@@seeinredbased on boeing's record these days, you'd be found abandoned in your own car, with a cranial bullet wound, and you'd be found in a deserted location
The front end of AI is where you get to generate fun images and songs. The back end of AI are scanning all your messages and profiling you. Truth is, big tech already know who we are, they just need the legal system changed to officially go after people.
What do you mean go after people? They don't care who you are or what you've done, they just want to sell your data to advertisers. They don't need any form of ID, and they don't need any legislation to change (other than maybe for the EU to back down on privacy laws).
@@widgity Do you know how much more valuable your data will be if they can sell it with your legal name attached, over selling them as metadata? That's what an online ID really means, all your online activities must have your name attached to it. Meaning they can be bought and sold as is. From data brokers, advertisers, scammers, and your own government, plenty of special interest are willing to pay good money for that.
what a valuable data they are gonna have on me, 3 am google searches for "fnnuy cats" and "top 10 creative and fun ways to unalive yourself", goverement officials will be so proud that this is what they've funded this thing for😂
@@KorbAgain "We don't control content, we create context." Is it even more of a feverish nightmare when it's a man's nightmare of losing humanity in a constantly evolving world, that we're seeing in a game about a gender-ambiguous man fighting giant robots, the president of the United State, and bisexual vampire.
@@MrSolidsnake293"y'all" Sorry snake, a 3rd world country where I am doesn't even thought of buying a PS until like 2010s-2020s, and even rarer to acknowledge emulators. Hell, I got a new PC and it's strong enough to play the game. I bet most people who watched the AI speech haven't played the game yet, and I'm one of them.
Nah, this was always intended to happen; it was a preemptive strike, an effort to create a narrative in which taking control is seen as protection rather than oppression. They know AI is coming, that it's nearing its technological zenith... And they hope by doing this they might be able to justify greater atrocities in efforts to control such power exclusively for those in positions of power. The fact that so much more info and control can be gained in addition is just a nice lil benefit on the side.
It is really funny to see how ai art and music is getting better, but ai coding is the most buggy, error filled, slop to exist. Like coders probably don’t have to worry, because someone is going to need to fix those problems. Also the fact that ais are starting to eat each other to get more data and putting out worse and worse things is very amusing
The problem is that coding needs to be extremely specific and accurate. Art and music can work with lots of imperfections. If you know art and music you will see the sloppy work the AI is doing. Its just as bad as the coding. Its just that bad art still works. Bad code doesn't tend to. Art is more subjective I guess.
@@Merilirem AI "Art" has a look that many artists can spot immediately even from small thumbnails. When you understand that image generation functions much like a glorified text autocomplete, where it creates an image by placing a pixel that is statistically most likely to appear next to another, it may never actually be able to get rid of the bland and uncanny outputs it's known for. In a workplace setting, you would submit art for approval, get feedback, and make iterative changes. AI is not capable of this, making it as useless as AI generated code, for very similar reasons.
@@jarvy251the scariest part is that some of those artists got annihilated by the "ai or hitler" challenge (this was on tumblr, i got no idea how to find it) The same kind of disgusting... Lack of something... That i felt in hitlers otherwise surprisingly nice drawings is what i also feel from AI art And the artists that felt so confident in finding AI art got stumped because that same undercurrent was in both drawings
@@angrydragonslayer Yeah I recall some of hitler's paintings had AI-like logical inconsistencies, like a stone staircase that partially covers a door. Its definitely displeasing to look at. I wonder how I'd do on that test.
Well, the only thing I would say I don't 100% agree with is that humans are inherently evil. I will say however, that over time, and as people learn a new system, those that are morally dubious *will* find ways to abuse whatever systems and safeguards that exist. Any such system needs to be fluid to be able to react quickly to counter abusers before things get out of hand. exactly like current Cybersecurity: 2 sides constantly finding new ways to counter the other sides old methods.
@@Rebelphantum If your talking about ai, 90% of what I’ve seen it used for ( I avoid it when possible, so the only thing I see it on is advertising) is the most dogshit scam advertisement imaginable. A real doctors face with ai voice selling boner pills using the censor avoidant language (poor lady, she’s a professional who doesn’t deserve having her likeness stolen to sell shit pills) or some stock image of a black woman using ai speech in half assed attempt at imitating African American speech patterns, with some causal racism thrown in, all trying to scam old people of social security. All this on this platform. Watermarks should be mandatory for any ai content. Machine readable ones. Ai usage should be considered an aggregating circumstance for punishment.
Most of what I’ve seen it used for is vaguely racist ads trying to sell boner pills with stolen likenesses of nurses and social security scams. Watermarks identifying ai content should be mandatory and machine readable, like a hash attached to audio and image files.
people aren't evil, the allocation of space to become evil is just to great for some to bear. to be honest and good is too much for the weak to handle, and it was all written before in a book people failed to read.
I would also like to add that a lot of people work under systems where "evil" actions, or at least selfish ones, is often rewarded, and where being "good" is often punished. So people could actually be quite altruistic under normal conditions, but have been conditioned over long periods of time to act evil because it's in their own best interests to do so. No morality under an amoral system, and all that. I still think under a different system, AI would have had so much potential to push mankind forward in the right direction. It's just a shame that we weren't really going in the right direction to begin with.
They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And that might be true, but I'd wager most of it's patched with the souls of those who seek to corrupt those intentions.
this fr. I see AI as a great tool being misused against artists, because why would AI-generated speedpaint exist for a piece of art a man could not bother make? There are just so many features made to fake one's artistic ability just to stand out among the crowd, and it's been doing nothing but making people pointing fingers at each other in doubts. And some of those hands have 6 fingers.
Friendly reminder that the path of least resistance between a point of relative freedom and a point of strict and overbearing regulation is to manufacture a situation in which the populace themselves beg for the restriction of their rights in exchange for their "safety."
While I don't disagree with most of the video, the actual reason for it isn't some grand master plan, it's simply that there is no way to regulate it really, our regulatory systems simply aren't built in a way where they could handle something like AI and tbh I don't know how any non-totalitarian system could do that anyways.
If you talk to actual software engineers that make the stuff, they will say they want to usher in a new age or bring a new "better than humanity" lifeform or whatever into this world. Basically, they're cultists. There's a clip on the Rogan podcast where someone talks about this. If you ever ask them what they think about AI replacing humans, they will say it's a good thing anyway. We're dealing with really demented people here.
@@niwoh And there's the rub... Governments and tech institutions have invested heavily into AI, while at the same time talking bout the potential problems it would create that would ultimately require large-scale censorship in order to regulate it. *Almost like they heavily invested in the "excuse" they would need to justify the authoritarian "solution" they actually wanted from the beginning...*
Funny how this was partially predicted by MGS 2 of all things. Living in the early stages of a Cyberpunk dystopia was not something I ever predicted growing up.
AI anything annoys me solely off the fact that all it's primarily used for is to replace the entertainment and expression of the people by using stolen assets or patterns. Let alone all the over stuff people use it for negatively.
In the end its the most effective path to creation beyond what humans can dream of now. Its just that we aren't ready for it and need to adjust. Growing pains are normal. Every advancement goes through some. AI isn't just a tool to replace humans. To use it like that is as big of a waste as the humans being replaced. Hopefully they realize that even when its refined into a proper tool, it will need to be used by people who understand what its trying to accomplish.
@@Merilirem "In the end its the most effective path to creation beyond what humans can dream of now." What do you mean by effective? The way the AI functions, it's merely a statistical average of the data it already has. It determines what pixel is statistically most likely to be placed beside another. By definition, it cannot innovate, it works on averages. This is why AI "Art" is often instantly spottable by artists, they all sort of look the same. That's not something that has improved over time, and may even be getting worse as the AI begins to cannibalize already mind-boggling volume of AI generated images that have flooded the internet to feed it dataset.
@@jarvy251 Are you an artist? As someone who has drawn for over 10 years, I can tell you that simply, you are wrong. Artists cannot tell AI art just because it looks the "same", they actually have a hard time unless the AI made very obvious mistakes, and THAT is what annoys them. The fact a machine can do what they can, the only way to cope is to mock it, belittle the users of the program and attack the programmers. People who hate AI art, are absolutely no different, from the people who hated artists for getting massive egos. Before AI, I watched artists ripping each other apart gleefully over any excuse possible, be it "style stealing", "tracing" or "recolors", with or without proof, they'd try to crush lesser or budding artists with zero remorse. And now an alternative has appeared and is FAR cheaper and MORE agreeable, and now artists realize, "oh no, the people we treated as moneybags are moving on". The art community attacked me for as little as defending an artist in the past, and they attack me now for defending those who utilize AI. Nothing changes.
@@mycocodog47 im confused, do artists now deserve to have their entire careers destroyed because some of them were egotistical assholes? AI is only being used as "a tool" for right now because this is the infancy stage where it will be as crappy as it ever will be. but what happens in 5-10 years when models are heavily refined to not generate 15 broken fingers on one hand? it is going to be a full-on replacement for a LOT of people. the more the AI is trained and perfected, the more people are going to be replaced. what annoys artists about AI art is kind of like doing math free-hand versus a calculator. doing it freehand requires you actually understand the processes of the equation and know how to solve the problem, and showcase your work. then here comes an AI program that solves it in .000001 seconds and can spit out the formula in the exact same way as the guy who did it freehand. but there's nothing to be impressed about, its just a machine spitting something out with no effort. the issue is that many people only care about what the end result looks like, and if they can find a way to create something that's pretty similar, requires very little downtime, no effort, and very minimal financial spending to do it, that's what they're going to use. like imagine any of Michelangelo's iconic church art done with the basic tools he used, versus a machine with a million individual pipes that shot out paintballs and recreated it in 1 second. its cool to see what stuff computers can do, but there's no inherent value in it. all AI is doing is creating an environment where hyper-optimal performance to get a picture generated as properly and quickly as possible is the only meaningful metric to art.
