In-App Purchases are already real-money gaming (and gambling). You can already waste your whole finances on lootbox games chasing a rare reward. The only difference is that you can’t officially redeem them for money, it only features all the downsides of gambling. So… it’s pretty much the same. The division between gambling for fictional items to gambling for money is so small it might as well not be there.
For people who got phones with 5 cameras and decide “this doesn’t trigger my trypophobia badly enough”
I hate how newer phones are designed to act like they are still owned by the manufacturer.
No, absolutely not. As expected, you are just bulshitting me.
Just to be thorough, this is how:
“Just evolve with the tech and use AI too” is a clueless response considering that artistic industries are already highly saturated. There won’t even be enough positions for all the AI artists, which they will inevitably find out. It’s also weirdly elitist, thinking of AI art as superior to any other form, the only one worthy still dedicating yourself too, an attitude that is already conceited when it happens between traditional and digital artists.
“It’s just like the industrial revolution” not only is not a solution, rather it is a reference to time in history that, though romanticized, was very troubled. As it was, going from working artisanal crafts to getting their arms chewed by machinery didn’t turn out great for the early industrial workers, and it might not ever have if not for people fighting for their rights. Worse than that, back then industries eventually freed people from working on fields to working on offices. Now AI can take them out of the offices, but to where? No, they won’t all be AI engineers. How does that benefit the artist that is “freed” into having to work in a sweatshop?
Another common response that is present in neither your comments nor the article is “Universal Basic Income will solve this” and even if I try to be fully open to the possibility, I have to point out that AI is here today, but UBI is only tested every couple years, people tell how great it is and then we don’t hear anything about widespread implementation. This likely won’t happen without fierce popular pressure.
So, the question of the artists’ material conditions is not even remotely addressed.
Oh sorry, I thought you wanted me to take what you said into consideration. Is it still remotely unclear?
Pretty sure you are just playing coy now, but I am this stubborn.
Ahem.
How do you suggest that traditional artists ought to be supported in light of the likely possibility that AI trained on their works might make their careers financially unviable?
Even though I said I was only interested on your take about a single particular point, you completely disregarded it. Even though I said I had no interest in any other aspect, I responded to multiple of your arguments.
At this point you are saying “you’re ignoring and misrepresenting what I said” as a way to disregard what I said and pretend there are no unadressed aspects. It’s just not true. Ironically, you’re saying that to ignore and misrepresent my words.
To be fair, you made it more than clear that trying to discuss the matter with you is wasted effort.
You simply don’t have to compensate someone so analyze public data.
To call this simply “analysis” is wildly disingenuous. AI isn’t simply offering data about those works, they are using them to create effective replacements for those works, at expense of those artists’ careers. Even calling them “public” is reductive, because being publicly displayed in some manner does not mean they ceased to be copyrighted works.
You insist a lot of people’s right to self-expression, but restricting some manners of training AI doesn’t mean the people can’t express themselves. Not only they could still use any other tool, they could simply get permission from the creators or use Public Domain works to train.
Why is it having to get permission for using works in AI training considered such a violation of people’s rights? Just because older laws were written without consideration for the way AI functions (obviously)?
We also restrict the use of cameras in certain ways and yet photography is a flourishing medium. In a way one could call a camera an analysis tool too, but I don’t think arguing this sort of technicality is productive.
Still, you don’t seem to consider that the artists driven out of the market by AI will have their capability of expression stifled, simply by not being able to focus on creating.
If I can’t use legal wording, technical details, or philosophy, how am I supposed to be able to explain?
Because you are using those to argue around the situation of the artists whose work was used, and still you will not offer a single word about their situation. Instead you will call them “abusers” for trying to preserve their livelihoods. I did offer you arguments why the law is lacking, but I’m tired of arguing how human rights take precedent over tools, that comparing AI with human creativity is simplistic and that whatever may be the inner workings of AIs, that doesn’t change the material effects of their use. I’m pretty sure I had those arguments with you in particular already.
Which is why I want to get to the point: “What about the artists’ livelihoods?”
Any other explanation that doesn’t address this is lacking a crucial aspect. Considering how much AI had to rely on original works it’s strange that the source of those original works is not even given any consideration.
But back to this again:
You simply don’t have to compensate someone so analyze public data. That would be like handing someone a flyer for lessons and then trying to collect a fee because they got good at the same kind of thing you do.
See, this is the kind of talk that gets me incensed, and which makes your talk of “manipulative language” ironic and disingenuous. Are you really going to call the artist’s role “handing someone a flyer for lessons”? Not even the lesson proper, since their work is the reference material? There is no possible way such an analogy could be made in good faith, it reveals a profound disregard for the role of the artists in all this, so much for standing in the shoulders of giants. No surprise you want to call artists seeking to protect themselves “abusers” too. It doesn’t seem to me like the words of someone honestly interested in candid, open-minded and respectful discussion.
I have read that article and I have found it sorely insufficient at addressing the concerns of the artists who are having to deal with this new situation. The EFF is usually great but I cannot agree with them on this stance.
