I won’t rehash that argument for the umpteenth time. I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re not going to change mine. Summed up, my retort is that if the AI “stole” content, then so did every artist who ever watched a Disney movie, and every author that read a book, and every programmer that looked at a repository. Theft inherently means something is gone, and the original owner no longer has it - nothing is gone, nothing was stolen.
You listed off a bunch of reasons why data centers are rationally hated, and I agree with you on that. However AI is not a data center. My open weight models running on my consumer hardware, powered by solar energy isn’t implicated by what data centers are guilty of. Yet you would apply the same labels to it, and it would draw the same irrational ire of people who only know “AI bad” because it’s the popular sentiment right now, and probably will be for a decade.
I’m not ashamed of my use of technology any more than you should be ashamed of using a computer - built in a factory, using rare earth minerals mined from our environment, likely utilizing dirty energy, potentially built by exploited labor, and statistically likely to be powered right now by dirty energy.
Usually I would agree with you that omission is lying, but as I’ve said, admitting you used AI will earn you nothing but scorn, with absolutely no benefit for the admission. If an angry mob knocked on your door and asked if there are any vulnerable people in your home, you’d be justified in not answering them at all, and simply slamming the door shut, and locking it. Then ignoring when they keep knocking. This is the same concept. Sometimes “lying” by omission is the right choice.
if the AI “stole” content, then so did every artist who ever watched a Disney movie, and every author that read a book, and every programmer that looked at a repository.
This is a terrible argument. Training a model on someone’s work is not inspiration. You’re anthropomorphizing a machine learning model. It’s not inspired. It doesn’t have an internal experience that informs its creations.
It’s generating output directly based on the statistical likelihood of its training set. That’s it. This is proven by the fact that many models can recreate styles and likenesses that would warrant litigation if a human did it. A machine learning model will always be definitionally derivative.
Clearly you’re trying to justify your AI use, which I understand. Inferencing locally does help, but unless you’re training your own models, that’s what actually takes the majority of resources.
Believe it or not, I’ve experimented with a lot of AI. I’ve learned the math of how they work. I’ve run Ollama on various infrastructure. I’ve trained my own small models. I given it an honest shot. At the end of the day, their output (especially “creative” stuff) is unreliable at best and complete garbage at worst.
Many people don’t want to buy AI art, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t. Instead of blaming consumers, artists, developers, etc should do the work to learn how to actually make shit themselves and stop complaining that people don’t want slop.
I won’t rehash that argument for the umpteenth time. I’m not going to change your mind, and you’re not going to change mine. Summed up, my retort is that if the AI “stole” content, then so did every artist who ever watched a Disney movie, and every author that read a book, and every programmer that looked at a repository. Theft inherently means something is gone, and the original owner no longer has it - nothing is gone, nothing was stolen.
You listed off a bunch of reasons why data centers are rationally hated, and I agree with you on that. However AI is not a data center. My open weight models running on my consumer hardware, powered by solar energy isn’t implicated by what data centers are guilty of. Yet you would apply the same labels to it, and it would draw the same irrational ire of people who only know “AI bad” because it’s the popular sentiment right now, and probably will be for a decade.
I’m not ashamed of my use of technology any more than you should be ashamed of using a computer - built in a factory, using rare earth minerals mined from our environment, likely utilizing dirty energy, potentially built by exploited labor, and statistically likely to be powered right now by dirty energy.
Usually I would agree with you that omission is lying, but as I’ve said, admitting you used AI will earn you nothing but scorn, with absolutely no benefit for the admission. If an angry mob knocked on your door and asked if there are any vulnerable people in your home, you’d be justified in not answering them at all, and simply slamming the door shut, and locking it. Then ignoring when they keep knocking. This is the same concept. Sometimes “lying” by omission is the right choice.
This is a terrible argument. Training a model on someone’s work is not inspiration. You’re anthropomorphizing a machine learning model. It’s not inspired. It doesn’t have an internal experience that informs its creations.
It’s generating output directly based on the statistical likelihood of its training set. That’s it. This is proven by the fact that many models can recreate styles and likenesses that would warrant litigation if a human did it. A machine learning model will always be definitionally derivative.
Clearly you’re trying to justify your AI use, which I understand. Inferencing locally does help, but unless you’re training your own models, that’s what actually takes the majority of resources.
Believe it or not, I’ve experimented with a lot of AI. I’ve learned the math of how they work. I’ve run Ollama on various infrastructure. I’ve trained my own small models. I given it an honest shot. At the end of the day, their output (especially “creative” stuff) is unreliable at best and complete garbage at worst.
Many people don’t want to buy AI art, and in my opinion, they shouldn’t. Instead of blaming consumers, artists, developers, etc should do the work to learn how to actually make shit themselves and stop complaining that people don’t want slop.