It sure would’ve been nice if any of those managers and engineers thought of that before creating this situation. If my decisions led to the company nearly losing one of its biggest products, I’d be fired on the spot. I wonder which Googlers got promoted for getting us here.

The articles mentions that scroll and the arrow keys no longer adjust volume. Nothing could be earth shattering because it’s video streaming software, but it does seem to come with some functionality loss at this stage.

Chatgpt told me no once and I’ve been traumatized ever since. I know my place, now.

Right. In this instance, with hindsight (noticed it’s a meme community), I wouldn’t say anything. I’ve seen similar cases where the intent was to push someone down, though. I wasn’t sure, and sided with caution.

I didn’t mean to act uptight, or attack the commenter (I tried a mild tone), my bad.

I feel like there’s a way to communicate “np++ is the best” without calling people fake humans, even as a joke.

You’re right about it not being inherent to the tech, and I sincerely apologize if I insist too much despite that. This will be my last reply to you. I hope I gave you something constructive to think about rather than just noise.

The issue, and my point, is that you’re defending a technicality that doesn’t matter in real world usage. Nearly no one uses non-corporate, ethical AI. Most organizations working with it aren’t starting from scratch because it’s disadvantageous or outright unfeasible resourcewise. Instead, they use pre-existing corporate models.

Edd may not be technically right, but he is practically right. The people he’s referring to are extremely unlikely to be using or creating completely ethical datasets/AI.

The vast majority of people don’t think in legal terms, and it’s always possible for something to be both legal and immoral. See: slavery, the actions of the third reich, killing or bankrupting people by denying them health insurance… and so on.

There are teenagers, even children, who posted works which have been absorbed into AI training without their awareness or consent. Are literal children to blame for not understanding laws that companies would later abuse when they just wanted to share and participate in a community?

And AI companies aren’t using merely licensed material, they’re using everything they can get their hands on. If they’re pirating you bet your ass they’ll use your nudes if they find them, public domain or not. Revenge porn posted by an ex? Straight into the data.

So your argument is:

• It’s legal

But:

• What’s legal isn’t necessarily right
• You’re blaming children before companies
• AI makers actually use illegal methods, too

It’s closer to victim blaming than you think.

The law isn’t a reliable compass for what is or isn’t right. When the law is wrong, it should be changed. IP law is infamously broken in how it advantages and gets (ab)used by companies. For a few popular examples: see how youtube mediates between companies and creators, nintendo suing everyone they can (costs victims more than it does nintendo), everything disney did to IP legislation.

Listen, if you want to argue for facilitating image creation for people who aren’t skilled artists, I—and many more people—are willing to listen. But this change cannot be built on top of the exploitation of worldwide artists. That’s beyond disrespectful, it’s outright cruel.

I could talk about the other points you’re making, but if you were to remember one single thing from this conversation, please let it be this: supporting the AI trend as it is right now is hurting people. Talk to artists, to writers, even many programmers.

We can still build the tech ethically when the bubble pops, when we all get a moment to breathe, and talk about how to do it right, without Sam Altman and his million greedy investors trying to drive the zeitgeist for the benefit of their stocks, at the cost of real people.

My comment is too short to fit the required nuance, but my point is clear, and it’s not that absurd false dichotomy. You said you’re warming up to some AI because of how some people criticize it. That shouldn’t be how a reasonable person decides whether something is OK or not. I just provided an example of how that doesn’t work.

If you want to talk about marginalized groups, I’m open to discussing how GenAI promotion and usage is massively harming creative workers worldwide—the work of which is often already considered lesser than that of their STEM peers—many of whom are part of that very marginalized group you’re defending.

Obviously not all AI, nor all GenAI, are bad. That said, current trends for GenAI are harmful, and if you promote them as they are, without accountability, or needlessly attack people trying to resist them and protect the victims, you’re not making things better.

I know that broken arguments of people who don’t understand all the details of the tech can get tiring. But at this stage, I’ll take someone who doesn’t entirely understand how AI works but wants to help protect people over someone who only cares about technology marching onwards, the people it’s hurting be dammed.

Hurt, desperate people lash out, sometimes wrongly. I think a more respectable attitude here would be helping steer their efforts, rather than diminishing them and attacking their integrity because you don’t like how they talk.

Wow, nevermind, this is way worse than your other comment. Victim blaming and equating the law to morality, name a more popular duo with AI bros.

Is everyone posting ghibli-style memes using ethical, licensed or open data models?

Yes, I like the unethical thing… but it’s the fault of people who are against it. You see, I thought they were annoying, and that justifies anything the other side does, really.

In my new podcast, I explain how I used this same approach to reimagine my stance on LGBT rights. You see, a person with the trans flag was mean to me on twitter, so I voted for—

Obviously not all AI is bad, but it’s clear the current way GenAI is being developed, and the most popular, mainstream options are unethical. Being against the unethical part requires taking a stand against the normalization and widespread usage of these tools without accountability.

You’re not the wise one amongst fools, you’re just being a jerk and annoying folks who see injustice and try to do something about it.

I guess it’s inevitable that self-centered, pseudo-intellectual individuals like you would appear in platforms such as Lemmy to ask for civility and attention while spouting bullshit.

It’s still nice! A bit of recognition, legitimacy, and although it’s not funding, it might be a small step towards it. I see many great works, that stand tall on their own. More eyes will only make them shine even brighter.

Thanks, Fr*nce.

Contrast with keying a car and being labeled a terrorist. By scratching a cybertruck, you become an enemy of the state—something a republican school shooter could never dream of.

Given the breadth and depth of evidence of him being a horrible person and holding favorable views towards fascism/nazism (see him flirting with every far-right movement), calling it misconstrued is misrepresenting reality. He knows what he did.

Unlike other commenters, I don’t think you’re necessarily a Nazi, but you are at least missing crucial information to make a proper judgment here. And, not to group you with them, but when you defend his Nazi salute, you’re not in good company.

I hope you’ll reconsider your stance.

Why do you ignore the steps required to get here? The model doesn’t exist in a vacuum, nor did it automagically will itself into existence.

By the creation and posting, no one has been harmed, but the model’s development sits atop the stolen works of artists worldwide. Now these companies are trying to obviate artists. Harm was a prerequisite for this image’s creation.

You’re just ignoring the steps required to get to this “harmless” phase. It’s like saying “ffs, why do you want people to stop buying Nestlé where possible? Is wanting cookies evil now?”

Genuinely, why does none of this matter to you?

I’m not mad that AI exists, nor that people want to use it—so do I. But I can’t just ignore how they were made, or what the normalization of GenAI usage legitimizes.

Please don’t make comparisons to genocide joe. This isn’t the same (I can go into this if needed, but I hope you see why), and I’m not even from the US.

“Division is a weapon used by elites”

uses currently divisive technology popularly known to be made by elites

I hope this unnecessary choice doesn’t cheapen my message or bother people I’m trying to meet where they are.

That’s nearly every company making image generation AI right now. Stealing from creators is all the rage, and I’ve yet to see a reasonable defense of this by AI users.

Glad you liked Nicco and found it informative. I think his takes are usually grounded, and his software development background helps. I certainly like him a lot better than most tech influencers, if he even counts as one.