@@Kielix Absolutely everything you said is incorrect. The value of art is determined by demand, and the idea of free hand mathematicians being bothered by others using calculators is laughable, the people free handing are the ONLY ones who need or want to utilize arithmetic at that level, the people using calculators simply have ZERO need to be at that level. Your examples are so extreme that they prove nothing about what you are trying to imply, as they are so removed from reality that it makes zero sense whatsoever. Michelangelo was famous because he was an exemplary artists for his time and is revered today for doing what he had done in the time period he was alive, this is a HUGE difficulty to the current year in which society, religion, entertainment and more have developed to such absurd degrees. If Michelangelo did what he did in the current day, he would be another artist. Your feelings toward AI are simply too extreme for you to rationally consider what even fits your argument. You'd be better off saying, "AI is bad because artists in the 16th century didn't have access to computers or modern technology, so AI has an unfair advantage in replicating their works".
I think you're getting into the realm of conspiracy. The real reason is that open-source has always been a big thing in the tech community. We really value open-sourcing new cool stuff because otherwise it's just owned completely by the corporate walled garden.
Virtual Passports are going to be a thing within the Decade. This feels so close to the description of that concept. The idea of Information control and monitoring of the populace done through a virtual identifier that soon most website are probably going to require. And it sounds ripped out of Metal Gear
I want to say something to debate the whole "AI is destroying artist and musician careers." imo, this has started long before AI was a thing. The thing destroying both art and music careers was the over-corporatization and monetization of the creative fields. You see this with soul-less Disney films, soul-less Taylor Swift songs, soul-less RUclips channels, etc. This all happened way before 2021-2022 before generative AI truly started to kick off. Various internet services like Fiverr and shit already made art and music far from a lucrative career before generative AI was in the picture. Now, AI might be the one putting the nail in the coffin, but less not ignore the ones building those coffin walls in the first place.
@@jeandrickgiel Sorry, we're gonna have to suspend your travel visa because of this threatening comment. We'll be speaking to the crown prosecutor about possible additional action, and you'll be hearing from us soon.
I think I've already seen China implementing and refining these programs into their monitoring systems for both the internet and real life. Got into an argument with someone from their and mentioning a little to much about how their government is corrupt on discord and they just vanished out of no where in the middle of their argument. They were using a VPN but I couldn't help but guess their computer was likely compromised to monitoring by the party.
Hi, Peter Griffin (Tof) here. The Twitter suspension was for 12 hours, and was most likely for using a combination of words like "you should yourself with a weapon". About the end of anonymity - honestly I think it will take time, but people will start finding ways to combat mandatory identifications. It's gonna be a painfully slow process, I might be dead long before it's done. But hey, there's always that chance. Also side not - I kept thinkinf about breaking that barrel in the background to the right from you. What loot does it have?
Any sane person would see the phrase “you should draw yourself with a cool weapon” and not think that’s remotely suspendable- time regardless - which is why have automated systems flag and punish phrases like that without discrimination or filtering is so dangerous. The instant that kind of false flagging gets on peoples irl permanent records it’s over The barrel has rupees
@@CoreOfMidasyuh agreed, even a first grader with limited vocabulary would see through this kind of simple context. Here's for the cyber revolutionary to rise up. I'm taking the rupees. Mine now~
You can't train the models as fast with a closed beta. If the general audience keeps asking for big booba nurse Salma Hayek, then your AI model will refine this precise request much faster if you let it cater to the general audience.
And? They knew this and they knew the danger of rushing gathering their data this way, it was more than possible to do it ethically. But this is the one net positive for any government slobbering to control a population
@@CoreOfMidas My point is you don't train an AI with a limited data set, open and free tests give you the invaluable information of knowing when the average user is satisfied with the AI interaction, that is when they pause to share or save the result instead of asking for a new iteration. It lets the AI model learn user satisfaction and compliance values.
@@TheZapan99 That just requires lots of users. It doesn't address where the training data comes from. They didn't have to steal the data from the internet. they could have easily worked with artists to catalog different styles and then trained it on those.
@@TheZapan99 all well and good, but none of this proves my point false. It can be an additional set of information, but it’s not the point of my conversation here. I genuinely would rather my rights and freedoms instead of a neat toy to play with.
@@JaneDoe-dg1gv They didn't care is the main point. There wasn't even a moment where they initially considered artists before they went for the easy solution. This was careless laziness and chasing the easiest sources of data. Its not some grand conspiracy or clever plan. They literally just did not care enough to consider any ramifications or ethical issues. This is how my country runs itself too. Even when its a bad idea they push ahead because someone saw short term profit or an easy way to do something and didn't consider anything past that first step. It blows up in their face every time but they don't learn so it keeps happening. The AI art mess is just people not thinking thongs through. Like a kid who posts crimes on tictok to get famous.
I think this is a true conspiracy theory. Not because any of the content is wrong, but because of how it is linked up. The push for AI is a push for an infinite money machine, and everyone wants an infinite money machine, as long as it doesn't affect inflation. Which AI produced content promises to be. The result of that is, if you want non-AI produced content (true content) then you're going to need verification, which requires ID. This was never the goal, this is the consequence of pursuing an infinite money machine. First slaves were an infiinite money machine, then they made water wheels and factories, now in the silicon age it's AI. We are always pursuing infinite money machines, and there will always be regulation. Factories didn't have regulations and hired children, but the regulations were added and now we all have to prove we are people before getting work. Slaves didn't have regulations, as long as you could force someone into work they would, until the English came along and abolished slavery (by buying every slave in the English Empire after America's war for independance. Yes England abolished slavery before America and a proportion of every taxed pound went to this until 2015, when the price for buying and freeing every slave in the empire had been finally reached). So, now we have a new infinite money machine, and are waiting on governments to impliment regulations to make sure we don't fall into an anarcho-capitalist society where one group doesn't allow AI, one allows AI and one is ambivalent. And governments really don't want anacho-capitalism, so you can sleep easy knowing this will have regulations, because Geo-politics are a thing. Governments are debating whether TikTok should be allowed and that's only partitally AI. Full fledged AI will not have full freedoms, just like us
agreed for the most part that they probably didn't have privacy busting in mind when they started ai image generator research / development i think the government has been fighting to take privacy away for a long while, wiretapping phones / the whole thing NSA and edward snowden, being able to use AI to justify invading our privacy is just one more unhappy consequence of AI, but also that's good in a way since people have been fighting for privacy for a long time, there is the electronic frontier foundation just off the top of my head, probably more so hopefully AI won't be the last straw that rips away any privacy we still have, really smoking copium lol
@3:00 Not necessarily true. In Canada the law often won’t do anything about online stuff because they usually can’t prove you were actually in control of the electronic device at the time even if it is your account and it is verified to be owned by you. I had a cop literally explain this to me when I reported someone for threatening me. They can argue “well I was asleep and someone at a party used my phone” or any number of things.
It's also pretty transparently the case when you see who created these things. They didn't start at the corporate level, like, Deviant Art didn't say "ehehehe! Yes! With THIS we'll be able to make GAZILLIONS of dollars through BOT account artists creating art that looks identical to the earners on our platform! BWAHAHAHAA!" It was thinktanks. It was government funded generative programs foreign and domestic that "generously" made all their "research" (IE: programs) open-source. Thank you, Doomer-chan, now put on the bunnysuit and stop noticing things so good.
Freedoms and oppression come and go with the passing of an age. There will always be those who seek to dominate your freedoms and your will. It is only by taking action against one's oppressors and standing up for ones civil liberties that such evils can be pushed back. In the end, you must never stop fighting for your own beliefs.
Frankly, idk if killing internet anonymity is enough. Data is so unsafe that untraceable identity theft is just too easy. Pretty much the only thing restricting AI at this moment is the very low profitability it has as a field of study/service. It's only good for espionage and copyright theft right now, as the technology isn't consistent enough to do much else. If the govt really cared, than they would have prevented projects like these from even starting up. It's hard to imagine things getting better at this point.
I wouldn't say people are inherently evil no. I would say that the people who most often succeed in our currently economic and political system do evil in an effort to acquire more security for themselves.
Yep, Judge a system on it's outcomes, not it's stated intents. An AI (like image generation) that primarily aids grifters in grifting is therefore a grift machine above all else. If a technology necessitates an end to anonymity, then that is it's purpose.
Yeah. As an author I miss the days you could commission art and not worry about wether it's ai or not. Back then all we had to worry about is being sold stock footage.
Just ask for the photoshop file or WIP. Lots of companies even ask for references and any exploration pictures you used. Pretty common in design competitions tbh.
@@ivan_says_hi I have a ton on my schedule......Adding these to my list is a huge hassle. I do thank you though for the honest advice. I may take it, but it's still a huge stress added to my job
@@gatu_sad You're implying that AI might take over Brazil in 50 years. You could be the one to trailblaze the AI industry and baptize your people with the blessings of the Omnissiah.
I feel like we are fast approaching a situation in which a person who's life was ruined by AI, is going to find out the offices of these developers and bad things are going to happen, and then its going to escalate things even more.
To me it seems way more likely a mix of three factors: - Venture capitalism and tech companies trying to amass a massive userbase by losing money on "free" products - Laws and regulations regarding massive data collection being less strict when it's for research, thus making at least part of the steps needed to recreate a project available to the public - The tech behind it in itself being cool, making people *want* to develop for it. Rather than it being a ploy to give the government more power, it feels more like capitalism doing it's thing yet again
Literally just 2 hours after I write this I saw somebody make a web-app that makes realistic real-time deep fakes easily accessible to anyone. Their primary motivation seemed to be money, nothing to do with government regulation. Extremely irresponsible.
Its Open Source because Open source is the fastest way to develop the technology while ensuring it cannot be censored. Exactly what the Open source community likes. They follow a libertarian mindset and do not see potential for abuse as reason to censor technology.
