Comment on Procreate's anti-AI pledge attracts praise from digital creatives

istanbullu@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  It uses too much power.

  They steal from those that actually create work and don’t pay them for the [sarcasm] privellege [/sarcasm]. People have to eat and as creatives we need to be paid for our work, or those feeding the models data need to create the work themselves which they can’t do because most of them have invested 0 time or skill into actually being creative in that way.

  Its results are often bad.

  It’s just the latest line in a long list of scams designed to give money and power to those on the top of the pile already, see: Cryptocurrency, nfts, loot boxes, microtransactions etc.

  source

  • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    You should read these two articles from Cory Doctorow. I’d like to hear your thoughts.

    pluralistic.net/…/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#in…

    pluralistic.net/2023/02/09/ai-monkeys-paw/

    source

    • SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      When I bring this up, people keep talking about copyright. I’m not really sure as I don’t explicitly say anything about copyright. I’m personally against copyright, what I’m for is two things:

      Creative people, under a system where they need money to live and to continue to create art of all types to get paid and consent.

      The first is a very important point because, if you don’t have to pay an actual artist to create things then they won’t get paid and thus won’t be able to live, that’s why Machine Learning is bad under capitalism.

      The second is also very important but that tech obsessives, big companies time and time again don’t care enough about. Consent should be sought explicitly before any data is used, time and time again this is not done, so, the next point about consent should be brought up in that consent should be able to be revoked at any point for any reason without consequences.

      That’s what I care about, not copyright in and of itself, I care about people getting paid at a price they’ve set for every piece of data that’s fed into them and explicit revocable consent being given to train the machines, that’s it.

      If those two conditions are met then personally then I’d likely have no problem with it.

      source

      • Even_Adder@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Did you read the first one?

        Making quantitative observations about works is a longstanding, respected and important tool for criticism, analysis, archiving and new acts of creation. Measuring the steady contraction of the vocabulary in successive Agatha Christie novels turns out to offer a fascinating window into her dementia: theguardian.com/…/agatha-christie-alzheimers-rese…

        The final step in training a model is publishing the conclusions of the quantitative analysis of the temporarily copied documents as software code. Code itself is a form of expressive speech – and that expressivity is key to the fight for privacy, because the fact that code is speech limits how governments can censor software: eff.org/…/remembering-case-established-code-speec…

        What you want would give Disney broad powers to oppressively control large amounts of popular discourse. I acknowledge that Specific expressions deserve protection and should retain specific rights, and rights they don’t have always enabled ethical self-expression and productive dialogue. Wanting to bar others from analyzing your work to keep them from iterating on your ideas or expressing the same ideas differently is both is selfish and harmful.

        You’re against the type of system you desperately want to become. Using things “without permission” forms the bedrock on which artistic expression and free speech as a whole are built upon. I don’t think any state is going to pass a law that guts the core freedoms of art, research, and basic functionality of the internet and computers.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • istanbullu@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    So does traveling in an airplane, but we let people do that.

    source

    • SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I seriously doubt travelling in an airplane does all the listed things.

      source
    • xilliah@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      What she said plus lots of people don’t fly.

      source
• xilliah@beehaw.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I’m mostly on your side but I did just cancel my gpt4 subscription.

  There’s several factors but the main one is that it just uses a whole lot of power and materials eventhough I don’t really need it.

  For example it helped me learn about electronics, and it was effective at that. But I feel it’s more efficient to just buy an ebook. It just feels slightly less convenient, but actually is healthier for my focus.

  It’s kinda like with bitcoin. It isn’t a net positive given our current situation.

  The other thing it was good at was searching information and providing it in a uniform format, rather than the mess that is the web rn. But installing Firefox and a bunch of extensions solved that. And search engines allow for generating an LLM response when I feel it would really help.

  source
• FlorianSimon@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  There are multiple reasons:

  • for plenty of use cases where it’s supposed to help, it just plain doesn’t work (software engineering being my main use case, but it does not help find obscure songs/games either).
  • it’s fundamentally unsafe, which matters in a lot of cases where the evangelists want to put AI into.
  • the resource usage to train models is crazy. To the point of delaying Google’s carbon neutrality plans for instance. It’s also expected to put a significant toll on energy grids worldwide for the years to come, which is the last thing we need on a burning planet.
  • it’s being pushed by evil actors like big tech billionaires, who aren’t trusted to do the right things with the tech.
  • it’s already proven harmful (cf Air Canada’s chatbot, or the idiots on today’s other HN LLM subject saying they use it for medical advice or electric work among many examples)
  • it’s overhyped, much like crypto. Way too many promises, and it does not deliver.

  My sentiment on the reliability is shared in my team, among people that used it a bit more: it’s a garbage machine.

  I do fear it might train a generation of software professionals that don’t know how to code, which is going to harm them (unemployable) or the people they serve, but I might be overreacting due to the fact that the only a person I knew who claimed to use LLMs professionally was a hack who’s using LLMs as a palliative for general lack of skills and low output. Come to think of it, this is precisely the kind of people that should be cautious around LLMs, because they can’t review the LLM’s output accurately for dangerous hallucinations.

  I do ask ChatGPT questions sometimes, but honestly pretty rarely. I use it as a complement to regular Search, and nothing more, because it can’t get the basics right most of the time.

  source