“It’s shit” is different from “it’s unethical”.

If people want to pay for shit, let them pay for shit. They can’t make me listen.

Voice Swap was not trained on any data that wasn’t “ethically gained.”

Read the bottom of their FAQ that lists the exact databases in question.

The couple of datasets they used on top of all the data they directly pay artists to consensually provide have permissive licenses that only require attribution for use, and gathered their information directly from a group of willing, consenting participants.

They are quite literally the exception to the rule of companies claiming they’re ethical, then using non-ethically sourced data as a base for their models.

We generally had the reasonable rule that property ends at dead. Intellectual property extending beyond the grave is corporatist 21st century bullshit. In the past all writing got quickly into the public domain like it should. Depending on country within in at least 25 years of the publishing date to the authors dead. Project Gutenberg reflects the law and reasonable practice to allow writing to go into the public domain.

I don’t know where you got that image from. AllenAI has many models, and the ones I’m looking at are not using those datasets at all.

Anyway, your comments are quite telling.

First, you pasted an image without alternative text, which it’s harmful for accessibility (a topic in which this kind of models can help, BTW, and it’s one of the obvious no-brainer uses in which they help society).

Second, you think that you need consent for using works in the public domain. You are presenting the most dystopic view of copyright that I can think of.

Even with copyright in full force, there is fair use. I don’t need your consent to feed your comment into a text to speech model, an automated translator, a spam classifier, or one of the many models that exist and that serve a legitimate purpose. The very image that you posted has very likely been fed into a classifier to discard that it’s CSAM.

And third, the fact that you think that a simple deep learning model can do so much is, ironically, something that you share with the AI bros that think the shit that OpenAI is cooking will do so much. It won’t. The legitimate uses of this stuff, so far, are relevant, but quite less impactful than what you claimed. The “all you need is scale” people are scammers, and deserve all the hate and regulation, but you can’t get past those and see that the good stuff exists, and doesn’t get the press it deserves.

It’s such a strange take, too. Like why do we have to include AI in our box if we fucking hate it?

Mate, supercilious comments like this also do not help. They make you look a raging boy crying wolf.

“Ah yes someone expressed incredility at the viability of the business practice in this instance. I must tell them they are the problem.”

I mean you had a chance to point out the issues in depth handed to you on a fuckin’ plate but instead you chose to jam your head up your own butt.

I remember they said they bought it and explained how they used it to increase their own productivity and how being trained on other artwork was a detriment because it wouldn’t generate in their style. Probably was a fork of an unethical project lol

Yeah, sorry. I’ve seen so many people say what you said unironically I reacted with my almost-boilerplate response immediately. My bad.

Except gen AI didn’t exist when those people decided on their license. And besides which, it’s very difficult to specify “free to use, except in ways that undermine free access” in a license.

The effect isn’t the important part.

If I smash a thousand orphan skulls against a house and wet it, it’ll have the same effect as a decent limewash. But people might have a problem with the sourcing of the orphan skulls.

It doesn’t matter if you’we just a wittle guwy that collects the dust from the big corporate orphan skull crusher and just add a few skulls of your own, or you are the big corporate skull crusher. Both are bad people despite producing the same result as a painter that sources normal limewash made out of limestone.

Listen, if you want to argue for facilitating image creation for people who aren’t skilled artists, I—and many more people—are willing to listen. But this change cannot be built on top of the exploitation of worldwide artists. That’s beyond disrespectful, it’s outright cruel.

I could talk about the other points you’re making, but if you were to remember one single thing from this conversation, please let it be this: supporting the AI trend as it is right now is hurting people. Talk to artists, to writers, even many programmers.

We can still build the tech ethically when the bubble pops, when we all get a moment to breathe, and talk about how to do it right, without Sam Altman and his million greedy investors trying to drive the zeitgeist for the benefit of their stocks, at the cost of real people.

My comment is too short to fit the required nuance, but my point is clear, and it’s not that absurd false dichotomy. You said you’re warming up to some AI because of how some people criticize it. That shouldn’t be how a reasonable person decides whether something is OK or not. I just provided an example of how that doesn’t work.

If you want to talk about marginalized groups, I’m open to discussing how GenAI promotion and usage is massively harming creative workers worldwide—the work of which is often already considered lesser than that of their STEM peers—many of whom are part of that very marginalized group you’re defending.

Obviously not all AI, nor all GenAI, are bad. That said, current trends for GenAI are harmful, and if you promote them as they are, without accountability, or needlessly attack people trying to resist them and protect the victims, you’re not making things better.

I know that broken arguments of people who don’t understand all the details of the tech can get tiring. But at this stage, I’ll take someone who doesn’t entirely understand how AI works but wants to help protect people over someone who only cares about technology marching onwards, the people it’s hurting be dammed.

Hurt, desperate people lash out, sometimes wrongly. I think a more respectable attitude here would be helping steer their efforts, rather than diminishing them and attacking their integrity because you don’t like how they talk.

Nah, you do so in the second comment here, like a properly lady. I can’t believe his lack of decorum. Is your sensitive soul ok?

Astroturf is fake grass. Are you positive that guy in the picture is being paid? He might just be a proud boy.

You don’t fix the system. You ignore it.

I’ll tell that to the IRS the next time I refuse to pay taxes.

No I’m pretty sure I do.

Because ChatGPT is trained on stolen data and using it for any reason is participating in that theft while simultaneously causing a significant impact to the environment.

So I guess your right; it has no bearing on whether you’re an artist or not, but whether you’re a decent person. Thanks for clearing that up.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

I can’t believe I never thought about calculators. You and I really are the brothers Dunce, aren’t we?

