AI images and music aren't going anywhere. Dipshits insisting it's the future! so they can get rich will move on to the next grift... but unlike NFTs, there's a thing, here. Any idiot can type in a concept and have their computer visually represent it. It's in fucking Photoshop already. This is going to be a technology that continues to exist, and gradually improves, at least to the point of being really goddamn difficult to spot.

And at some point even the loudest haters will look back and go, wow, how'd we ever do stuff without this? Not the LLM shit - that's gonna stay dodgy. Decent enough if you want a Shel Silverstein poem about current events, but it's never gonna discern truth from fiction.

What's gonna quietly change media forever is every idiot with a nice GPU becoming competitive with medium-level Blender wizards. Your student film needs this sliding patio door to become an airlock? Done. You want your hand-drawn storyboards to become a traditional cartoon? Harder, but shockingly doable. Your actual medium-level Blender work lacks a certain verisimilitude? The idiot robot has you covered, somehow.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 10 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I agree with most of what you said, except this:

And at some point even the loudest haters will look back and go, wow, how’d we ever do stuff without this?

The haters are not going to do that, because the AI's capability is generally not the thing that people are hating on.

Here are some of the things people dislike about AI generated content:

It is trained with the work of people, without compensation or consent. Essentially this means it is stealing other people's work for and using it to increase the profits of big corporations.
It is used as an excuse for further data harvesting. ("To use our amazing AI services, you need to send your data to our servers for processing...")
It has massive computational cost, which means large environmental costs. The cost is largely hidden, because the computation are done somewhere else.
It devalues human effort. Since the AI can generate some fairly good output very easily, it discourages people from learning basic skills. i.e. instead of trying to draw or create something themselves, and thus improving a person's own skill, its fair faster and easier to make the AI do it. In the short term this doesn't matter, but in the long term it may result in deskilling the very people who the AI is meant to be learning from.
Since it is very easy to create, there is a flood of AI created content now on the internet. This huge amount of added content means it is now harder to find non-AI content than it use to be.
There are obvious problems with impersonation, spam, scams, etc. being made faster and easier with AI.
...

You get the idea. My point is that "it's not useful" isn't really one of the main complaints. Rather, people hope that it isn't useful, because they don't want it to become too entrenched.

[–] joonazan@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago

It can't create a radically new art style or new information. It would be great if we could harness it as a search engine instead of an oracle.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Lookin' at public posts is not theft. Any model that can recreate a particular input is broken. They only work properly when they generalize.

Everything becomes an excuse for abusive spying. Ban the abuse, for any reason.

Efficiency will improve once budgets shrink. Scaling up up up had immediate results and limited competition. It's not a necessary trend. More training on small models works better, and all of this started on desktop hardware.

Cartoonists also complained about CGI and Flash. Anyway - generating from scratch is an overblown demo. This tech modifies images. It works better when you actually film stuff or draw stuff, and then modify that. (And wait until some program only does tweening, then see if artists still yearn for the good old days.)

This is not going to un-happen. It's already here. If we destroyed it all, individual ultranerds would recreate it from descriptions. The second time around, they might not tell you they're doing it... or share.

[–] psud@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

That's it. I don't put copyright notices at the bottom of my comments, I write them to be read, I'm finished with them shortly after I hit the post button

If any person learns to write in Australian English from my stuff, great. If a machine does, also great