I'm pretty sure I saw an AI-voiced meme (Metal Gear Solid 2, fittingly enough) that made your exact same points. "You will be required to provide proof of your humanity in order to do any kind of business online. After all, do you honestly think that any businesses would be willing to risk dealing with a digital mirage instead of a real person?" Something along those lines. - Create a problem: allow easy access to high quality AI generation. - Queue an influx of false, AI-generated information, creating a crisis of fake news. - Counteract the manufactured crisis by increasing mandatory proof of humanity. - This makes it easier to identify dissidents online, and consequently allows greater control of narrative, under the guise of "providing context". - Silence dissenting voices with censorship and/or threats of legal violence if they don't fall in line. - Profit.
private organizations putting ai up for open source could also be for development reasons something being open source just objectively speeds up its development
I'd agree that ai music and art has severely harmed the industry but imo the most blatant and realistic thing it's done so far is drown out the "nobodies" of the industry. People who aren't good, terrible, those who copy and those who purposely making slop. Ai will make it harder to half ass your way up and mean you'll actually have to be good, I'm sure I don't have to tell any body in the know about the massive over saturation of art and music before ai. I won't deny the damage it has done to artists and musicians but honestly, cutting away the fear mongering, ai has like another 5 years of no regulation before it becomes a unstoppable monster. I honestly check artist sites and the people making and viewing ai art, trust me, they ain't the people looking to pay artist in the first place.
Oh you are right on the mark. Mortal Kombat made Ermac on accident due to what would now be identified as AI art. The first MK on Sega and SNES, had an "Error Machine" from scorpion, came with a change of color on the attire to red. Came with the spear throw move but without the spear animation; since it was an error, making it seem as if it is telekinesis. People thought it was a character that they slipped into the game other than Reptile. But Netherrealm Studios at the time didn't do this on purpose. They went along with it after "ERror MAChine" got its nickname from the public. This happened again on purpose during Mortal Kombat 2 with Katana, which is why we have the Blood Witch Skarlet. Case and point, Netherrealm Studios developed characters using an AI Generated environment with their own assets. So with that in mind, how AI is being used not under the same morals is alarming.
Honestly, AI being FOSS is probably the best outcome here. The point of FOSS projects is to give knowledge and power to everyone. For Artists, copyright is what protects them, but for things involving medicine, technology, education and more, it becomes a privilege that the rich and powerful can abuse. It's why you have people advocating for free health care and free college books, because they're made ridiculously expensive for arbitrary reasons. OpenAI, home of GPT, is mocked for failings its promise stated in its name; it is now closed-source and for-profit, and have abandoned its roots. Now they've begun to make claims that corporations should take the mantle of responsibility that is AI ethics. Corporations? Ethics? Yikes. Just in case anyone is curious, our corporate overlords seem more interested in censoring offensive things AI say than address the wide-reaching harm they cause. And, well, as it just so happened, the rich and powerful have a say on what government does. Big tech must never be the only ones to have access to AI, because then they would be only ones to dictate the policy surrounding it. By making it FOSS, at least the people will have the opportunity to understand and have a means to fight back.
I don't necessarily agree with the regulation bit. My guess was always that they made it easy to use and widely available because customer input is basically free data for them to build off of.
In all of human history we make something that can either make our lives easier or make things more efficient. Remember when cars were first introduced? Killed a lot of horse carriage business. Remember when telephones and mobile phones became a thing? Yeah Mail services also got shoved in. Remember when televisions were first introduced? Killed the cinemas and theaters that's for sure. Remember when the computer and internet were first introduced? Yeah people said it wouldn't hit big that it wouldn't change a thing yet in the modern era it became the new norm. New tech beats old tech that's that, but that doesn't mean you can incorporate it to the new tech into your design. I know, humans hate change, they hate stuff, that they don't fully understand, or even know its full capability and rather are repulsed by the danger of what it can cause. The Fear of being replaced of being redundant. Years of training feels wasted when an a billion dollar AI that has decades of data fed in its self learning capabilities slowly overtakes your field of expertise. The irony in this however is that while Humanity hates changes they are one of the most adaptable creatures on this world and I think they should use that to their advantage. Mumbling philisophy aside in a Politcal World view sense everyone's raising for the next who can go over to the moon first scenario trying to race towards creating perfect AI. There's no way of stopping it we're on Roko's basilisk theory now.
AI art is no different than photoshop it has changed nothing if anything it has killed photoshop when people see AI art they immediately see that it's fake and become disappointed in it even I used it for a day and became bord with it it just can't do what real artists are capable of
A very naïve point of view. Ai can make realistic video, audio, vocal cloning, and yes, art. And it improves daily. As for artists, the reason you think it can’t replicate or do what artists do is because you haven’t been able to clock the people who are GOOD at using it, and are larping as real artists and not being caught- only lazy people are the ones who get caught. Anyway, thank you for the good banter :)! Have a good day internet person
@@CoreOfMidas " the reason you think it can’t replicate or do what artists do is because you haven’t been able to clock the people who are GOOD at using it" I'm not sure about that. THe way AI generated illustrations function means they almost inevitably have a certain look, as pixels are placed by statistical averages. I've seen VERY good artists go over an image to remove all the technical errors an AI is known for (hands, eyes, one aspect of the image blending into another) but they can never shake "the look" And frankly, by the time you've fixed all the mistakes, you could have made somethig from scratch.
@@CoreOfMidas The real sad part is that, AI art still gets more attention than most real artists, regardless of it's current flaws. Sure some people prefer a master's work by nitpicking AI, but nobody got the time for striving artists anymore.
@@jarvy251 Or they can just spam every platform with low quality AI junk. We seen all those fake AI youtube channels, and fake AI musics. So what if you figure it out after 10 seconds, it took them even less time to make it. They even bot their view counts to skew the algorithm.
i dont care about ai art because its been easily 20 years since anyone could possibly consume in a day the art produced in a day. once that metric passed it became irrelivent since no matter what it would just be a matter of attracting an audience in your own little raindrop no matter how big the ocean got around you.
They released it openly to boost its popularity. You could also argue that if the access to the tech was limited, those with access would have much more power over the public opinion through creating the fakes as the public just wouldn't know about it. Also, whether it destroys lives and careers of artists arguable, as before the AI boom there already was an oversupply of freelancing artists competing for customers. Also, you have the issue with scanning IDs even without the AI. Whenever you need to verify the age or something else about a person legally, you _have_ to check their ID. This includes online sale of alcohol, tobacco, or services that lets you rent cars online. You have to either scan your ID or visit a physical shop to verify yourself, and some services don't have the second option to cut down costs. That said, the moment RUclips starts requiring me to upload my ID, I'm out. I'm willing to trust anyone with that sensitive information.
There may very well come a day where you'll get fired from your job because an algorithm detected that your private messages indicate a 4% increase in the likelihood of joining a union, or a 23% probability of needing a raise to cover rent increases, or the microphone in your phone detected that you said something negative about the company in your own home.
Never expect "good intent" from the government. If you seem like you're winning because of something that came from them, someone else is winning way more and this is a way for them to make you accept whatever they're doing.
The wild west days of the net are long over, its only going to get worse. If you want to have a real uncensored conversation these days you need to go to a bar, or hang out in front of a gas station at 2am.
This is why with certain accounts of mine, I will not allow them access to any kind of real world identification. I'll just stop using their services first. A big part of the issue I've found is that while I still have old accounts I created and I can do this with, newly created accounts don't even have an option anymore. You can't make an account on a lot of sites now without putting in a phone number nowadays. It's crazy.
It's far more likely that people who want a digital ID are taking advantage of something that is occurring naturally. On the image generation side, this tech has been around for over a decade and we are now seeing independent programs built around it. The creators are not going to push for regulation because a lot of them are entrepreneurs and have sunk money into building this. Even smart regulations will hurt them and hinder the progress of anyone who is passionate about building these programs. The reason a lot of the stuff is open seems to be in line with how they are developing the tech. The updates seem to be around putting reigns on the beast so that when you use a prompt the program actually gives you what you want. They are building these programs with feedback. I wouldn't be shocked if they rug pull and this stuff becomes far less available once it gets to a certain point. I don't think they were expecting the backlash. Certainly in the beginning when we were generating images of fisher price guillotines, people seemed to be on board. The anti AI crowd is going to be the driving force behind the worst policies that come from this. Even if they don't actively support the specific proposed solutions they will be the backdrop for saying "anything is worth stopping ai." Porn has currently become that wedge. Even here and even knowing the issues on the horizon Midas soft agreed with it despite seeing the writing being on the wall. The 9/11 cycle is inescapable. You will be presented with problems so big that you will accept solutions that carry into decades of blow back. And unfortunately, the problems are big enough that you can hardly be blamed for it. Stuck between accumulating problems or bad solutions.
While I dislike some of the anti AI crowd siding with copyright law which is a disgusting force that has actively hurt fan projects and smaller artists over the years not to mention the horrible stuff groups like the RIAA have done. I still think maybe AI bros should not be stealing stuff from artists to feed into their training data without permission or consent or forcing this on everyone to drown the SEO or search results in millions of sludge images making sites unuseable. I love vaporwave music for example but I am tired of seeing thousands of bland playlists spat out of stuff like Sudo making it harder to find new works created by real musicians or artists in the scene.
@@sayachan6069 I don't have a problem with them copying images to train their programs. The trade off of using social media to build your brand is that everyone has access to your thing. And these programs aren't violating any IP laws as far as I can tell. The implementation and sludging up of the internet is incredibly crappy, but we've reached the reaping part or the process. Sewwing sure was nice while it lasted
The reason why AI images are easy to create is because humans as visual creatures have flooding the internet with images, you got massive amount of scrapable data that requires little to no context. A house is a house, the shape of a house may slighty vary between cultures but they all follow the same basic shape of an enclosure space with a roof. The government don't need an excuse to do something like this, they already have full control over your life by the simple and most basic mechanism: Money. What you can consume, what you can watch, what you can buy all pass trough various regulations that create an already existent entry barrier, chances are that the job you or the peoples around you do are jobs that produce no value but are created and kept in order to keep the money flowing and the semblance of society. Social media that are basically unprofitable receive cash from the government to act in certain ways. Everything is already compromised.
