Chappell Roan criticised for taking AI submissions on her Alt Instagram account

[AndiGaga 6,132]

1 hour ago, Bebe said:

1. Computers took jobs from people, automation in production took jobs away from people, internet shopping took jobs away from retail workers. We could go on. I do believe that we are on the precipice of a significant social and economic upheaval as a result of AI. The 19th century had the Industrial Revolution when machines replaced many of the professions that had previously required manual labor and led to significant job displacement. It also led to the generation of new jobs, better working conditions, increased productivity, better communication, increased education etc.

Job displacement is a genuine concern, however AI is here. How do we ensure people reap the benefits of this new technology and prepare our society to be upskilled and prevent a skills mismatch in the new world?

2. The environmental concerns are legitimate however seems a little overblown when considering the far larger environmental impacts of other tech industries, the food industry as well as oil and gas. Again, AI is here. How do we ensure that there is a net environmental positive when rolling it out at scale? Did you know the UN uses AI to detect when oil and gas installations vent methane, a greenhouse gas that drives climate change? How can we utilise AI to help us tackle climate change, nature and biodiversity loss, and pollution and waste?

3. So let’s regulate!

4. Brings us back to point 1. It’s essentially the same argument. We have seen technology create significant job displacement in the past. How do ensure society is prepared for what will undoubtedly be a significant shift in society and in the world economy?

Framing any technological advancement as either good or bad, including AI advancement, is extremely simplistic. The negatives you talk to may be true, but it doesn’t change the reality we are in and we now live in a world with AI. The solution literally cannot be to turn back time. We need to accept that AI is here, it is going to continue to develop and what we need to do now is prepare, regulate, ensure that we can see a net benefit from AI and work to lessen the negative impacts that occur during any major change.

Well spoken!

I personally see AI as great progress, I love new technologies. I use ChatGPT everyday, in my job and private life. It is so helpful, I love it.

[altern8version 568]

15 minutes ago, Bebe said:

It’s an easy position to say “AI stole peoples work and that’s bad!” It’s something everyone can agree on it’s not a particularly interesting take at this point. We’ve heard it before, now what?  

 

... this isn't about having the freshest, most buzzworthy take. if you've heard it before, there's probably a reason for that

people can use AI services in whatever way they're allowed to use them, but people who oppose them are allowed to judge folks, particularly artists, for engaging with them. I don't see why this is so hard to understand 

[Bebe 16,930]

1 minute ago, altern8version said:

... this isn't about having the freshest, most buzzworthy take. if you've heard it before, there's probably a reason for that

people can use AI services in whatever way they're allowed to use them, but people who oppose them are allowed to judge folks, particularly artists, for engaging with them. I don't see why this is so hard to understand 

It’s not hard to understand at all, quite the opposite. It feels basic and misguided.

[altern8version 568]

5 hours ago, nATAH said:

not even remotely the same

there's giant difference in inspiring somebody's style and talent vs feeding a machine that exists just to make profit

agreed. I hate how some people act like art is strictly about images. I'm not moved by photos or videos or any media that was generated by AI. It's not worth my time.

in the same way I don't want to go see somebody lip sync at a concert, I appreciate authentic art and talent

Before the AI d*ckriders come for me, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR AI SERVICES TO BE SHUTDOWN, I'm just saying that we don't all have to suddenly support it because "it's not going away"

Edited Sunday at 06:08 PM by altern8version

[altern8version 568]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

It’s not hard to understand at all, quite the opposite. It feels basic and misguided.

idk it seems pretty basic to me to be wowed by "art" a machine stitched together 

[nATAH 43,112]

2 minutes ago, altern8version said:

agreed. I hate how some people act like art is strictly about images. I'm not moved by photos or videos or any media that was created by a computer. It's not worth my time.

in the same way I don't want to go see somebody lip sync at a concert, I appreciate authentic art and talent

Before the AI d*ckriders come for me, I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR AI SERVICES TO BE SHUTDOWN, I'm just saying that we don't all have to suddenly support it because "it's not going away"

it's always so ugly too and it's so sad to see people here support on a website dedicated to somebody who lives and breathes art

[altern8version 568]

5 minutes ago, nATAH said:

it's always so ugly too and it's so sad to see people here support on a website dedicated to somebody who lives and breathes art

Agreed. that smooth nasty look to it is so offputting. it's just weird.

When I frequent art museums, I love to get up close and see the brushstrokes. When I look at photography, I'm in awe of the lighting and composition. When I watch films, I'm surrounded by so many choices made by brilliant specialists to create one cohesive product. Typing in a few words to a computer and it crapping out a smooth shiny approximation just isn't interesting to me. 

Edited Sunday at 06:09 PM by altern8version

[apollorowling 413]

Keep the fight!! I'll bring the popcorn 😂

[nATAH 43,112]

2 minutes ago, altern8version said:

Agreed. that smooth nasty look to it is so offputting. it's just weird.

