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

Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

petergabriel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 167 posts

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#111

Post by anonzzzies »

intrasight wrote: post #71
gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

> maybe even doctors and lawyers I don't think any profession that requires a license is at risk. Software engineers resisted a licensing regiment for decades and now the profession will pay a price.

They are at risk; the ones that use AI will remove the ones that don’t in the end. The average lawyer does very little already; last week I had some papers that I needed to be checked legally; gpt4 found some issues that the expensive lawyer overlooked. Not big issues but issues. And this document was not in English either. It explained the issues in English, it provided a lot of text which the lawyer did not. But they did spend (assuming they didn’t lie) 3 hours and some minutes on them; if they can do this with AI in 15-30 minutes, which they can (it is enough time to recognise if it’s hallucinating), then they can put 3-4 lawyers out of a job by lowering prices. And that’s just using gpt as tool, not as the primary driver; just to speed up the work.

I don’t think it would destroy jobs for anything high profile (including programmers), but the grunts is a different story. If the secretary or, for instance, nurse, can feed through info and the ‘head’ lawyer/doctor of the practice only has to sign off on the result, the license is not an issue.

Not there yet, but can’t see this as avoidable anymore.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#112

Post by jdkee »

huehehue wrote: post #100

There's a massive piece of the music scene that I can't imagine AI ever replacing. Some genres are formulaic by design, but the draw for so many others is the human experience and the inventiveness. Many people follow artists because they connect with material that could only have come from the artist. One reasonable concern is that tech supplementation will lead to a deluge of derivative work, nullifying the efforts…

I believe it can and ultimately will, given enough training data.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#113

Post by gwoolhurme »

yinser wrote: post #77
gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

If AI enables a 12 year old in India to write the code of a 2019 software developer then that is a positive for the earth. If someone is upset that they're losing their lunch to their skillset that earned them an outrageous salary then might I suggest they, and I, learn to augment your productivity with the skills or take up something with better permanence like drywall or plumbing.

The other comment said it best. Let's say programming is going way. Do you think there is suddenly a need for hundreds of millions of trade workers? The economy will support that...? Have you thought this through?

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#114

Post by gwoolhurme »

matchagaucho wrote: post #88
gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

When AI Chess started kicking my @ss, I assumed that human competitive Chess was over. Quite the opposite happened. We appreciate human-vs-human Chess even more because Stockfish, and other AIs, demonstrated there are more challenging lines and strategies to pursue.

That is fine when it comes to competition. How does a graphic artist or programmer compete?

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#115

Post by xiphias2 »

brigadier132 wrote: post #35
gwoolhurme wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I really hate this line of argument as well. We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society. It's a strawman to say that people don't see that. The problem is nobody seems to be properly discussing the bad things that can and will occur.

> We obviously understand it can have a lot of beneficial effects in society Really? Because nobody seems to be talking about them. You talk about how bad things "will" occur. What about bad things that are literally happening right now?

Maybe think of the children.

Why should they go to school at all? Why should they study? What should they study? What should I tell them?

A person who works in tourism just told me that he wants to learn something safer, because he had no job during COVID, so he started studying web design. All I could tell him is that that job has peaked, and I believe tourism is safer at this point.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#116

Post by gwoolhurme »

hackyhacky wrote: post #28
williamcotton wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists So does the world currently only listen to singer-songwriters on acoustic guitar at small local venues? The humanity in the consumption of art has been subject to mass commodification for centuries at this point. This process is driven by money and not love. Technology has nothing to do with it.

You're technically correct, but missing the point: When technology destroys menial jobs, it's progress . When technology destroys white-color jobs, it's a threat .

I dont think I have ever said this though. Telling truck drivers to learn to code was disgusting and horrible. There HAS to be a better solution to these things that society can come up with. I don't have those answers, but jesus christ look at the shit show below my original comment. I am not saying pause research, stop AI, or do anything like that. I welcome the eradication of certain medical issues. I just want to know what society will do? To be frank I have said in other threads as well... if I lose my visa and job my only solution I've thought of as of yet is suicide.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#117

Post by Riverheart »

echelon wrote: post #110
Riverheart wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah and we can give money to AI so it can read/watch/review all the extra content we don’t already have enough of.

There isn't enough content that tailors to my interests. In fact, there's barely any. Nearly every film I watch, I question the director's choices. I'd do casting and set dec differently. I'd change the music and design. The plot and writing and character development are the things that can irk me the most. Very seldom do I finish an experience and feel sated. When it happens, I feel elated and the experience sits wi…

I feel generally there is too much but I can respect your desire for more tailored content. It just seems discovery would be difficult in such a landscape.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#118

Post by gwoolhurme »

yinser wrote: post #37
gwoolhurme wrote: post #15

I think it's only natural to think of AI as the enemy no? Sure theoretically it means better healthcare, scientific improvement. However what nobody has really answered well is what happens to the artists, writers, programmers, scientists, maybe even doctors and lawyers. As we become potentially obsolete what happens to us. Saying that you can do art as a hobby or programming as a hobby really isn't an answer people…

A train is approaching on the tracks, on one track you create free energy, solve diseases, create a new dawn for human ingenuity and also some white collar jobs are removed, others are created. On the other track we continue to toil in the dirt.

This same sort of logic can be applied to a lot of things like Soviet style collective farms. A few Kulaks killed and starved is better for the Soviet Union. I just don't think it is a good argument.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#119

Post by ChatGTP »

brigadier132 wrote: post #34
ChatGTP wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think AI is a disaster, think about the potential for medical breakthroughs that can emerge from this. The “think of the good” argument is over played. Same was true for combustion engines, they will probably send us extinct. I’d like it if people just stopped with it. People aren’t idiots, they know good things and very bad things can be achieved.

Are you seriously suggesting humanity would be better off without the combustion engine? Also, presumably an AI powerful enough to kill vast swathes of humanity would be powerful enough to prevent something like climate change.

Yes, I am absolutely suggesting that. Not all engines but petroleum fuelled combustion engines, yes.

The world is going through a mass extinction event because of burning oil and coal and combustion engines have been an absolutely integral part of that ecological disaster. So yes.

Just be real about it? Why do “EV” subsidies exist? To wean us off combustion engines to save the planet.

Combustion engines should’ve been much more carefully regulated and we should’ve had better incentives against their use.

Re: Peter Gabriel: AI competition statement

#120

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

"When an artist's work is copied for commercial gain, there should be [(a)] a right to choose to refuse it or [(b)] to participate financially.

If anyone legitimately feels their copyright has been infringed by this competition, we and Stability AI will work to take down the video until the dispute has been resolved."

StabilityAI and Gabriel are providing (a) but not (b).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66788385/13/getty-image...

If Getty wins, is Gabriel committing contributory infringement.

Even if what happens after text is entered into a prompt is not infringement, mass copying for "training" is done for commercial gain and it is done without consent. Google gets away with copying websites en masse into a cache for the purposes of running a commercial web search engine. Maybe copying for purpose of commercial "AI" will get similar treatment.

That said, consider what happened when Google tried scanning books. It seems that some of these training sets have used hundreds of thousands of copyrighted works from "pirate" sources on the web.

IMO, this is just another example of so-called "tech" companies, e.g., Uber, that can only operate if they are free from existing laws and regulations.

Does StabilityAI have a commercially-viable plan if "training" requires obtaining consent.

Post reply on HN