Now you’re moving the goalpost. You said told always replace humans and made the analogy to calculators and refrigerators. The fact is that the cast majority of generative AI in use today didn’t get their content ethically.

Math is discovery, not creation.

Art can be automated

Under what definition of art can that be possible? Is art to you nothing more than an image? Why automate art and not other tasks? What is the point of automating art? Why would you not want to make art yourself and instead delegate it to a machine?

Art can be automated, nature does it all the time.

Ok, first off: what is your definition of automation? This is what I mean when I say automation.

Nature does not automate art. Are you equating the process of, say, almost all bower birds make bowers, therefore that’s automation? Then you have a poor understanding of what automation, art, and therefore AI/LLM, is meant to achieve.

With art, you need to think about the state of mind to create that piece in the first place. Before it was created, it doesn’t exist in any capacity. Why the art piece exists in the first place is the reason why AI cannot automate it because human emotions are very complex.

If an AI/LLM can experience human emotions, we’ve essentially created another type of human. This is deeply profound and, with the technology and materials we have now (that is, the processing chips and hardware), it is simply not possible. We’re at the point where we’re making small, tiny leaps in gains.

Which leads me to…

It’s a prototype, but its also a hardware issue. Soon there will be much more efficient designs and i suspect a rather significant alteration to the architecture of the network that may allow for massively improved efficiency.

It is not a software/coding issue that limits an LLM’s capability to emulate the human psyche. Again, it is not tweaks in code structure that will send us rocketing up the graph of progress. It is the limitation of the actual materials that we use and their maximum efficacy, hence why we need nuclear reactors and so on to power thousands of processors. We will never get to the point of replicating human ability and energy efficiency with the materials that exist in Earth. And, are we going to spend more energy and resources to look to the stars for a material that may or may not exist to create a machine that has the capability to think as a human?

How long did humans take to evolve to the capacity we have? That took hundreds and thousands of years of trial and error. But I digress…

Its inherit to capitalism.

Absolutely agree. The whole purpose of this ‘AI boom’ is to make more money for the <1%, steal from us and hoard it for themselves. On this basis, I completely reject the use of LLMs. Fuck AI.

Are you even allowed to treat a sentient robot as a human?

Oh, boy, this one’s really hard. I’ll give it my best shot, though. Phoo. Okay, here goes.

Yes.

Ohhhh fuck. Oh god. Oh please. Scubus, how did I do? Did I win?

Now please argue to me that chatgpt is sentient.

Thanks for the reply (and the upvote, although I’ve hidden all lemmy scores from my account so I really don’t care about voting for that matter).

My thought experiment is a lot more complicated if the “AI tool” is sentient, i.e. it can be proven without a hint of a doubt that the robot is essentially no different from a human. If we ever get that far, it’s a whole another can of questions.

What I tried to (perhaps unsuccessfully) argue is that, yes we have and are replacing humans with tools all the time, but there’s also a line (I think) most wouldn’t cross, like replacing a loved-one with a tool. In my original argument that tool would just be an imitation, not a sentient machine. Maybe even a perfect imitation, but nothing more than that - a machine that has learned how to behave, speak etc. I don’t think many of us would be happy with a replacement like that.

For me it’s same with AI art. I can’t appreciate art made by AI because it’s just imitation made by a tool. It has no meaning, no “soul”.

I would argue it wasn’t just the refrigeration, but also the suburbanization of living and the cost effectiveness of delivering the milk from the farm to the store, which (in theory) made milk cheaper. You would still need the milkmen if stores and supermarkets didn’t exist. In an alternative world where we didn’t invent commercial / household refrigerators, you could still buy milk from stores daily without the need of a milkmen, becaue ultra-pasteurization exists.

I guess thats the problem with analogies and I don’t think either of us will get anywhere by further arguing about this one specific example.

Sorry, I made the comment about being on Fuck AI because of your edit to the original message. I wasn’t trying to accuse you of anything.

Back to the AI stuff. I am sorry if I am a little sceptical about your claims about the “next generation of AI” and how “soon” they will outperform humans when even after all these years, money and energy poured into them, they still manage to fuck up a simple division question. Good luck making any model that needs to be trained on data perfect at this point, because AI slop that has been already generated and released in to the internet has already took care of that. Maybe we will have AGI at some point, but I will believe that when I actually see it.

Finally, I don’t know about modern art being absurdly simplistic. How can you look at modern animation or music and call it absurdly simplistic. How can you look at thousands of game UI designs in Edd Coates’ website and call them absurdly simplistic? All AI will ever create when it comes to art is some soulless amalgamation of what it has seen before, it will kill all creativity, originalty and personality from art, but businessman in suits will gladly let it take over human artists because it is cheaper then hiring human artists and designers.

Link to this noncorporate, ethically sourced ai plz because I’ve heard a lot but I’ve never seen it

I don’t think that’s what they are saying. It’s not that you can’t now, it’s that initially people did need to use a lot of data. Then they found tricks to improve training on less, but these tricks came about after people saw what was possible. Since they initially needed such data, their argument goes, and we wouldn’t have been able to improve upon the techniques if we didn’t know that huge neutral nets trained by lots of data were effective, then subsequent models are tainted by the original sin of requiring all this data.

As I said above, I don’t think that subsequent models are necessarily tainted, but I find it hard to argue with the fact that the original models did use data they shouldn’t have and that without it we wouldn’t be where we are today. Which seems unfair to the uncompensated humans who produced the data set.

Is everyone posting ghibli-style memes using ethical, licensed or open data models?