Live data from Hacker News

I don't want anything your AI generates

coryd.dev

291–300 of 345 posts

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure your premise even makes any sense here, because it doesn't take an artist much more resources to produce art then it took them to just exist for the same amount of time. They're still just eating, sleeping, making basic usage of the computer, using heating and light, and so on either way. Whereas someone using dall-e is doing all of that plus relying on the immense training costs of the artificial intell…

This back of the napkin estimate for GPT-4 emissions costs is too high by orders of magnitude. Your estimate is that training it emitted about as much as CO2 as 5.38 billion average humans living their lives for a year did. With a world population of 8 billion, it would mean that GPT-4 training was equivalent to 0.67 years of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Since GPT-4 CO2 emissions all come from manufacturing har…

That's a good point, that's what I get for doing a linear extrapolation. This looks like a better estimation, which doesn't look good for my argument: https://towardsdatascience.com/the-carbon-footprint-of-gpt-4...

I still think my point about imagining that using ML models decreases emissions versus a human doing the same task still stands though — humans don't produce that much more or less emissions depending on what task they're doing, and they'll be existing either way, and probably using the computer the same amount either way, just not spending aa much time on that one task, so I don't see how you can argue using an ML model to write or draw something uses less CO2 than a human doing it. You can't count the amount of CO2 the human takes to exist for the amount of time it takes for them to do the task as the CO2 cost of the human doing the task because humans don't stop existing and taking up resources if they're not doing a task unlike programs. And you can't really compare the power used to run the ML model to the power used by the computer the human is using during the time it takes them to do the task either, since the human will need to use the computer to access your ML model, interact with it to define the prompt, edit the results, etc (and also bc again they'll probably just shift any time saved doing that task on the computer to another task on the computer). Additionally of course there's the fact that you can't really use large language models to replace writers or machine learning image generation tools to replace artists if you actually care about the quality of the work.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI are not human artists, so there's no connection to your point and the discussion.

You could just as easily claim that since AI are not human artists that copyright does not apply to them.

It applies to whoever uses them as a tool. If you say copyright doesn't apply to a photocopier because it isn't human that doesn't mean it suddenly doesn't apply to you. It's just a bad argument.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#294
I'm in 100% agreement with the poster. I'm a programmer, but also a musician. People make money by doing something better, fast, or cheaper than others. If you give me AI generated stuff for anything, I'm getting the shitty version as cheaply as quickly as possible.

I don't want crap. I'm not poor, I want to pay for quality. I don't want crap customer service, crap support, crap writing, crap music, or crap art. And make no mistake, as much as it's impressive that a computer can make crap, it's still crap. It's polished crap, but crap nonetheless. Banal, generic, mediocre, everything that is uninteresting in media.

The message a company sends when foisting this crap on us is "we'll do anything to boost our margins, including giving you completely auto generated garbage". MARGINS!! ME! ME! ME!

No thanks.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that without loud declaration like this money men will just soldier on with implementing shittier future. It's always do something first and then ask for forgiveness. But at the point you ask for it it's too late and too many eggs were broken. And somehow you're richer at the end of it all and thus, protected from any consequences. While everyone else is, forgive my French, fucked. Has Facebook been a ne…

Ai/ml will change out world. It already does. It's a Paradigma shift and probably the most impactful after the internet. From human to machine interface to medicine, research, content creation etc. No one cares about some dude posting some negative rant like that.

Clearly somebody cares, or else we would not be in this subthread.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#296
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there are often 3-4 great songs each week that get added to my regularly playlist. I'm earnestly uncertain that a system with near total access to your listening history producing 3-4 great songs per week from the corpus of all human musical endeavour can be considered a "good" effort. Particularly when the 3-4 recommendations are jammed into a 60 minute playlist of otherwise questionable quality.

It’s better than my effort at finding music, and it makes Mondays a little nicer. My goal isn’t to find the best music ever, but to find new and interesting music more easily.

Have you compared against random sampling?

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#298
post #296
post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s better than my effort at finding music, and it makes Mondays a little nicer. My goal isn’t to find the best music ever, but to find new and interesting music more easily.

Have you compared against random sampling?

If it's randomly selected from the entire music library of Spotify, then it won't be good. Most of it would come from a long tail of bad or niche stuff.

For a practical example see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random - odds of finding an article that's both interesting and high quality are low.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the effects of my actions in this case have yet to be demonstrated, let alone shown to cause harm. The author claims there is expoititive harm to labor, the environment, and maybe others. That is not at all obvious or provably true yet. As I said, I'm open to the discussion, but I can't defend myself in good faith when people claim some slam dunk moral certitude. Again, don't use generative AI if it makes you…

>The author claims there is expoititive harm to labor [...]. That is not at all obvious or provably true yet. Not at all obvious? These models are trained on vast amounts of content, much of it copyrighted, and basically none of it licensed.

Correct, not at all obvious. The obvious effect of generating an image of a dog on the moon is that you now have an image of a dog on the moon. If you showed it to 100 artists, some percentage of them might recognize it's AI, but none of them would claim it as their art and ultimately none would be harmed. The harm is non-obvious.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#300

I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…

The issue is that without loud declaration like this money men will just soldier on with implementing shittier future. It's always do something first and then ask for forgiveness. But at the point you ask for it it's too late and too many eggs were broken. And somehow you're richer at the end of it all and thus, protected from any consequences. While everyone else is, forgive my French, fucked. Has Facebook been a ne…

This sounds like a critique of the creators of the AI moreso than the users of it, which TFA is targeting.
Post reply on HN