Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The AI Hate Progression

xodium.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 201 posts

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#181

Post by magic_hamster »

spacechild1 wrote: post #60
magic_hamster wrote: post #22

There are a few issues here that should be addressed. There's the AI hype and deafening echo chambers, but then there's also the actual value you can find in AI when you just try it a little bit quietly. I totally disagree with the comparison to something like NFT. While AI is being pushed aggressively and it can definitely be annoying, AI is actually useful unlike NFTs. Much like the author, I also enjoy photography…

> Much like the author, I also enjoy photography, graphic design, and other creative hobbies. It's entirely my choice how much and where to apply AI. The platforms are now flooded with AI slop and it's getting more and more difficult to discover new (honest) art and to present your own art to the public. The problem is exactly that there's no consent: we can't prevent AI companies from using our art or software for t…

> The platforms are now flooded with AI slop

What did we do before "platforms"? This wasn't that long ago (20 years give or take). If you want to share, join a club, meet people, do your hobby with a group. Personally I create for the joy of it so I don't really care what's going on on "the platforms".

> The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides.

The jury is extremely clear on the benefits of AI, even if it is very annoying and being pushed everywhere. We are not going back to a world without AI, and this is something you just have to accept.

> Why does it have to keep that way?

Because you can't put the genie back in the bottle.

> Why should artists have to put up with this gross violation of copyright on a massive scale?

I don't think this is necessarily true anymore. Adobe is training their models purely on legally licensed material, for example. Many of the open source models aren't available for commercial work by default. My guess is the copyright issue is not why people hate AI. People hate AI because it's a replacement for humans and for human creativity, which sucks. But it can be legal.

> Did anyone ask us if we actually want this?

Who is us? I want AI models. Lots of people want AI models. It's not all nefarious. You can have some fun with AI as a hobby and see what it enables you to create.

> As the people we always have the right to say: "this is not ok and we demand change"

Okay, what kind of change do you want?

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#182

Post by civet_java »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #66

It's funny how worked up people get about copyright with respect to to AI training when using copyrighted material for training an AI model is fair use. We have a concept of fair use in copyright because economic growth is essentially tied to the free proliferation of information. I can't really trust any anti-AI argument when it feels more of a tribal grievance than a rational explanation of concern. Especially with…

> economic growth is essentially tied to the free proliferation of information.

Isn't this a good argument for models produced by proliferation of said information to also be open-weight then?

Or perhaps your line of thinking is more that AI companies shouldn't have legal recourse should the weights for a model get leaked because this too would clearly contribute to economic growth.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#183

Post by civet_java »

magic_hamster wrote: post #181
spacechild1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much like the author, I also enjoy photography, graphic design, and other creative hobbies. It's entirely my choice how much and where to apply AI. The platforms are now flooded with AI slop and it's getting more and more difficult to discover new (honest) art and to present your own art to the public. The problem is exactly that there's no consent: we can't prevent AI companies from using our art or software for t…

> The platforms are now flooded with AI slop What did we do before "platforms"? This wasn't that long ago (20 years give or take). If you want to share, join a club, meet people, do your hobby with a group. Personally I create for the joy of it so I don't really care what's going on on "the platforms". > The jury is still out on whether the advantages and opportunities of AI outweight all the negative sides. The jury…

There is something about your comment that is deeply off-putting which is odds with your actual tone itself. My hunch is that while what you're saying is couched in all the traditional markers of polite and civil discourse the content seems to lack its spirit. While I don't think you want society to degenerate in the ways that it is I can't help but feel it also isn't something that is a priority for you because you get to continue "creating".

The thrust of your argument seems to rest resigning yourself to the impossibility of unhitching the global economy from the AI bandwagon and being unwilling to want to do it because it works for you; this part I don't personally care about very much about. The annoyance, I think, stems from you then suggesting the same resignation others as well while skirting around what I thought were pointed questions with unhelpful responses:

i) You don't bother actually stacking up the harms of generative systems against their benefits. ii) You don't actually bother backing up your own position of resignment to the status quo. iii) You forget that your opinion is your's alone while ignoring that the vast majority of humanity had no say in society being upended in this particular way. This assymetry has largely held through history, but is least defensible today. iv) Finally you forget that people aren't bound by laws in the way we like to believe they are.

A more cynical person might infer vested interest from the state of your argument.

I hope for your sake you continue getting the same joy from "creating" as society continues it ride down to the bottom.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#184

Post by civet_java »

dvt wrote: post #101
spacechild1 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO the author absolutely nails it. Yes, it might not be the most nuanced take, but they express what many of us are thinking. > Google and Yahoo and even DDG have been using copyrighted data for a quarter century, if not longer. Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care? The answer is: it was wrong back then and it is still wrong now…

> Your argument boils down to: companies haven't respected copyright or user consent for a long time, so why should we now care? This is not a very charitable take. My argument is: that cat is out of the bag, so what do we do next ? Do you have a plan ? Ranting about consent or privacy or copyright won't somehow untrain these models. At least the math people put out the pretty sensible Leiden Declaration[1]. > Don't…

> Ranting about consent or privacy or copyright won't somehow untrain these models.