When I frequent art museums, I love to get up close and see the brushstrokes. When I look at photography, I'm in awe of the lighting and composition. When I watch films, I'm surrounded by so many choices made by brilliant specialists to create one cohesive product. Typing in a few words to a computer and it crapping out a smooth shiny approximation just isn't interesting to me. 

exactly, half the beauty is finding out how they did it and the thought process behind the creation and the inspirations (as someone here stupidly said is no different to AI stealing images )

[Bebe 16,930]

13 minutes ago, altern8version said:

idk it seems pretty basic to me to be wowed by "art" a machine stitched together 

Maybe it’s just the wording, but I don’t think many people with basic media literacy are “wowed” by images of people with six fingers and two thumbs.

It’s an irrelevant point anyway, AI images are already everywhere you look on social media and only getting more convincing.

It’s not going anywhere, and chastising those who use AI to generate images is little more than performative virtue signalling at this point.

Good or bad, where do we go from here? 

[altern8version 568]

Just now, Bebe said:

It’s not going anywhere, and chastising those who use AI to generate images is little more than performative virtue signalling at this point.

This isn't true. That disregards the opinion of everyone who has a genuine opposition to AI imagery by calling it performative. You sound so dismissive of their feelings toward it.

HOWEVER, the chastising for using it in non-commercial settings can be a bit extreme. Putting together copyrighted works (no matter how little the bits are that they've been chopped into) via AI and then selling it should be illegal, in the same way copying another artist's song is.

But if someone is just d!cking around with AI and making unserious images for their own personal use, whatever. I can still think it's lame that it's a process rooted in stealing & melting together the work of other artists, but I'm not going to yell at someone for it. Using it for commercial products is where I draw the line - which is where I take issue with Disney and Nicki Minaj for using AI in their recent projects. 

[Bebe 16,930]

4 minutes ago, altern8version said:

This isn't true. That disregards the opinion of everyone who has a genuine opposition to AI imagery by calling it performative. You sound so dismissive of their feelings toward it.

HOWEVER, the chastising for using it in non-commercial settings can be a bit extreme. Putting together copyrighted works (no matter how little the bits are that they've been chopped into) via AI and then selling it should be illegal, in the same way copying another artist's song is.

But if someone is just d!cking around with AI and making unserious images for their own personal use, whatever. I can still think it's lame that it's a process rooted in stealing & melting together the work of other artists, but I'm not going to yell at someone for it. Using it for commercial products is where I draw the line - which is where I take issue with Disney and Nicki Minaj for using AI in their recent projects. 

You’ve just made the exact same point I have.

[altern8version 568]

1 minute ago, Bebe said:

You’ve just made the exact same point I have.

I think we're coming at it from different angles, and I still think it's ridiculous how copyrighted works can be used for machine learning without compensation for the artists, but regardless, I'm glad to hear we have some common ground when it comes to using AI generated images for financial gain.

[Oriane 19,878]

Seeing how many people don't see the problem with AI makes me understand a lot more why so many people lack any kind of art literacy, have absolute sh*t taste in art and no appreciation for the craft behind it.

[Bebe 16,930]

30 minutes ago, altern8version said:

I think we're coming at it from different angles, and I still think it's ridiculous how copyrighted works can be used for machine learning without compensation for the artists, but regardless, I'm glad to hear we have some common ground when it comes to using AI generated images for financial gain.

To a degree, of course it’s ridiculous that the intellectual property of artists was used in the development of machine learning however our anger there should be places on the capitalist class rather than the technology itself. AI isn’t bad, it can hopefully be a useful tool.

In regards to AI being used in commercial spaces, the job displacement is a genuine concern however the reality is that it’s the future. The highly skilled and highly paid croppers of the 19th century lost their jobs to machines and we no longer chastise industries that use wide weaving frames. I believe the more effective and realistic response would be to focus on preparing for and reducing the impacts of AI in commercial spaces. Artists will still create far more interesting works, whether or not that art is highly commercialised is yet to be seen.

AI is likely to take my job in the future, so I’m not unsympathetic, I just don’t see that we are willing to uprise against oil and gas for their destruction of our planet, I don’t see that we are willing to uprise against the fashion industry for its use of sweatshops and slave labour and I don’t see us willing to uprise against Disney for AI generated images. I might be wrong, as mentioned earlier in this thread, the difference in reactions to AI seems to be that it’s effecting middle class people in “developed” countries rather than impoverished, invisible people on the other side of the world. Maybe class consciousness is possible.

Within the confines of capitalism we need realistic policies and solutions. I still do believe that chastising those who generate AI images is performative because it is already our reality and there is too much invested interest in all world governments and in the commercial world for development to stop or reverse.

We can type our thoughts on the internet, but at this point it comes across as yelling into a void. Whether we like it or not the next decade is going to be filled with customer service trained AI chatbots and AI generated media, how do we regulate it?

Edited Sunday at 07:05 PM by Bebe