A fyi the technology behind this tracing will probably be C2PA org (funded by adobe), so not necessarily government IDs, but still crazy privacy infringements
the I in AI is nothing about imteligence to the point of going over humans, the supposed inteligent shit that AI art does now is recognize patters of pixels and replicate them, that is all! there is no AI that will take the bloody world over from thous programs
Regulation counter point: AI made stuff is not protected by any IP or copyright law and can be used by anyone and everyone that makes/made AI must say it is AI or get charged with a fee. The ID stuff is actually funny because, assuming it's not an account of someone who need the social media or live off it, you can just delete and make another one with your ID, my country requires ID when buying things from the internet and it isnt the end of the world and you cant and should not target you because your account was tagged by something. If the US gets an GDPR like law it's pretty much whatever if your ID is tied to account because the law also assures that your internet acc doesnt affect irl stuff, only breaking the law on irl can affect your internet acc. This is just tinfoil hat thinking.
I do not believe the conspiracy theory. It was just computer scientists realising that they can do some cool research (and it really is), and that very quickly got out of control. Artists needs to organise themselves on their terms, or things will be organised fpr them and only superficially in the best interests of artists. The Spotification of visual arts is bad scenario (ask musicians).
Your conclusion is in the right direction, but your rationale is off. Techology that reduces the need for people to cooperate is antisocial. AI developed with the intent to replace humans means those who control it will not have to cooperate with those who don't. AI is inherently expensive to develop and maintain, so the rich are in power here. Making AI easily accessible serves to democratise the technology. Would you rather only the people who control it benefits from it? If generative AI were release only to a few previlledge artists, it would further separate the capabilities of those selected from those who were not. Those who are hurt by generative AI are experiencing the disruption caused by the democratisation of new technology. Not adapting to the disruption is the problem.
But AI does the first thing first and foremost. Large corporations have always been willing to take a hit, because they can absorb a hit that smaller entities cannot. There's no large corpo that just generates images as a final product - they're things like films or game companies that use various art assets as part of a larger project. The antisocialness you refer to is in fact the goal, to eliminate the artists, actors, musicians, etc that are normally needed to form a greater whole. By flooding the internet with these generative products and promoting them as some sort of "democratization" or other such nonsense, they hope to normalize this low-quality slop to the point where it's accepted by the consumers. Thankfully, I don't think it's working. They pushed too hard too fast to get ahead of legislation. It's currently held aloft purely by enormous amounts of speculative investment that hasn't yet paid off, and will dry up the instant the wind blows the other way.
Companies are not intentionally democratising proprietary technology. They do so because they need a return on investment. It is merely a reaction of capitalism. Generative AI does not yet outright replace aritsts or professionals in other industries. It reduces the need for additional head count and in effect reduces job demand. However that is the same for any disruptive technology in history. Humans still have jobs and more than ever as in demand skills changed. It is still not apparent how generative AI is different from past disruptive technology other than it targets white collar jobs. By the way, cinema was considered low quality slop for the masses compared to theatre. And TV was considered lowbrow compared to cinema.
@@lunalune6880 "They do so because they need a return on investment." Ding ding ding, and what is that going to look like? It's either going to be as a people replacer (this is their main hope, but is unlikely to succeed as the shortcomings of AI become more apparent) or it's a rugpull- get enough people reliant on the technology, and then add a paywall. This has been the tech bro modus operandi for years now. Calling it "democractization" is delusional. It's like saying the drug dealer giving you your first hit for free is "democratization."
@@jarvy251 Yeah who needs artists or musicians when you can hire someone oversea to do both with AI? Not like management or shareholders can tell the difference in quality.
I honestly am impressed by how far ai has gotten ❤ I only have good intents for it and …I hope they don’t get rid of it but rather fix it by letting everyone have it and of course their has to be rules or something…just hope the best
Nah bro, it's open source cause people like to colaborate on cool stuff and it accelerates the research despite the best models being made only by companies with budget. But yes a mandatory digital id is a very convenient way to allow for censorship
To be honest - governmental regulations (in US and in lesser extent in the EU) are decades behind. I think the big reason is that there are severe lack of people who can keep up with tech among political elite. Fourty years old is pretty much low threshold for prominent politicians, barring few exceptions. 50 - 60 is common. So unless you came to power specifically on issues of internet and telecommunications, chances are - you have as much understanding of the issues of internet privacy as the regular person of that age, who lives most of their life offline. So, when issue arrives they do the only thing they can - bring some experts and work with interest groups. Unfortunately - that often means big business could try to influence the experts or try to bring their own. So most regulations historically were either tone deaf crackdown on freedoms that don't fix problems or the best kind of regulation from the big business standpoint - lack thereof. And since (at least from the PoV of politicians) terminally online folk, like ourselves, are a divided minority (even if quickly growing) we don't have enough of the voterbase to pursue us on the internet issues. I don't believe there is a big conspiracy. Although some three letter agencies could salivate at the prospect of mandatory ID, most people in politics simply didn't react, as they didn't with other internet crisises. There is some parallel to climate catastrophe. With environmentalists divided and far away, and oil lobbyists close and offering more power through campaign funding - there never was a pragmatic reason to fix the issues. As for solution - in my mind getting big money out of politics is a prerequisite. And to do that, unfortunately, people need to get involved in politics themselves - voting not enough. Organise alternative power structures, such as labor unions. Do information campaigns about the issues of money in politics. Try to create a voting block worth pursuing, so the issue will be picked up by current elites. It can be frustrating, but democracy is literally the easiest system for a regular person to influence. Use it to the fullest extent
I had a feeling that there was another problem with these ai. They're putting so much out so fast without any form of precaution that it felt almost intentional. I was kept being told that how much freedom it has, but these companies monetized the hell out of them with limits of what they can do and how many times they can use it. So honestly I don't see what kind of freedom that people actually have with it. And the worst part about it is they don't think anything is going to happen. They're comfortable believing companies would lose customers or that it's a necessary thing for progress, that kind of BS. But the problem with convenience is that it gets so good to you that you forget to fight. They let it go on brushing aside problems and even siding with it if it excites them enough, they would be the first ones to complain about it but it's too late to do anything. I'm looking at what's laid out before me, if this is the price to pay for progress I'd rather stay in the past for a little longer.
Pandora's box has been opened. It can't be corrected without the fix being more damaging than the problem. Also, unfortunate truth: most people don't actually care about the harm ai generated art can cause.
AI implementation has gone way beyond art already. And we've seen basically nothing yet compared to what we're going to see. In terms of government conduct, however, it isn't even kind of new. Going on since before you were born, before I was as well. The internet has given it more of a spotlight...and given how little most people react, conduct has gotten more brazen.
That was a massive logic leap from free access to AI to requiring proof of identity. I agree entirely with you on the problems of requiring ID on internet services, but I believe we can have free access to AI without it. AI is already being used as a propaganda tool by multiple governments around the world, this was inevitable the moment the technology was developed. The best way to counter it is to have AI freely available so that people will see what is possible with AI and learn to be sceptical of things that could be AI generated. Even before AI, most things on social media were fake, maybe AI will wake more people up to this fact.
I think the original reason was simply because the guys who work with the kind of code that works with these kinds of neural networks and hardware are the same kind of dudes that work on Linux and are use to Open Source code and projects. Just like ... hmm, how do I put this ... science is open, right? Like when someone makes a scientific discovery, they publish a paper on it and how they did it for everyone to replicate. Because of this, the next scientist can quickly learn this new idea and it might give them an idea on how to progress it to the next step faster. Open Source coding works the same way, and A.I. being open source like it is, is specifically how it's been able to progress as quickly as it has been. Now here, in this video, you're arguing that it's been done on purpose as an excuse to regulate the average person. And I won't deny that such arguments are being thrown around now. But I'm also going to counter-argue this from a very American perspective: what world would you rather live in? A world where everyone has access to A.I., or a world where only the rich, powerful, corporate, and governments have access to A.I.? I call this an American argument because I think an analogy to it would be the right to bear arms. Most European countries, and even Canada now, don't want to let the average person have access to firearms because "a ton of damage will come from it", obviously. And that's true. But one can also tell that people who are determined to hurt someone are going to use a knife, or a car, or even an iron skillet to do so - but now if the rich and powerful in corporations and government want to assemble armies of people with machine guns to use force to get their way, the average man no longer has any recourse or chance to fight back against them in those countries. In the United States, the argument for the average person to always have a right to defend themselves with firearms persists, even at the expense of bad people having access to them and using them to do terrible things on a daily basis, because that is still seen as a sacrifice we're willing to make to stand a chance against potential tyranny. I argue A.I. being publicly available to everyone is much in the same vein - if the public didn't have access to A.I., and only the rich and governments did, then the rich and governments would much more easily be able to use it to create misinformation to persuade and control the masses. Now, since A.I. is open and available to all, yes - it's causing problems, lots of small problems left and right in peoples lives - but these small problems and tiny A.I. hoaxes have now made the average population much more aware and conscious of the possibility of something being fake, which makes governments and corporations struggle much harder to use this otherwise very influential technology to influence us in the way they want. So in other words, I think you're aware of the problem, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. You end the video here saying "You may think it's harmless, but know that it's the development and feeding into this technology that will strip your rights away," is like protesting outside of a gunsmith's forge, yelling at him that his support of firearm technology will one day be used by government's to take away his right to defend himself. Clearly, no. The technology will develop with or without his participation, and the government will use it to take his rights away regardless. By learning it, understanding it, and utilizing it while he can, he can utilize it to keep the government's misuse of the same technology at bay. That's what I think you and the anti-A.I. crowd don't understand, Midas. Just like the Luddites learned before you, the stance of fighting against a new technology being developed won't ever stop it or protect those endangered by it. In keeping with the firearm analogy, the only thing that can REALLY stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. And likewise, if you want to stop the bad guys with A.I., you need to support us good guys using A.I. for good, and stop belittling us or lumping us in with the bad guys because the technology is scary and powerful.
