouldnt i date them? Your immediate response is sex, but lets ignore that. Is an asexual relationship with a sentient robot ok? What about a friendship with said robot? Are you even allowed to treat a sentient robot as a human? Whats the distinction? I'm not attempting a slippery slope, I genuinely would like to hear where your distinctions between what is and isn't acceptable lies. Because I think this miscommunication either stems from a misunderstanding about the possible sentience of ai in the future, or from the lack of perspective of what it might be like from their perspective.

Edit: just for the record, i dont downvote comments like yours, but someone did, so i had to upvote you.

The "milkman" is a delivery person who works for milk producers. The company that produces milk still exists, the role of the milkman was just made unnecessary due to advances in commercial refrigeration - milk did not have to be delivered fresh, it could be stored and then bought on-demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_delivery

"Human greed" didn't take over to fuck over the milkman, they just didn't need a delivery person any more because milk could be stored on site safely between shipments.

Tons of people do! I browse /all and dont want to block /fuck_ai because a ton of you do have great discussions with me. Im not brigading, i have never once saught out this community, but ive always tried to be respectful and i havent gotten banned. So I'd say all is well.

As far as the crappy stuff, that really seems like just another extension of consumerism. Modern art has irked people for a while because some of it is absurdly simplistic. But if people are willing to buy into it, thats on them. Llms have very limited use case, and ethically sourcing your data is clinically neccassary for both ethical and legal reaosns. But the world needs to be prepared for the onset of the next generation of ai. Its not going to be sentient quite yet, but general intelligence isnt too far away. Soon one ai will be able to outperform humans on most daily tasks as well as some more spcified tasks. Llms seemingly took the world by surprise, but if youve been following the tech the progression has been somewhat obvious. And it is continuing to progress.

Honestly, the biggest concern i have with modern ai outside of how its being implemented is that it is environmentally very bad, but im hoping that the increase in the ai bubble will lead to more specialised energy efficient designs. I don't remember what the paper was but they were using ai to generatively design more efficient chips and it was showing promising results. On a couple of the designs they werent entirely sure how they functioned(they have several strong theories, but theyre not certain. Not trying to misrepresent this), but when they fucked with them they stopped behaving as predicted/expected(relative to them being fucked with, of course a broken circuit isnt going to function correctly)

Using open datasets means using data people have made available publicly, for free, for any purpose. So using an AI based on that seems considerably more ethical.