Violet

[Violet @Violet461158]

Again, faulty analogy. Manufacturing automation is no where near in the same league as artificial intelligence in terms of the size and scope of this displacement. And people are allowed to have their emotions about what's happening to them even if you can't develop any empathy for them.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Well, I would say good for you and your parents, but again that shouldn't prevent you from having empathy for others who don't have other skills or other fallback options. Last week AI cracked two of the most important problems in the fields of mathematics. Multiple mathematicians wrote that they are considering leaving the field over it. What's happening in art is just the beginning, in terms of people being displaced out of their fields.

[Violet @Violet461158]

"Being upset because you are being outcompeted is childish." First, why would being upset because you're losing your livelihood be "childish." Since when is being worried about your ability to pay rent or put food on the table for your children, "childish". Second, I think the word "outcompeted" is doing more work in that sentence than you want to admit. Saying AI outcompetes human artists is like saying Humans outcompete chimpanzees. In short, the analogy doesn't work because competition depends on there being variables of the same kind and class. Third, if we were to take your argument seriously that AI is in fact "out competing" human artists, they would be doing so by actually cheating, i.e., taking the work product of their competitors and passing it off as their own, which again isn't real competition because it isn't a fair one.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Not sure what your argument is here. All people who labor put their labor into a market and people pay for it depending on demand. A degree has nothing to do with whether that labor has value in a market. Artists can have a degree or not have one. Plumbers can be certified or not certified. Healers can be credentialed or uncredentialled. All that matters is whether someone is willing to pay for their labor. In the case of AI, the primary labor of art has been commoditized to the point where lack of demand for it has driven its value to near zero. People in any industry who suddenly saw the value of their labor be devalued would be justifiably worried and potentially resentful or angry. If AI begins to produce better medical diagnoses and treatment than credentialed doctors, how will the entire field of doctors feel if they can no longer make a living being a doctor? This is so obvious I'm not even sure why I have to say it.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Listen, I'm not arguing against your viewpoint. I'm simply trying to show you that it's more complicated than that. Calling other people's viewpoints "infantile" because they differ from yours only serves to alienate the people you're trying to persuade and it gives the impression that you're unable to develop real arguments.

[Violet @Violet461158]

@SaysLaw @redherringdraws Please review the outcomes of these lawsuits if you have any doubt that they are in fact stealing IP from artists. This isn't debatable. It's a fact. Which is why they had to pay a fortune to settle these cases.

[Violet @Violet461158]

@SaysLaw @redherringdraws "It has it's parameters now" That's just a fancy way of saying they stole something that wasn't theirs. You can obfuscate it all you want but using esoteric language won't change the fact BIG AI is losing in the courtroom because what they are doing is actually illegal.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Way to misread the argument. People losing their ability to make a living is a very justifiable reason to be angry, whether they work in a factory or make art. Being tone-deaf to people's resentment around it is only going to make things harder for people like you. And don't confuse having a nuanced argument about the profound effect AI is having in our lives as a Luddite argument. I'm a technophile, jut not tone deaf.

[Violet @Violet461158]

@SaysLaw @redherringdraws Not sure I understand your point. What is "output" in this scenario. The art the LLM copied or the "art" it produces by coping that art?

[Violet @Violet461158]

Fault analogy. Industrialization was the automation of production for commercial purposes. Art by definition isn't for commercial purposes (not to be conflated with design, which is intended for commercial use). In fact, the more commodified artwork becomes, the more value it loses. Therefore its "industrialization" or the AI automation of art is merely its commodification. People don't object to automation, they object to anything that destroys the value of what they produce. And I am not anti-AI. I just see both sides of this argument.

[Ngoc Anh @nqocahnn_]

Imagine being pinned by a snake with a pride of lions watching, only to stand up and square off against the whole lot of them. Absolute main character energy from this eagle.

[Violet @Violet461158]

So in your mind people can't function without plumbers? What did people do before indoor plumbing then? What did people do before the invention of a AMA or the invention of the modern police force in the 19th century? Everthing I named, including art, is essential to a healthy, functional society. The only difference is that you don't think art is essential, which says alot about you.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Faulty and reductive analogy. All the past tools in your meme took years to learn and master, i.e., skill. Most generative AI art barely rises above the level of simple curation. Curators aren't artists. They are . . . curators. And no, I'm not anti-AI. Just an artist who sees both the positive and negative sides of this tech.

[Violet @Violet461158]

You calling intellectual property "data" doesn't actually change what it actually is, i.e., intellectual property. BIG AI settled law suits against them for billions of dollars because they knew what they were doing was illegal. Artists can train on classical artists. What they can't do is copy their work and sell it without permission or compensation.

[Violet @Violet461158]

@mmph253545 @redherringdraws Not fair use. If it was, they wouldn't have settled the infringement law suits against them for billions of dollars.

[Violet @Violet461158]

yeah, that's why I responded to this post. It was suggesting that the Heritage American argument is about creating a caste system in America and is thus antithetical to the American project as a nation based on equality. It's not. Or at least the bulk of people who are actual Heritage Americans don't believe that. And I think it's damaging to suggest that wanting one's culture to remain whole is a power grab. It's the opposite in fact. It's coming from a place of deep sorrow.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Are you asking about how people will make money in a post-work economy? Yes, I think about it a lot. And I think it's going to be split between people who go all in on AI and those who go full trad analog. In the art world, this might translate as artists who define their brand as human-made.

[Violet @Violet461158]

I'm not suggesting that you can't use AI within an artistic process that exceeds the skill level of basic curation, but most people aren't using it that way. But even artists that are using it in an honest capacity use it similar to a digital version of collage or montage--as "found" work, not as an end in itself.

[Violet @Violet461158]

Yes, completely agree. I think all human labor is going to zero. Art was just one of the first industries to feel it. AI took out mathematics this week. Many more professions to go, but eventually it will impact all of them. My point is that art is no different from any other industry. You wouldn't expect anyone to work without compensation, then why do you expect artists to?