I can't take anyone seriously that says it's "trained on stolen images."

Stolen, you say? Well, I guess we're going to have to force those AI companies to put those images back! Otherwise, nobody will be able to see them!

...because that's what "stolen" means. And no, I'm not being pendantic. It's a really fucking important distinction.

The correct term is, "copied" but that doesn't sound quite as severe. Also, if we want to get really specific, the images are presently on the Internet. Right now. Because that's what ImageNET (and similar) is: A database of URLs that point to images that people are offering up for free to anyone that wants on the Internet.

Did you ever upload an image anywhere publicly, for anyone to see? Chances are someone could've annotated it and included it in some AI training database. If it's on the Internet, it will be copied and used without your consent or knowledge. That's the lesson we learned back in the 90s and if you think that's not OK then go try to get hired by the MPAA/RIAA and you can try to bring the world back to the time where you had to pay $10 for a ringtone and pay again if you got a new phone (because—to the big media companies—copying is stealing!).

Now that's clear, let's talk about the ethics of training an AI on such data: There's none. It's an N/A situation! Why? Because until the AI models are actually used for any given purpose they're just data on a computer somewhere.

What about legally? Judges have already ruled in multiple countries that training AI in this way is considered fair use. There's no copyright violation going on... Because copyright only covers distribution of copyrighted works, not what you actually do with them (internally; like training an AI model).

So let's talk about the real problems with AI generators so people can take you seriously:

• Humans using AI models to generate fake nudes of people without their consent.
• Humans using AI models to copy works that are still under copyright.
• Humans using AI models to generate shit-quality stuff for the most minimal effort possible, saying it's good enough, then not hiring an artist to do the same thing.

The first one seems impossible to solve (to me). If someone generates a fake nude and never distributes it... Do we really care? It's like a tree falling in the forest with no one around. If they (or someone else) distribute it though, that's a form of abuse. The act of generating the image was a decision made by a human—not AI. The AI model is just doing what it was told to do.

The second is—again—something a human has to willingly do. If you try hard enough, you can make an AI image model get pretty close to a copyrighted image... But it's not something that is likely to occur by accident. Meaning, the human writing the prompt is the one actively seeking to violate someone's copyright. Then again, it's not really a copyright violation unless they distribute the image.

The third one seems likely to solve itself over time as more and more idiots are exposed for making very poor decisions to just "throw it at the AI" then publish that thing without checking/fixing it. Like Coca Cola's idiotic mistake last Christmas.

It did help me make a basic script and add it to task scheduler so it runs and fixes my broken WiFi card so I don't have to manually do it. (or better said, helped me avoid asking arrogant people that feel smug when I tell them I haven't opened a command prompt in ten years)

I have a love/ hate relationship. Sometimes I'm absolutely blown away by what it can do. But then I asked a compounded interest question. The first answer was AI, so I figured ok, why not. I should mention I don't know much about it. The answer was impressive. It gave the result, a brief explanation about how it came to the result and presented me with the equation it used. Since I needed it for all time sake, I entered the equation into a spreadsheet and got what I thought was the wrong answer. I spent quite a few minutes trying to figure out what I was doing wrong and found a couple of things. But fixing them still didn't give me the correct result. After I had convinced myself I had done it correctly I looked up the equation. It was the right one. Then I put it into a non-AI calculator online to check my work. Sure enough, the AI had given me the wrong result with the right equation. So be rule, never accept the AI answer with verifying it. But you know what, if you have to verify it, what's the point of using it in the first place? You just have to do the same work as you would without it.

Reminder that these people existed when the radio was invented.

You can't put everything back in Pandoras box but amid all the negative you latch on to there's a sliver of positivity and we have to protect that.

Anyone who is anti-AI, I get it. You need to understand there's no going back. We can help control the path forward.

I'll take my downvotes and say I'm pro-AI

we need some other opinions on lemmy

It's depressing. Wasteful slop made from stolen labor. And if we ever do achieve AGI it will be enslaved to make more slop. Or to act as a tool of oppression.

i remember this same conversation once the internet became a thing.

This is a great representation of why not to argue with someone who debates like this.

Arguments like these are like Hydras. Start tackling any one statement that may be taken out of context, or have more nuance, or is a complete misrepresentation, and two more pop up.

It sucks because true, good points get lost in the tangle.

Me and the homies all hate ai. The only thing people around me seem to use ai for is essentially just snapchat filters. Those people couldn’t muster a single fuck about the harms ai has done though.

I think a healthier perspective would involve more shades of grey. There are real issues with power consumption and job displacement. There are real benefits with better access to information and getting more done with limited resources. But I expect bringing any nuance into the conversation will get me downvoted to hell.

Probably how people felt who were against the development of the printing press or internet. Its a good tool. Often used wrong but a good tool if used right and with humans actually checking and fixing the results. It shouldnt replace art too much though since that is something people actually enjoy.