On the other hand pointed, organised, public dissatisfaction and upheaval could lead to legislation requiring companies caught in the act of theft to fork over their profits to the state to be used for public good. Think about it :)

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#185

Post by bluefirebrand »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #158
bluefirebrand wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, AI models are capable of reproducing copyrighted works to a degree of high accuracy, especially if those works recur very frequently in the training data, but I believe that's a different issue I disagree. I think it is the exact issue. I think that treating it as a different issue is legal stickhandling that goes against the spirit of what fair use is intended to be, to get the outcome that the rich and power…

Extremely strict copyright laws were intended to give the rich and powerful the outcomes they want, allowing corporations to rich themselves on IP gatekeeping. Until the last couple years, it was firmly corporation and wealth aligned to be extremely litigious and offer little leeway for using copyrighted works.

And now that it is advantageous for the corporations and wealthy to ignore that, they are using it to hoover up public data to enrich themselves even further

This reversal isn't making it better to be a poor artist you know. It's further consolidating power and wealth upward by looting the public (and not so public) domain

Don't believe me? Disney is making deals with big image model providers to allow generation of their characters, meanwhile poorer online artists will get nothing

That's just one example

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#186

Post by civet_java »

hectdev wrote: post #125
pesus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People disagreeing with you and discussing something does not mean dissenting opinions aren't allowed. If anything, it proves the opposite.

no, take a look around. comments are downvoted for not agreeing with the topic, not for lack a validity. You, yourself, are ganging up on commenter and painting people with broad strokes. That is quintessentially a space where dissenting opinions aren't allowed.

I think you'll find that even spaces most open to discussion and dissent will push back on certain topics such genocide, murder, rape, etc. These are things most people would agree are bad.

I'm not saying that AI is like those things but that as society tallies the cost-to-benefit ratio public opinion on AI trends closer and closer to negative; most people are realising that ripping a big old hole in our social fabric isn't quite worth faster emails. I agree the productivity gains are huge but aren't equaly distributed across industries (or even employees even within the same industry).

Of course you're open to your opinion but as with most things whether not people share it will continue to change over time. I personally hope expressing thoughts like you did becomes unacceptable in the short to medium term, no offence.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#187

Post by bigyabai »

sph wrote: post #176
Varelion wrote: post #37

I, and everyone in my social circle, go out of our way to not touch anything that was had AI significantly involved in the creation process. Hypocritically, I use AI a lot at work. I see it as using it a lot more than I am paying for, to actively sink OpenAI/Claud's bottom line. I have a coworker that does the same. His logic was sound -- when something is heavily subsidized, abuse it.

I was about to write a positive comment, then you mention how you perpetuate the AI machine just like everyone else, but with massive dose of self-righteousness on top. Such is the tragedy of the world. Everyone claims they have strong morals, then shed them whenever convenient and no one is looking. You can't say you "go out of your way" to avoid something and then you do the literal opposite, not even with a little…

Their point seems pretty clear? They aren't passionate about their job, they're pissing away AI-generated productivity to fill OKRs and collect a paycheck at the end of the week.

Then, knowing how the sausage is made, this person refuses to spend that paycheck on more AI-generated content. They are sabotaging their employer, forcing reconsideration of AI-first culture, and then refusing to re-integrate that cash into an AI-obsessed economy. It's a lot more of a principled position than just "I like AI" or "I want to see AI fail" that we hear from most sidelines pundits.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#188

Post by ragequittah »

gonzalohm wrote: post #175
clapthewind wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that (framed as) a bad thing? We don't go around life understanding everything that we do because it would be exhausting. Sometimes all you want to do is use something and it works.

It depends on the application. A low stakes vibe coded personal project? Sure go ahead, that's a perfect use. A proof of concept? Also pretty good use. For the main product of your company I think it's fair to say that people should know and understand what they are doing

You can understand deeply what you're doing and still make a huge amount of mistakes. This is what we're ironically (in terms of this conversation) seeing AI point out over and over now that companies have mythos in their hands. If I had to bet on it at some point we'll see the shift where if AI hasn't fully reviewed and edited code it's considered unsafe to use. Similar to how we all understand how once self-driving cars are good enough human driving should probably be minimized because we're so bad at it.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#189

Post by joquarky »

bigyabai wrote: post #187
sph wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was about to write a positive comment, then you mention how you perpetuate the AI machine just like everyone else, but with massive dose of self-righteousness on top. Such is the tragedy of the world. Everyone claims they have strong morals, then shed them whenever convenient and no one is looking. You can't say you "go out of your way" to avoid something and then you do the literal opposite, not even with a little…

Their point seems pretty clear? They aren't passionate about their job, they're pissing away AI-generated productivity to fill OKRs and collect a paycheck at the end of the week. Then, knowing how the sausage is made, this person refuses to spend that paycheck on more AI-generated content. They are sabotaging their employer, forcing reconsideration of AI-first culture, and then refusing to re-integrate that cash into…

It feels unethical to gloat when thousands of people are desperately looking for work in the industry.

Re: The AI Hate Progression

#190

Post by bigyabai »

joquarky wrote: post #189
bigyabai wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their point seems pretty clear? They aren't passionate about their job, they're pissing away AI-generated productivity to fill OKRs and collect a paycheck at the end of the week. Then, knowing how the sausage is made, this person refuses to spend that paycheck on more AI-generated content. They are sabotaging their employer, forcing reconsideration of AI-first culture, and then refusing to re-integrate that cash into…

It feels unethical to gloat when thousands of people are desperately looking for work in the industry.

Gloat about what? They're describing an A/B dichotomy of how they treat AI at work, and how they treat it in their personal life.

Their employment is corollary to telling this story, it's not any kind of subtle brag.

Post reply on HN