Could not have said this better myself. These anti-AIG zealots have really lost grip of reality. The fact that Midas even had the gall to pretend she knows the "REAL" reason behind the feasibility of AIG art is already telling of how arrogant, entitled, and dishonest she truly is. The clown didn't even bother to provide any evidence to her rage bait preaching embarrassment of a video.
Midas you're noticing too much, I really don't want to see you win the journalism prize from the CIA
Last time i checked, it was "accidentally drowning in your own pool/bathroom".
Or the j f k special
@@seeinredbased on boeing's record these days, you'd be found abandoned in your own car, with a cranial bullet wound, and you'd be found in a deserted location
@@medeas_number_1_fan “They poison my water” “mixup”
or the classic "natural cause of death"
The front end of AI is where you get to generate fun images and songs.
The back end of AI are scanning all your messages and profiling you.
Truth is, big tech already know who we are, they just need the legal system changed to officially go after people.
What do you mean go after people? They don't care who you are or what you've done, they just want to sell your data to advertisers. They don't need any form of ID, and they don't need any legislation to change (other than maybe for the EU to back down on privacy laws).
@@widgity Do you know how much more valuable your data will be if they can sell it with your legal name attached, over selling them as metadata? That's what an online ID really means, all your online activities must have your name attached to it. Meaning they can be bought and sold as is.
From data brokers, advertisers, scammers, and your own government, plenty of special interest are willing to pay good money for that.
what a valuable data they are gonna have on me, 3 am google searches for "fnnuy cats" and "top 10 creative and fun ways to unalive yourself", goverement officials will be so proud that this is what they've funded this thing for😂
Hey wait a second, isn't this just the plot of Metal Gear Solid 2?
*in AI Colonel's voice* Of course.
@@KorbAgain "We don't control content, we create context."
Is it even more of a feverish nightmare when it's a man's nightmare of losing humanity in a constantly evolving world, that we're seeing in a game about a gender-ambiguous man fighting giant robots, the president of the United State, and bisexual vampire.
Y'all Caught on too late
You we're warned, and you didn't listen
@@MrSolidsnake293"y'all" Sorry snake, a 3rd world country where I am doesn't even thought of buying a PS until like 2010s-2020s, and even rarer to acknowledge emulators. Hell, I got a new PC and it's strong enough to play the game. I bet most people who watched the AI speech haven't played the game yet, and I'm one of them.
Always has been
Ai is Pandora's Box, and now we have opened it and need to live with Will Smith eating Spaghetti and the Minecraft Movie
@@Dofaking honestly I think the Minecraft movie would be better if AI had made it
specifically, eating it with his bare hands
@@ham_the_spam4423 And eating his hands too, luckily he has extra fingers
Nah, this was always intended to happen; it was a preemptive strike, an effort to create a narrative in which taking control is seen as protection rather than oppression.
They know AI is coming, that it's nearing its technological zenith... And they hope by doing this they might be able to justify greater atrocities in efforts to control such power exclusively for those in positions of power. The fact that so much more info and control can be gained in addition is just a nice lil benefit on the side.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions
Oh hi Ken!
fr no cap
@@THExRISER Oh hi Riser
@@guregan634 Oh hi Gure!
_Small world._
>KenAshcorp
Ok, what is going on. How is youtube such a small place for these coincidences to just happen?
"You will own nothing, and you will be happy."
It's not a prediction. It's an order.
Do you love your city?
You must be happy.
DO YOU LOVE THE CITY YOU LIVE IN?
> YES
> NO
Ubisoft: "you have to get used to not owning games"
Me: "shit, they might be more accurate than we thought..."
U VILL EAT ZE BUGS UND U VILL LIKE IT!!
@@raimyonlinewarrior236 Ubisoft has to get used to not getting our money and going bankrupt
POV: your tech friend went down an ai rabbit hole and needs to share their cursed knowledge with you
It is really funny to see how ai art and music is getting better, but ai coding is the most buggy, error filled, slop to exist. Like coders probably don’t have to worry, because someone is going to need to fix those problems.
Also the fact that ais are starting to eat each other to get more data and putting out worse and worse things is very amusing
yeah the ai inbreeding will eventually nake the models trash unless inteveened
The problem is that coding needs to be extremely specific and accurate. Art and music can work with lots of imperfections. If you know art and music you will see the sloppy work the AI is doing. Its just as bad as the coding. Its just that bad art still works. Bad code doesn't tend to. Art is more subjective I guess.
@@Merilirem AI "Art" has a look that many artists can spot immediately even from small thumbnails. When you understand that image generation functions much like a glorified text autocomplete, where it creates an image by placing a pixel that is statistically most likely to appear next to another, it may never actually be able to get rid of the bland and uncanny outputs it's known for.
In a workplace setting, you would submit art for approval, get feedback, and make iterative changes. AI is not capable of this, making it as useless as AI generated code, for very similar reasons.
@@jarvy251the scariest part is that some of those artists got annihilated by the "ai or hitler" challenge (this was on tumblr, i got no idea how to find it)
The same kind of disgusting... Lack of something... That i felt in hitlers otherwise surprisingly nice drawings is what i also feel from AI art
And the artists that felt so confident in finding AI art got stumped because that same undercurrent was in both drawings
@@angrydragonslayer Yeah I recall some of hitler's paintings had AI-like logical inconsistencies, like a stone staircase that partially covers a door. Its definitely displeasing to look at. I wonder how I'd do on that test.
Well, the only thing I would say I don't 100% agree with is that humans are inherently evil. I will say however, that over time, and as people learn a new system, those that are morally dubious *will* find ways to abuse whatever systems and safeguards that exist. Any such system needs to be fluid to be able to react quickly to counter abusers before things get out of hand. exactly like current Cybersecurity: 2 sides constantly finding new ways to counter the other sides old methods.
@@Rebelphantum If your talking about ai, 90% of what I’ve seen it used for ( I avoid it when possible, so the only thing I see it on is advertising) is the most dogshit scam advertisement imaginable. A real doctors face with ai voice selling boner pills using the censor avoidant language (poor lady, she’s a professional who doesn’t deserve having her likeness stolen to sell shit pills) or some stock image of a black woman using ai speech in half assed attempt at imitating African American speech patterns, with some causal racism thrown in, all trying to scam old people of social security. All this on this platform. Watermarks should be mandatory for any ai content. Machine readable ones. Ai usage should be considered an aggregating circumstance for punishment.
Most of what I’ve seen it used for is vaguely racist ads trying to sell boner pills with stolen likenesses of nurses and social security scams. Watermarks identifying ai content should be mandatory and machine readable, like a hash attached to audio and image files.
people aren't evil, the allocation of space to become evil is just to great for some to bear.
to be honest and good is too much for the weak to handle, and it was all written before in a book people failed to read.
I would also like to add that a lot of people work under systems where "evil" actions, or at least selfish ones, is often rewarded, and where being "good" is often punished. So people could actually be quite altruistic under normal conditions, but have been conditioned over long periods of time to act evil because it's in their own best interests to do so. No morality under an amoral system, and all that.
I still think under a different system, AI would have had so much potential to push mankind forward in the right direction. It's just a shame that we weren't really going in the right direction to begin with.
Hypothetically, is a bad task a bad thing if literally everyone does it? Or is it a just thing since everyone is doing it?
It's wild
They say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And that might be true, but I'd wager most of it's patched with the souls of those who seek to corrupt those intentions.
this fr.
I see AI as a great tool being misused against artists, because why would AI-generated speedpaint exist for a piece of art a man could not bother make? There are just so many features made to fake one's artistic ability just to stand out among the crowd, and it's been doing nothing but making people pointing fingers at each other in doubts.
And some of those hands have 6 fingers.
We LOVE honeytraps
Friendly reminder that the path of least resistance between a point of relative freedom and a point of strict and overbearing regulation is to manufacture a situation in which the populace themselves beg for the restriction of their rights in exchange for their "safety."
@@gowanator 1984
While I don't disagree with most of the video, the actual reason for it isn't some grand master plan, it's simply that there is no way to regulate it really, our regulatory systems simply aren't built in a way where they could handle something like AI and tbh I don't know how any non-totalitarian system could do that anyways.
If you talk to actual software engineers that make the stuff, they will say they want to usher in a new age or bring a new "better than humanity" lifeform or whatever into this world. Basically, they're cultists. There's a clip on the Rogan podcast where someone talks about this. If you ever ask them what they think about AI replacing humans, they will say it's a good thing anyway. We're dealing with really demented people here.
@@niwoh And there's the rub... Governments and tech institutions have invested heavily into AI, while at the same time talking bout the potential problems it would create that would ultimately require large-scale censorship in order to regulate it.
*Almost like they heavily invested in the "excuse" they would need to justify the authoritarian "solution" they actually wanted from the beginning...*
Funny how this was partially predicted by MGS 2 of all things. Living in the early stages of a Cyberpunk dystopia was not something I ever predicted growing up.
Just so everyone knows: Midas is unhinged but she's not *SewerSidal* so if she's suddenly gone we know what happened
AI anything annoys me solely off the fact that all it's primarily used for is to replace the entertainment and expression of the people by using stolen assets or patterns. Let alone all the over stuff people use it for negatively.
In the end its the most effective path to creation beyond what humans can dream of now. Its just that we aren't ready for it and need to adjust. Growing pains are normal. Every advancement goes through some. AI isn't just a tool to replace humans. To use it like that is as big of a waste as the humans being replaced. Hopefully they realize that even when its refined into a proper tool, it will need to be used by people who understand what its trying to accomplish.
@@Merilirem "In the end its the most effective path to creation beyond what humans can dream of now." What do you mean by effective? The way the AI functions, it's merely a statistical average of the data it already has. It determines what pixel is statistically most likely to be placed beside another. By definition, it cannot innovate, it works on averages. This is why AI "Art" is often instantly spottable by artists, they all sort of look the same. That's not something that has improved over time, and may even be getting worse as the AI begins to cannibalize already mind-boggling volume of AI generated images that have flooded the internet to feed it dataset.