You speak of “IP holders” and “corporations”, seemingly to give a connotation of overbearing nameless organizations to any attempt at legislation, but you don’t have a single word to say about the independent artists who are being driven out of their artistic careers by this. It doesn’t sound like you even considered what their side is like, just that you decided that it’s “morally right” to have free access to everyone’s works for AI training.
How fair is the “Fair Use” that lets artists get replaced by AI’s trained on their works? Way to often AI proponents argue of current legal definitions as if this was merely a matter of some philosophical mind games rather than people’s lives. The law exists to ensure people’s rights and well-being. It’s not sufficient for something to fit the letter of the law, if we want to judge it as just.
I did read this open letter, although I already wasn’t expecting much, and I can only find it sappy, shallow and disingenuous. They may say that they don’t care about using AI to replicate others’ works, not only that’s not sufficient to prevent it, it doesn’t address all the artists’ works that were still used without permission, attribution or compensation even if they use the resulting AI to produce works that don’t resemble any other work in particular.
We see a unique opportunity in this moment to shape generative AI’s development responsibly. The broad concerns around human artistic labor being voiced today cannot be ignored. All too often, major corporations and other powerful entities use technology in ways that exploit artists’ labor and undermine our ability to make a living.
But this has already failed. AI has already been developed and released irresponsibly. Corporations are already using it to exploit artists labor. Many major models are themselves an exploitation of artists’ labor. These are hollow words that don’t even suggest a way to address the matter.
There is only one thing I want to hear from AI advocates if they intend to justify it. Not legal wording or technical details or philosophical discussions about the nature of creativity, because ultimately they don’t address the material issues. Rather, how do they propose that the artists whose works they relied on ought to be supported. Because to scrape all their stuff and then to turn and say they are fated to be replaced, like many AI proponents do, is horribly callous, ungrateful and potentially more damaging to culture than any licensing requirement would be.
Telemetry is useful, but there is no accountability on how it’s being used, so ultimately it could be used in bad faith and the average user wouldn’t ever know.
How many times have I heard this sort of talk about companies only to eventually learn of their unreported flagrant disregard for the rules…
Sure they probably have some bureaucracy but forgive me if I’m not so confident on their unimpeachabilty.
Here we get the very crucial definition between “legal” and “moral”.
It is not currently illegal to build a “database of weights and numbers” by crawling arts and images without permission, attribution or compensation, for the express purpose of creating similar works to replace the work of the artists whose artworks were used to train it and which they rely on to make a living.
That doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be legislated.
Really not a fan of this “dying industry” talk in light of this.
Good thing you figured out how to get your hot takes elsewhere.
One of the few benefits that Twitter used to have was how useful it was for breaking news and events.
Funny enough it was Link’s Awakening that led all the games after that being more story oriented. It also started the trope of the long trading quest
Do you realize that a person can be from a country without having any involvement with the industries and government of that country?
Should automated filters on social media be removed to create more jobs for content moderators?
Maybe not removed but we absolutely need many more people moderating online platforms. We have just so many problems from automated content moderation systems that are caused by the lack of humans reviewing content. Including this very situation, where the site let a lot of sex abuse material in.
I don’t think AI/automation is the problem. A world where most jobs are automated isn’t a bad thing. A world where money takes precedent over humans and people are punished if they’re out of work - i.e. capitalism - is.
Yes, but consistently advances in automation come with promises of better lives for people that do not materialize. There have been decades that people talk that we have means to make it so everyone can work less hours a day and less day a week, instead people get fired and we have even less people employed, overworked beyond the limits that worker movements had achieved before.
Will AI really help people or will it just make it even harder for the people who do willing sex work? Given how twisted this industry is, maybe a little of both, it could turn out to be a net positive, though it’s hard to judge that. But other fields are probably only going to get the hardship.
Lets be honest, the whole point of automation is to do more work than what it replaces, so it never creates as many jobs as it takes away. Even worse, AI in particular is already primed to replace the same tech, service and artistic jobs that previous forms of automation freed us to engage with. We will not get the same amount of jobs from AI.
What then? Back to sweatshops, to try to undercut the automation we can’t outperform? We can’t keep at this “oh well, Capitalism still didn’t change ¯\_(ツ)_/¯”.
It’s messed up when people go to sex work out of desperation, but way too often recognizing this is used as an excuse to ban sex work, when it should be a reason to provide everyone with basic living conditions.
Banning sex work often makes the situation of those people even worse because they are driven into shadier environments rather than having any amount of protections.
Paying forever is not a better deal than paying the price of a few months of use and then having it for years. Maybe a business can justify that, but for a hobby? No way.
I get it that marketing doesn’t bother you, but several tech companies have been found to give direct access to users’ data to their employees, who used it in all sorts of creepy ways.
I was laughing at the ridiculous over-the-top mood whiplash of sad cute animals assembling guns in a sweatshop. I though it would be a so-bad-it’s-good meme game, but seeing people starting to show gameplay and reviews now it’s actually starting to look good.
Edgy nonsense aside, I’ve been wishing for a creature collector game with farming and base building since Pokémon Emerald gave me a taste of that. This one might be what I’m looking for.