Your opinion on AI technology

[ALittleMonsta 1,529]

22 minutes ago, Helxig said:

I've already seen a bunch of Michael Jackson 'covers', some of which are super realistic. Only made by amateurs at home! Actual producers could do whatever they wanted. I find it kinda disturbing going on TikTok and all the comments are "omg this is amazing 😂 make her sing ____" "can you please make her sing ___ next! I'd loe to hear her cover that" listen to the wording on that... make her sing this song. Imagine how strange if you were Ariana Grande for example seeing thousands of people online saying "make her sing this" as if they didn't already belong to society in enough ways 

I'd like to think they wouldn't be allowed to use the voices of dead people... but I have a client who's a lawyer who confirmed for me that there's already talk about ai in legal sectors, and they're hurriedly trying to get legislation in place around it, but it's developing too fast and legislation takes a long time to go through the circuits and become official   so we very well might see Michael Jackson and others singing new songs from the grave

Definitely not michael jackson AI! I don't live for that

[Nite 4,791]

It has so much potential, it's something that's becoming very present in the industry I work in. ChatGPT has been fun, although a lot of results come out very confidently incorrect, but the potential is huge. 

But I'm not a fan of the data crawlers needed to create the story/art AIs. I have art posted on a few sites that are being crawled for data and that kind of irks me. 

The photorealistic images are really creeping me out. The false information potential and the way people can't consent to images being created of them worries me a lot.

[Sneaky Oliver 21,241]

The chats are okay, super helpful and I’ve been learning how to incorporate them to my study (i feel like an old man learning how to get on internet saying that ) be

however, the image/video and voice generator is so dangerous. When it comes to artists, I find it very disrespectful. Like generating fake “covers” the artist has never covered intentionally. I fear like it can be used to generate posthumous albums. Once record labels put their money-hungry hands on it… it’s over 

when it comes to politics, this is even more dangerous, generating fake images and audios for smear campaigns… gosh the next elections are going be so messy 

[HermioneT 1,985]

Well, let's just say I'm glad that a) my job is quite complex so it will be a few years until it is complete automatised by AI, b ) I never shared my face and voice in the internet and intend to keep it that way, c) my current goal is to minimize my time spent on the internet as much as possible (it's hard, but again and again I realise how lame the digital world is compared to the off screen world).

I'm not that naive to not recognize the potential AI has (in relevant, important fields as health, mobility or science). I just rather enjoy art on small crafting markets or street concerts than in masses made by an AI. Also, still waiting for an AI to do my dishes and sort through all my analogue administrative paper works...

[hELXIG 41,585]

1 hour ago, Nite said:

false information potential and the way people can't consent to images being created of them worries me a lot.

So a lot of the concern around ai revolves around people's rights and their likeness being used without their permission right? Well if we think that artificially generated photos are bad, just think about how realistic deepfakes are gonna be in a couple years   imagine the deepfake p*rn that will arise. Imagine being a public figure and seeing an artificialy generated video of yourself doing whatever they want while hundreds of people get off to you? They'll even be able to replicate their voices soon. In fact they already can. I hate that

[RahrahWitch 6,948]

AI in general is a pretty neat thing that can help humanity in so many different ways. The type you're talking about like Voice and Image generators are sadly being used to do the exact opposite.

Let's use the Image generators as an example. Wanting to automate art alone is a massive red flag but how these image generators do it is so much worse. These AIs don't draw for themselves, they need source material to use in the output, a colossal amount of stolen data photos, art and even ****. 

So you end up with this product that's trying to take artists livelihoods by stealing their work and using it against them. These AI companies aren't "democratizing" art like they love to say, they're destroying it for money.

Voice generators are just as bad, I know a few are posted here but you're essentially using Gaga's voice without her consent to say what you want. It's honestly kind of creepy.

[Ivy 11,601]

I hate it. I mean it can be fun right now and there's a lot of potential for using it for good, but it's so obviously gonna go in a bad direction

Imagine in the future not just w art but like, someone setting you up for a crime that you didn't commit, videos of murder happening that didn't happen, p*dophiles making videos of real people..not to mention people in power taking advantage to brainwash 

I do not trust humans AT ALL and even with all the potential positive I think it's a wrong direction. The negative is gonna outweigh the positive 

[ALittleMonsta 1,529]

12 minutes ago, Helxig said:

So a lot of the concern around ai revolves around people's rights and their likeness being used without their permission right? Well if we think that artificially generated photos are bad, just think about how realistic deepfakes are gonna be in a couple years   imagine the deepfake p*rn that will arise. Imagine being a public figure and seeing an artificialy generated video of yourself doing whatever they want while hundreds of people get off to you? They'll even be able to replicate their voices soon. In fact they already can. I hate that

That is really concerning.. 

[ALittleMonsta 1,529]

7 minutes ago, RahrahWitch said:

AI in general is a pretty neat thing that can help humanity in so many different ways. The type you're talking about like chatgpt and Image generators are sadly being used to do the exact opposite.

Let's use the Image generators as an example. Wanting to automate art alone is a massive red flag but how these image generators do it is so much worse. These AIs don't draw for themselves, they need source material to use in the output, a colossal amount of stolen data photos, art and even ****. 