@@jarvy251 Are you an artist? As someone who has drawn for over 10 years, I can tell you that simply, you are wrong. Artists cannot tell AI art just because it looks the "same", they actually have a hard time unless the AI made very obvious mistakes, and THAT is what annoys them. The fact a machine can do what they can, the only way to cope is to mock it, belittle the users of the program and attack the programmers. People who hate AI art, are absolutely no different, from the people who hated artists for getting massive egos. Before AI, I watched artists ripping each other apart gleefully over any excuse possible, be it "style stealing", "tracing" or "recolors", with or without proof, they'd try to crush lesser or budding artists with zero remorse. And now an alternative has appeared and is FAR cheaper and MORE agreeable, and now artists realize, "oh no, the people we treated as moneybags are moving on". The art community attacked me for as little as defending an artist in the past, and they attack me now for defending those who utilize AI. Nothing changes.
@@mycocodog47 im confused, do artists now deserve to have their entire careers destroyed because some of them were egotistical assholes? AI is only being used as "a tool" for right now because this is the infancy stage where it will be as crappy as it ever will be. but what happens in 5-10 years when models are heavily refined to not generate 15 broken fingers on one hand? it is going to be a full-on replacement for a LOT of people. the more the AI is trained and perfected, the more people are going to be replaced.
what annoys artists about AI art is kind of like doing math free-hand versus a calculator. doing it freehand requires you actually understand the processes of the equation and know how to solve the problem, and showcase your work. then here comes an AI program that solves it in .000001 seconds and can spit out the formula in the exact same way as the guy who did it freehand. but there's nothing to be impressed about, its just a machine spitting something out with no effort. the issue is that many people only care about what the end result looks like, and if they can find a way to create something that's pretty similar, requires very little downtime, no effort, and very minimal financial spending to do it, that's what they're going to use.
like imagine any of Michelangelo's iconic church art done with the basic tools he used, versus a machine with a million individual pipes that shot out paintballs and recreated it in 1 second. its cool to see what stuff computers can do, but there's no inherent value in it. all AI is doing is creating an environment where hyper-optimal performance to get a picture generated as properly and quickly as possible is the only meaningful metric to art.
@@Kielix Absolutely everything you said is incorrect. The value of art is determined by demand, and the idea of free hand mathematicians being bothered by others using calculators is laughable, the people free handing are the ONLY ones who need or want to utilize arithmetic at that level, the people using calculators simply have ZERO need to be at that level. Your examples are so extreme that they prove nothing about what you are trying to imply, as they are so removed from reality that it makes zero sense whatsoever. Michelangelo was famous because he was an exemplary artists for his time and is revered today for doing what he had done in the time period he was alive, this is a HUGE difficulty to the current year in which society, religion, entertainment and more have developed to such absurd degrees. If Michelangelo did what he did in the current day, he would be another artist. Your feelings toward AI are simply too extreme for you to rationally consider what even fits your argument. You'd be better off saying, "AI is bad because artists in the 16th century didn't have access to computers or modern technology, so AI has an unfair advantage in replicating their works".
Oh welp, guess I'll have to fight for my freedom on the internet *grabs musket*
I think you're getting into the realm of conspiracy. The real reason is that open-source has always been a big thing in the tech community. We really value open-sourcing new cool stuff because otherwise it's just owned completely by the corporate walled garden.
Yeah this gives me really bad vibes. This is honestly creeping up on tinfoil hat territory.
You're giving governments too much credit. As if they're capable of planning for the future.
POINTS LOUDLY AT MK ULTRA
it’s glowing in here bois
@@CoreOfMidas Counterpoint, the assassination attempts of Fidel Castro
Counter counterpoint, Fidel Castros government being able to be one step ahead
@@CoreOfMidas that was the cia without government / presidential backing
Virtual Passports are going to be a thing within the Decade. This feels so close to the description of that concept. The idea of Information control and monitoring of the populace done through a virtual identifier that soon most website are probably going to require.
And it sounds ripped out of Metal Gear
Tested in China,
Implemented worldwide soon if not stopped and mass refused.
*Reject chipping.*
Lord have Mercy!!!!! 😱😱
I want to say something to debate the whole "AI is destroying artist and musician careers."
imo, this has started long before AI was a thing. The thing destroying both art and music careers was the over-corporatization and monetization of the creative fields. You see this with soul-less Disney films, soul-less Taylor Swift songs, soul-less RUclips channels, etc. This all happened way before 2021-2022 before generative AI truly started to kick off. Various internet services like Fiverr and shit already made art and music far from a lucrative career before generative AI was in the picture. Now, AI might be the one putting the nail in the coffin, but less not ignore the ones building those coffin walls in the first place.
And for a while I felt like a nutjob for thinking that. Thank god there are more people thinking this way.
Black and white ruffed lemurs are the largest pollinators in the world Weighing up to nine pounds (4.1 kg),
Thank you jar jar
thank you jar jar
@@jeandrickgiel Sorry, we're gonna have to suspend your travel visa because of this threatening comment. We'll be speaking to the crown prosecutor about possible additional action, and you'll be hearing from us soon.
@@ZastieMoon alraght then il wait
Or y'know - money
Both can be true
Definitely money, did you see the monetary and developmentive incentive Chat GPTs record breaking success gave
I think I've already seen China implementing and refining these programs into their monitoring systems for both the internet and real life.
Got into an argument with someone from their and mentioning a little to much about how their government is corrupt on discord and they just vanished out of no where in the middle of their argument. They were using a VPN but I couldn't help but guess their computer was likely compromised to monitoring by the party.
It's no coincidence that a former member of the NSA works for and now "guides" OpenAI.
Hi, Peter Griffin (Tof) here.
The Twitter suspension was for 12 hours, and was most likely for using a combination of words like "you should yourself with a weapon".
About the end of anonymity - honestly I think it will take time, but people will start finding ways to combat mandatory identifications. It's gonna be a painfully slow process, I might be dead long before it's done. But hey, there's always that chance.
Also side not - I kept thinkinf about breaking that barrel in the background to the right from you. What loot does it have?
Any sane person would see the phrase “you should draw yourself with a cool weapon” and not think that’s remotely suspendable- time regardless - which is why have automated systems flag and punish phrases like that without discrimination or filtering is so dangerous. The instant that kind of false flagging gets on peoples irl permanent records it’s over
The barrel has rupees
@@CoreOfMidasyuh agreed, even a first grader with limited vocabulary would see through this kind of simple context.
Here's for the cyber revolutionary to rise up.
I'm taking the rupees. Mine now~
@@CoreOfMidasHYAH!
@@gowanator
*”Link took the five loaves of bread and two fish, gave thanks and duped items”*
Midas out here looking like a Limbus Company character fr
She looks like a bloody clown.
You can't train the models as fast with a closed beta. If the general audience keeps asking for big booba nurse Salma Hayek, then your AI model will refine this precise request much faster if you let it cater to the general audience.
And? They knew this and they knew the danger of rushing gathering their data this way, it was more than possible to do it ethically. But this is the one net positive for any government slobbering to control a population
@@CoreOfMidas My point is you don't train an AI with a limited data set, open and free tests give you the invaluable information of knowing when the average user is satisfied with the AI interaction, that is when they pause to share or save the result instead of asking for a new iteration. It lets the AI model learn user satisfaction and compliance values.
@@TheZapan99 That just requires lots of users. It doesn't address where the training data comes from. They didn't have to steal the data from the internet. they could have easily worked with artists to catalog different styles and then trained it on those.
@@TheZapan99 all well and good, but none of this proves my point false. It can be an additional set of information, but it’s not the point of my conversation here. I genuinely would rather my rights and freedoms instead of a neat toy to play with.
@@JaneDoe-dg1gv They didn't care is the main point. There wasn't even a moment where they initially considered artists before they went for the easy solution. This was careless laziness and chasing the easiest sources of data. Its not some grand conspiracy or clever plan. They literally just did not care enough to consider any ramifications or ethical issues. This is how my country runs itself too. Even when its a bad idea they push ahead because someone saw short term profit or an easy way to do something and didn't consider anything past that first step. It blows up in their face every time but they don't learn so it keeps happening.
The AI art mess is just people not thinking thongs through. Like a kid who posts crimes on tictok to get famous.
Its a big slippery slope basically :/
I think this is a true conspiracy theory. Not because any of the content is wrong, but because of how it is linked up.
The push for AI is a push for an infinite money machine, and everyone wants an infinite money machine, as long as it doesn't affect inflation. Which AI produced content promises to be.
The result of that is, if you want non-AI produced content (true content) then you're going to need verification, which requires ID.
This was never the goal, this is the consequence of pursuing an infinite money machine. First slaves were an infiinite money machine, then they made water wheels and factories, now in the silicon age it's AI. We are always pursuing infinite money machines, and there will always be regulation. Factories didn't have regulations and hired children, but the regulations were added and now we all have to prove we are people before getting work. Slaves didn't have regulations, as long as you could force someone into work they would, until the English came along and abolished slavery (by buying every slave in the English Empire after America's war for independance. Yes England abolished slavery before America and a proportion of every taxed pound went to this until 2015, when the price for buying and freeing every slave in the empire had been finally reached).
So, now we have a new infinite money machine, and are waiting on governments to impliment regulations to make sure we don't fall into an anarcho-capitalist society where one group doesn't allow AI, one allows AI and one is ambivalent. And governments really don't want anacho-capitalism, so you can sleep easy knowing this will have regulations, because Geo-politics are a thing. Governments are debating whether TikTok should be allowed and that's only partitally AI. Full fledged AI will not have full freedoms, just like us
agreed for the most part that they probably didn't have privacy busting in mind when they started ai image generator research / development
i think the government has been fighting to take privacy away for a long while, wiretapping phones / the whole thing NSA and edward snowden, being able to use AI to justify invading our privacy is just one more unhappy consequence of AI,
but also that's good in a way since people have been fighting for privacy for a long time, there is the electronic frontier foundation just off the top of my head, probably more so hopefully AI won't be the last straw that rips away any privacy we still have, really smoking copium lol
@3:00 Not necessarily true. In Canada the law often won’t do anything about online stuff because they usually can’t prove you were actually in control of the electronic device at the time even if it is your account and it is verified to be owned by you. I had a cop literally explain this to me when I reported someone for threatening me. They can argue “well I was asleep and someone at a party used my phone” or any number of things.
