Generative AI is not 'influenced' by other people's work the way humans are. A human musician might spend years covering songs they like and copying or emulating the style, until they find their own style, which may or may not be a blend of their influences, but crucially, they will usually add something. AI does not do that. The idea that AI functions the same as human artists, by absorbing influences and producing their own result, is not only fundamentally false, it is dangerously misleading. To portray it as 'not unethical' is even more misleading.
rainynight65
joined 5 months ago
Please be sure to draw a clear distinction between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism.
Make sure you don't pull a muscle performing all those mental gymnastics.
After pretty much failing as an overambitious game designer...
Someone among Linda Reynolds' advisors should have had the courage to tell her that persisting with this defamation trial, especially in the wake of the Bruce Lehrmann trial, is really shitty optics.
And the fact that they tried to make it all about alleging that Higgins wanted to bring down the government, while putting Reynolds into the role of the victim, makes it even worse.
I really hope Reynolds fails in this trial.
No country exists in isolation. Why wouldn't it be fine to discuss events in another country even if you don't have a direct stake in it?
NaNoWriMo did not say that 'not writing your novel with AI is classist and ableist'.
What they did say however is almost worse:
We also want to be clear in our belief that the categorical condemnation of Artificial Intelligence has classist and ableist undertones, and that questions around the use of AI tie to questions around privilege.
So you're classist and ableist and probably privileged if you're against the use of AI.
So first they force people back into the office because CBD businesses are suffering.
Then they want to ban people from going for a coffee?
Make up your fucking minds!
sew
Pronounced exactly the same as sow, if you mean the right sow and not the other sow, which is spelled the same but pronounced differently.
Re 1, 3 and 5, maybe it is upon the AI projects to stop providing shiny solutions looking for a problem they could solve, and properly engaging with potential customers and stakeholders to get a clear understanding of the problems that need solving.
This was precisely the context of a conversation I had at work yesterday. Some of our product managers attended a conference that was rife with AI stuff, and a customer rep actually took to the stage and said 'I have no need for any of that because none of it helps me solve the problems I need to solve.'
More recently, probably a wireless handheld controller for my model railway.
Model railway is a hobby for people with lots of time, space, and money. I generally fall short on two of those, although lately there is a bit more disposable income to go around. Last year I was able to splurge on the control setup that I always wanted, which is a stationary controller - basically you sit at a table and control the trains with two rotary controllers and a touchscreen for a number of other things. Looks a bit like this.
But since it's stationary and my layout is fairly big, sometimes it can be a bit cumbersome to test something that's five metres away. So I decided to also splurge on the matching wireless handheld controller, an Android-based device with another rotary controller and the ability to control almost all aspects of the stationary device.
Did I need it? Hell no. If I had waited a few more months, a perfectly suitable free smartphone app would have been available that I could have used for the purposes intended. But am I loving it? Fuck yes. Irresponsible to boot, but no regrets, not for one second.
Sure, training data selection impacts the output. If you feed an AI nothing but anime, the images it produces will look like anime. If all it knows is K-pop, then the music it puts out will sound like K-pop. Tweaking a computational process through selective input is not the same as a human being actively absorbing stimuli and forming their own, unique response.
AI doesn't have an innate taste or feeling for what it likes. It won't walk into a second hand CD store, browse the boxes, find something that's intriguing and check it out. It won't go for a walk and think "I want to take a photo of that tree there in the open field". It won't see or hear a piece of art and think "I'd like to be learn how to paint/write/play an instrument like that". And it will never make art for the sake of making art, for the pure enjoyment that is the process of creating something, irrespective of who wants to see or hear the result. All it is designed to do is regurgitate an intersection of what it knows that best suits the parameters of a given request (aka prompt). Actively learning, experimenting, practicing techniques, trying to emulate specific techniques of someone else - making art for the sake of making art - is a key component to humans learning from others and being influenced by others.
So the process of human learning and influencing, and the selective feeding of data to an AI to 'tune' its output are entirely different things that cannot and should not be compared.