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

Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

warandpeas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#81

Post by xivzgrev »

Havoc wrote: post #10

Also on todays news - in the github copilot (and OpenAI) case about stolen content the judge dismissed majority of it: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2024/07/08/github_copilot_dm... I do sympathise with the creatives on an emotional level but it’s looking like the laws won’t

These plaintiffs need a new lawyer, one experienced with going up against big corporations

you can’t be amateur hour in these cases. things like not requesting emails in the right way, or offering arguments the judge easily swats away.

The thrust of their case is important but if they’re fumbling the ball they’re going to get destroyed on procedure.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#82

Post by morkalork »

roughly wrote: post #48
esafak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )

SMBC with a similar sentiment https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/sad-2

Wow, tons more ads on their site than I remember 10 years ago. Even one of those extra annoying pop-up auto-play videos in corner!

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#83

Post by saurik »

bronco21016 wrote: post #44
esafak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )

I think the missing piece is the generative AI being tied to a physical embodiment. My point is, we need the physical machine but we also need to work on this generative AI aspect to manipulate the machine. Unfortunately, making pictures and writing text seems to be the lowest hanging fruit of the Transformer AI era since we have significant datasets already available. Several companies are working on creating datase…

My favorite version of this sentiment is also the earliest one I know of -- even beating the SMBC comic linked by others here by an additional half a year -- by Alex Krokus, in no small part as it doesn't fall into this trap of talking about physical tasks like laundry/dishes or plumbing: "but i like making art | can it do my taxes? -- no it can't".

https://www.instagram.com/p/CnpXLncOfbr/

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#84

Post by rewgs »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #37
buttercraft wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. This viewpoint is what fucked up the world.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

Get back to me when the world is overcrowded with soulless, unavoidable AI-generated "art" and we'll see if you still think this way.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#85

Post by [deleted] »

timcobb wrote: post #18

> Artists’ work has been harvested in order to train large language models The idea of publishing something these days has become quite unappealing. For me, there's something dehumanizing about being used as LLM training data. Not that my thoughts are unique or interesting or special. But, man...

[deleted]

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#86

Post by mrgoldenbrown »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #37
buttercraft wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. This viewpoint is what fucked up the world.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

Weavers weren't concerned about "passion" for cloth, they were concerned about their economic ability to compete with machines that required huge capital outlays and centralized profit at the expense of the middle and lower class workers.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#87

Post by unsui »

bronco21016 wrote: post #44
esafak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )

I think the missing piece is the generative AI being tied to a physical embodiment. My point is, we need the physical machine but we also need to work on this generative AI aspect to manipulate the machine. Unfortunately, making pictures and writing text seems to be the lowest hanging fruit of the Transformer AI era since we have significant datasets already available. Several companies are working on creating datase…

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that you're taking the wrong lesson from the above quote.

It's not an instruction manual on what parts of the human experience are not yet fully captured by AI.

It's a condemnation on the entire purpose of AI as actualized in our economy, re: it's presumed lofty sci-fi-inspired aspirations (giving humans more creative liberty and freedom) versus how it's actually being operationalized (replacing their creative liberty and freedom).

Embodied AI will only accelerate that trend.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#88

Post by [deleted] »

Liquix wrote: post #53
indoordin0saur wrote: post #28

I really cannot fathom enjoying any "art" produced by an AI, excepting art that uses it as an assistant for boring tasks like texturing a video game.

but what will happen when "enjoyable art" and "AI art" are virtually impossible to differentiate between without tools? https://i.imgur.com/XSCN9Aj.png

[deleted]

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#89

Post by marban »

jedberg wrote: post #71

This feels like back in the day when photo editing and publishing software started getting big. "True artists" would shun anyone using those tools as amateurs. And for the most part they were right. It was mostly used by amateurs to create stuff that didn't look very good. That is where we are with AI art right now. Most of it is garbage created by people who don't know what good art is. But just like back in the day…

The difference is that everyone thinks they're an artist now, skipping pesky things like talent or effort. GenAI is the ultimate tool for people who have the creativity of a potato.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#90

Post by rewgs »

webdood90 wrote: post #17
voidfunc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most artists, like most programmers are working in a commercial capacity. I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. Do art for the sake of art on your own time. But expecting companies to not embrace AI to do their jobs is foolish just like it's foolish to think corporate programmers will be a thing at some point in the future.

Capitalism - love it or leave it!

Except you can't leave it. Ain't it grand?
Post reply on HN