It's also pretty transparently the case when you see who created these things. They didn't start at the corporate level, like, Deviant Art didn't say "ehehehe! Yes! With THIS we'll be able to make GAZILLIONS of dollars through BOT account artists creating art that looks identical to the earners on our platform! BWAHAHAHAA!"
It was thinktanks. It was government funded generative programs foreign and domestic that "generously" made all their "research" (IE: programs) open-source.
Thank you, Doomer-chan, now put on the bunnysuit and stop noticing things so good.
Freedoms and oppression come and go with the passing of an age. There will always be those who seek to dominate your freedoms and your will. It is only by taking action against one's oppressors and standing up for ones civil liberties that such evils can be pushed back. In the end, you must never stop fighting for your own beliefs.
Frankly, idk if killing internet anonymity is enough. Data is so unsafe that untraceable identity theft is just too easy. Pretty much the only thing restricting AI at this moment is the very low profitability it has as a field of study/service. It's only good for espionage and copyright theft right now, as the technology isn't consistent enough to do much else. If the govt really cared, than they would have prevented projects like these from even starting up. It's hard to imagine things getting better at this point.
I wouldn't say people are inherently evil no. I would say that the people who most often succeed in our currently economic and political system do evil in an effort to acquire more security for themselves.
Yep, Judge a system on it's outcomes, not it's stated intents. An AI (like image generation) that primarily aids grifters in grifting is therefore a grift machine above all else. If a technology necessitates an end to anonymity, then that is it's purpose.
Tourist and normies: AI aRe Not DaNgeRouS!!!
"The south korea fake porn problem." There.
Yeah. As an author I miss the days you could commission art and not worry about wether it's ai or not. Back then all we had to worry about is being sold stock footage.
Just ask for the photoshop file or WIP. Lots of companies even ask for references and any exploration pictures you used. Pretty common in design competitions tbh.
@@ivan_says_hi I have a ton on my schedule......Adding these to my list is a huge hassle. I do thank you though for the honest advice. I may take it, but it's still a huge stress added to my job
idk bro im in brazil, so like im chilling, nothing ever happens here or it takes 50 years for something to change
@@gatu_sad You're implying that AI might take over Brazil in 50 years. You could be the one to trailblaze the AI industry and baptize your people with the blessings of the Omnissiah.
I feel like we are fast approaching a situation in which a person who's life was ruined by AI, is going to find out the offices of these developers and bad things are going to happen, and then its going to escalate things even more.
Not that it will do anything. The genie is put of the bottle. You could mow down hundreds of people before it made any difference.
YO WE COOKING WITH THIS ONE
The gov doesnt need online id to identify and track you, but it sure does make it a hellva alot easier
To me it seems way more likely a mix of three factors:
- Venture capitalism and tech companies trying to amass a massive userbase by losing money on "free" products
- Laws and regulations regarding massive data collection being less strict when it's for research, thus making at least part of the steps needed to recreate a project available to the public
- The tech behind it in itself being cool, making people *want* to develop for it.
Rather than it being a ploy to give the government more power, it feels more like capitalism doing it's thing yet again
Literally just 2 hours after I write this I saw somebody make a web-app that makes realistic real-time deep fakes easily accessible to anyone.
Their primary motivation seemed to be money, nothing to do with government regulation. Extremely irresponsible.
Its Open Source because Open source is the fastest way to develop the technology while ensuring it cannot be censored. Exactly what the Open source community likes.
They follow a libertarian mindset and do not see potential for abuse as reason to censor technology.
I'm pretty sure I saw an AI-voiced meme (Metal Gear Solid 2, fittingly enough) that made your exact same points.
"You will be required to provide proof of your humanity in order to do any kind of business online. After all, do you honestly think that any businesses would be willing to risk dealing with a digital mirage instead of a real person?" Something along those lines.
- Create a problem: allow easy access to high quality AI generation.
- Queue an influx of false, AI-generated information, creating a crisis of fake news.
- Counteract the manufactured crisis by increasing mandatory proof of humanity.
- This makes it easier to identify dissidents online, and consequently allows greater control of narrative, under the guise of "providing context".
- Silence dissenting voices with censorship and/or threats of legal violence if they don't fall in line.
- Profit.
"Raiden Warned About AI Censorship - MGS2 Codec Call (2023 Version)" by CYBERGEM viewable right here on youtube, but i first saw it on tiktok
AI is breaking another one of the last barriers of reality we still had.
private organizations putting ai up for open source could also be for development reasons
something being open source just objectively speeds up its development
I'd agree that ai music and art has severely harmed the industry but imo the most blatant and realistic thing it's done so far is drown out the "nobodies" of the industry.
People who aren't good, terrible, those who copy and those who purposely making slop. Ai will make it harder to half ass your way up and mean you'll actually have to be good, I'm sure I don't have to tell any body in the know about the massive over saturation of art and music before ai.
I won't deny the damage it has done to artists and musicians but honestly, cutting away the fear mongering, ai has like another 5 years of no regulation before it becomes a unstoppable monster.
I honestly check artist sites and the people making and viewing ai art, trust me, they ain't the people looking to pay artist in the first place.
Oh you are right on the mark. Mortal Kombat made Ermac on accident due to what would now be identified as AI art. The first MK on Sega and SNES, had an "Error Machine" from scorpion, came with a change of color on the attire to red. Came with the spear throw move but without the spear animation; since it was an error, making it seem as if it is telekinesis. People thought it was a character that they slipped into the game other than Reptile. But Netherrealm Studios at the time didn't do this on purpose. They went along with it after "ERror MAChine" got its nickname from the public. This happened again on purpose during Mortal Kombat 2 with Katana, which is why we have the Blood Witch Skarlet. Case and point, Netherrealm Studios developed characters using an AI Generated environment with their own assets. So with that in mind, how AI is being used not under the same morals is alarming.
Honestly, AI being FOSS is probably the best outcome here. The point of FOSS projects is to give knowledge and power to everyone. For Artists, copyright is what protects them, but for things involving medicine, technology, education and more, it becomes a privilege that the rich and powerful can abuse. It's why you have people advocating for free health care and free college books, because they're made ridiculously expensive for arbitrary reasons.
OpenAI, home of GPT, is mocked for failings its promise stated in its name; it is now closed-source and for-profit, and have abandoned its roots. Now they've begun to make claims that corporations should take the mantle of responsibility that is AI ethics. Corporations? Ethics? Yikes. Just in case anyone is curious, our corporate overlords seem more interested in censoring offensive things AI say than address the wide-reaching harm they cause.
And, well, as it just so happened, the rich and powerful have a say on what government does. Big tech must never be the only ones to have access to AI, because then they would be only ones to dictate the policy surrounding it. By making it FOSS, at least the people will have the opportunity to understand and have a means to fight back.
the lighting in this video had no reason to go this hard but it did
I don't necessarily agree with the regulation bit. My guess was always that they made it easy to use and widely available because customer input is basically free data for them to build off of.
They already did this when all the major platforms started requiring a phone number to make a email address
In all of human history we make something that can either make our lives easier or make things more efficient. Remember when cars were first introduced? Killed a lot of horse carriage business. Remember when telephones and mobile phones became a thing? Yeah Mail services also got shoved in. Remember when televisions were first introduced? Killed the cinemas and theaters that's for sure. Remember when the computer and internet were first introduced? Yeah people said it wouldn't hit big that it wouldn't change a thing yet in the modern era it became the new norm.
New tech beats old tech that's that, but that doesn't mean you can incorporate it to the new tech into your design. I know, humans hate change, they hate stuff, that they don't fully understand, or even know its full capability and rather are repulsed by the danger of what it can cause. The Fear of being replaced of being redundant. Years of training feels wasted when an a billion dollar AI that has decades of data fed in its self learning capabilities slowly overtakes your field of expertise. The irony in this however is that while Humanity hates changes they are one of the most adaptable creatures on this world and I think they should use that to their advantage. Mumbling philisophy aside in a Politcal World view sense everyone's raising for the next who can go over to the moon first scenario trying to race towards creating perfect AI. There's no way of stopping it we're on Roko's basilisk theory now.
Midas you say all this as if internet animosity and unlimited access is good and hasn't completely fucked your entire generation.
AI art is no different than photoshop
it has changed nothing
if anything it has killed photoshop
when people see AI art they immediately see that it's fake and become disappointed in it
even I used it for a day and became bord with it
it just can't do what real artists are capable of
A very naïve point of view. Ai can make realistic video, audio, vocal cloning, and yes, art.
And it improves daily. As for artists, the reason you think it can’t replicate or do what artists do is because you haven’t been able to clock the people who are GOOD at using it, and are larping as real artists and not being caught- only lazy people are the ones who get caught.
Anyway, thank you for the good banter :)! Have a good day internet person
@@CoreOfMidas prove it
draw a furry midas using AI
you wont
@@CoreOfMidas " the reason you think it can’t replicate or do what artists do is because you haven’t been able to clock the people who are GOOD at using it"
I'm not sure about that. THe way AI generated illustrations function means they almost inevitably have a certain look, as pixels are placed by statistical averages. I've seen VERY good artists go over an image to remove all the technical errors an AI is known for (hands, eyes, one aspect of the image blending into another) but they can never shake "the look"
And frankly, by the time you've fixed all the mistakes, you could have made somethig from scratch.
@@CoreOfMidas The real sad part is that, AI art still gets more attention than most real artists, regardless of it's current flaws.
Sure some people prefer a master's work by nitpicking AI, but nobody got the time for striving artists anymore.
@@jarvy251 Or they can just spam every platform with low quality AI junk.