So you end up with this product that's trying to take artists livelihoods by stealing their work and using it against them. These AI companies aren't "democratizing" art like they love to say, they're destroying it for money.

Voice generators are just as bad, I know a few are posted here but you're essentially using Gaga's voice without her consent to say what you want. It's honestly kind of creepy.

You're right, which is why I only did it privately now just to listen to it, I am not sure if I should private the videos

[Nite 4,791]

18 minutes ago, Helxig said:

So a lot of the concern around ai revolves around people's rights and their likeness being used without their permission right? Well if we think that artificially generated photos are bad, just think about how realistic deepfakes are gonna be in a couple years   imagine the deepfake p*rn that will arise. Imagine being a public figure and seeing an artificialy generated video of yourself doing whatever they want while hundreds of people get off to you? They'll even be able to replicate their voices soon. In fact they already can. I hate that

Yeah that part really weirds me out, there are these images of Gaga already (that thankfully still look very fake) and I can only imagine what people will do with when they can create any believable images of public figures and celebrities themselves. Or normal people like us, because running one of those systems locally would be another step that's not impossbile I guess, and then those blocks that exist currently wouldn't pull either.

I feel like there are no laws concerning it currently and something bad has to happen first before any rules would even be created and could be enforced 

[hELXIG 41,585]

35 minutes ago, Nite said:

Yeah that part really weirds me out, there are these images of Gaga already (that thankfully still look very fake) and I can only imagine what people will do with when they can create any believable images of public figures and celebrities themselves. Or normal people like us, because running one of those systems locally would be another step that's not impossbile I guess, and then those blocks that exist currently wouldn't pull either.

I feel like there are no laws concerning it currently and something bad has to happen first before any rules would even be created and could be enforced 

There are currently no laws specifically pertaining to ai   I said it in my huge rant post before.. I have a client who is a lawyer (she actually just went to Singapore for a big law conference/event or whatever) and when I asked her about it she said yes, there is a lot of buzz right now in legal sectors about ai, and they are concerned that they won't be able to pass legislation fast enough because it's progressing so fast, and it takes a long time to create new laws. So it's gonna be the lawless wild west of ai for a bit as we transition

It only took us about 6 months to go from garbled, splotchy, laughable images of Gaga, to this

Spoiler

In 6 months (maybe even less). By next year they will be photorealistic

They're even working on video ai... it's in a laughable, rudimentary stage now... but give it six months...

I believe this script, audio and video were all ai generated

 

And everyone is just like hehe haha how silly look at the silly things we can make

 

But it is kinda fun in for the time being though I will admit   I'll keep giggling at it until it gets weird

 

 

[Admin 24,441]

1 hour ago, RahrahWitch said:

These AIs don't draw for themselves, they need source material to use in the output, a colossal amount of stolen data photos, art and even ****. 

AI doesn’t steal art, it learn from it. It’s not any different than Google Translate, for example — I don’t think anyone thinks automatic translators steal from human translators.

Everything else mentioned is super valid though. Society will need to figure out what to do with fake photos/videos generated by AI.

[nATAH 42,237]

9 minutes ago, Admin said:

AI doesn’t steal art, it learn from it. It’s not any different than Google Translate, for example — I don’t think anyone thinks automatic translators steal from human translators.

Everything else mentioned is super valid though. Society will need to figure out what to do with fake photos/videos generated by AI.

artists are noticing their work being used without their consent and websites like deviantart are automatically allowing people's artwork to be used in AI stuff whilst keeping the opt out option in the tiny text fine print

to me, unless explicity agreeing to your work being allowed for AI learning, that is stealing

[Admin 24,441]

1 minute ago, NATAH said:

artists are noticing their work being used without their consent and websites like deviantart are automatically allowing people's artwork to be used in AI stuff whilst keeping the opt out option in the tiny text fine print

to me, unless explicity agreeing to your work being allowed for AI learning, that is stealing

I disagree. If you go to a museum, look at a bunch of art, and then go home and create something inspired by what you saw, is that stealing or learning?

I brought up this example already, but this isn’t any different from Google Translate or other automated translators. It’s also AI, and it learns from thousands of translated texts created by real humans. Does that mean that it is stealing the work of translators?

But I agree that it’s a complicated topic and a very new one, and there’s no right opinion on this. We, as a society, still need to figure out what to do with it.

[nATAH 42,237]

2 minutes ago, Admin said:

I disagree. If you go to a museum, look at a bunch of art, and then go home and create something inspired by what you saw, is that stealing or learning?

I brought up this example already, but this isn’t any different from Google Translate or other automated translators. It’s also AI, and it learns from thousands of translated texts created by real humans. Does that mean that it is stealing the work of translators?

But I agree that it’s a complicated topic and a very new one, and there’s no right opinion on this. We, as a society, still need to figure out what to do with it.

if you're doing that to privately practise your skills to create something original then yeah, that's NOT stealing but these artworks are basically sampling other people's work without credit publically

not too sure what languages have to do with it because languages aren't a copywrite protected IP