We seen all those fake AI youtube channels, and fake AI musics. So what if you figure it out after 10 seconds, it took them even less time to make it. They even bot their view counts to skew the algorithm.
i dont care about ai art because its been easily 20 years since anyone could possibly consume in a day the art produced in a day.
once that metric passed it became irrelivent since no matter what it would just be a matter of attracting an audience in your own little raindrop no matter how big the ocean got around you.
As an artist all I’ll say is thank you some one else who gets it and is starting to see the potential problems
I am obsessed with the background and lighting because it reminds me so much of murder drones
Im schizo beyond belief and i never thought of this. This chick is super smart
They released it openly to boost its popularity. You could also argue that if the access to the tech was limited, those with access would have much more power over the public opinion through creating the fakes as the public just wouldn't know about it. Also, whether it destroys lives and careers of artists arguable, as before the AI boom there already was an oversupply of freelancing artists competing for customers.
Also, you have the issue with scanning IDs even without the AI. Whenever you need to verify the age or something else about a person legally, you _have_ to check their ID. This includes online sale of alcohol, tobacco, or services that lets you rent cars online. You have to either scan your ID or visit a physical shop to verify yourself, and some services don't have the second option to cut down costs.
That said, the moment RUclips starts requiring me to upload my ID, I'm out. I'm willing to trust anyone with that sensitive information.
>create problem
>convince people you know how to solve the problem that you caused in a non-invasive way
>Profit$$$
I love the fact that artificial character gestures me on screen why artificial intelligence is bad
There may very well come a day where you'll get fired from your job because an algorithm detected that your private messages indicate a 4% increase in the likelihood of joining a union, or a 23% probability of needing a raise to cover rent increases, or the microphone in your phone detected that you said something negative about the company in your own home.
My friend sent youtube a scan of ID photoshopped with Heavy from TF2 and they accepted it
Never expect "good intent" from the government. If you seem like you're winning because of something that came from them, someone else is winning way more and this is a way for them to make you accept whatever they're doing.
The wild west days of the net are long over, its only going to get worse. If you want to have a real uncensored conversation these days you need to go to a bar, or hang out in front of a gas station at 2am.
Nope, there still exists the imageboards and IRC.
@@asakayosapro Complacency kills.... or gets you 20 years.
This is why with certain accounts of mine, I will not allow them access to any kind of real world identification. I'll just stop using their services first.
A big part of the issue I've found is that while I still have old accounts I created and I can do this with, newly created accounts don't even have an option anymore. You can't make an account on a lot of sites now without putting in a phone number nowadays. It's crazy.
AI inbreeding will limit AI models who don't have the company processing power to filter out old gen ai generated slop.
It's far more likely that people who want a digital ID are taking advantage of something that is occurring naturally.
On the image generation side, this tech has been around for over a decade and we are now seeing independent programs built around it. The creators are not going to push for regulation because a lot of them are entrepreneurs and have sunk money into building this. Even smart regulations will hurt them and hinder the progress of anyone who is passionate about building these programs. The reason a lot of the stuff is open seems to be in line with how they are developing the tech. The updates seem to be around putting reigns on the beast so that when you use a prompt the program actually gives you what you want. They are building these programs with feedback. I wouldn't be shocked if they rug pull and this stuff becomes far less available once it gets to a certain point.
I don't think they were expecting the backlash. Certainly in the beginning when we were generating images of fisher price guillotines, people seemed to be on board.
The anti AI crowd is going to be the driving force behind the worst policies that come from this. Even if they don't actively support the specific proposed solutions they will be the backdrop for saying "anything is worth stopping ai." Porn has currently become that wedge. Even here and even knowing the issues on the horizon Midas soft agreed with it despite seeing the writing being on the wall.
The 9/11 cycle is inescapable. You will be presented with problems so big that you will accept solutions that carry into decades of blow back. And unfortunately, the problems are big enough that you can hardly be blamed for it. Stuck between accumulating problems or bad solutions.
While I dislike some of the anti AI crowd siding with copyright law which is a disgusting force that has actively hurt fan projects and smaller artists over the years not to mention the horrible stuff groups like the RIAA have done. I still think maybe AI bros should not be stealing stuff from artists to feed into their training data without permission or consent or forcing this on everyone to drown the SEO or search results in millions of sludge images making sites unuseable.
I love vaporwave music for example but I am tired of seeing thousands of bland playlists spat out of stuff like Sudo making it harder to find new works created by real musicians or artists in the scene.
@@sayachan6069 I don't have a problem with them copying images to train their programs. The trade off of using social media to build your brand is that everyone has access to your thing. And these programs aren't violating any IP laws as far as I can tell.
The implementation and sludging up of the internet is incredibly crappy, but we've reached the reaping part or the process. Sewwing sure was nice while it lasted
Why did I get AI production ads of all things on this video, I never got one before
The reason why AI images are easy to create is because humans as visual creatures have flooding the internet with images, you got massive amount of scrapable data that requires little to no context. A house is a house, the shape of a house may slighty vary between cultures but they all follow the same basic shape of an enclosure space with a roof.
The government don't need an excuse to do something like this, they already have full control over your life by the simple and most basic mechanism: Money. What you can consume, what you can watch, what you can buy all pass trough various regulations that create an already existent entry barrier, chances are that the job you or the peoples around you do are jobs that produce no value but are created and kept in order to keep the money flowing and the semblance of society. Social media that are basically unprofitable receive cash from the government to act in certain ways. Everything is already compromised.
Bro, government affirmed art is a scary Pandora box to open
A fyi the technology behind this tracing will probably be C2PA org (funded by adobe), so not necessarily government IDs, but still crazy privacy infringements
I have a feeling that midas saw that one Mgs2 video about ai and she had to talk about it somehow.
There was a metal gear clip of Raiden talking to an Artificial Intelligence pretending to be the colonel about this
the I in AI is nothing about imteligence to the point of going over humans, the supposed inteligent shit that AI art does now is recognize patters of pixels and replicate them, that is all! there is no AI that will take the bloody world over from thous programs
There's also the monetery benefit of throwing it put there so everyone wants to buy/invest in it.
Regulation counter point: AI made stuff is not protected by any IP or copyright law and can be used by anyone and everyone that makes/made AI must say it is AI or get charged with a fee.
The ID stuff is actually funny because, assuming it's not an account of someone who need the social media or live off it, you can just delete and make another one with your ID, my country requires ID when buying things from the internet and it isnt the end of the world and you cant and should not target you because your account was tagged by something.
If the US gets an GDPR like law it's pretty much whatever if your ID is tied to account because the law also assures that your internet acc doesnt affect irl stuff, only breaking the law on irl can affect your internet acc.
This is just tinfoil hat thinking.
As soon as you said "regulate the population" I was like "I'M SO IN"
I do not believe the conspiracy theory. It was just computer scientists realising that they can do some cool research (and it really is), and that very quickly got out of control. Artists needs to organise themselves on their terms, or things will be organised fpr them and only superficially in the best interests of artists. The Spotification of visual arts is bad scenario (ask musicians).
Your conclusion is in the right direction, but your rationale is off. Techology that reduces the need for people to cooperate is antisocial. AI developed with the intent to replace humans means those who control it will not have to cooperate with those who don't. AI is inherently expensive to develop and maintain, so the rich are in power here.
Making AI easily accessible serves to democratise the technology. Would you rather only the people who control it benefits from it? If generative AI were release only to a few previlledge artists, it would further separate the capabilities of those selected from those who were not. Those who are hurt by generative AI are experiencing the disruption caused by the democratisation of new technology. Not adapting to the disruption is the problem.
But AI does the first thing first and foremost. Large corporations have always been willing to take a hit, because they can absorb a hit that smaller entities cannot.
There's no large corpo that just generates images as a final product - they're things like films or game companies that use various art assets as part of a larger project. The antisocialness you refer to is in fact the goal, to eliminate the artists, actors, musicians, etc that are normally needed to form a greater whole. By flooding the internet with these generative products and promoting them as some sort of "democratization" or other such nonsense, they hope to normalize this low-quality slop to the point where it's accepted by the consumers.
Thankfully, I don't think it's working. They pushed too hard too fast to get ahead of legislation. It's currently held aloft purely by enormous amounts of speculative investment that hasn't yet paid off, and will dry up the instant the wind blows the other way.
Companies are not intentionally democratising proprietary technology. They do so because they need a return on investment. It is merely a reaction of capitalism.
Generative AI does not yet outright replace aritsts or professionals in other industries. It reduces the need for additional head count and in effect reduces job demand. However that is the same for any disruptive technology in history. Humans still have jobs and more than ever as in demand skills changed.
It is still not apparent how generative AI is different from past disruptive technology other than it targets white collar jobs.
By the way, cinema was considered low quality slop for the masses compared to theatre. And TV was considered lowbrow compared to cinema.
@@lunalune6880 "They do so because they need a return on investment." Ding ding ding, and what is that going to look like? It's either going to be as a people replacer (this is their main hope, but is unlikely to succeed as the shortcomings of AI become more apparent) or it's a rugpull- get enough people reliant on the technology, and then add a paywall. This has been the tech bro modus operandi for years now. Calling it "democractization" is delusional. It's like saying the drug dealer giving you your first hit for free is "democratization."
@@jarvy251 Yeah who needs artists or musicians when you can hire someone oversea to do both with AI? Not like management or shareholders can tell the difference in quality.
As far as I'm concerned the moment automation came about. We were already on this path. Besides, nobody cared to win automation.Was doing its thing so
I honestly am impressed by how far ai has gotten ❤ I only have good intents for it and …I hope they don’t get rid of it but rather fix it by letting everyone have it and of course their has to be rules or something…just hope the best
"YOU DONT DESERVE TO BE FREE"
we live in a cyberpunk dystopia
humans need to be in control of the ai art. we can't trust robot moderators to moderate robot artists.
Nah bro, it's open source cause people like to colaborate on cool stuff and it accelerates the research despite the best models being made only by companies with budget.
But yes a mandatory digital id is a very convenient way to allow for censorship
To be honest - governmental regulations (in US and in lesser extent in the EU) are decades behind.
I think the big reason is that there are severe lack of people who can keep up with tech among political elite.
Fourty years old is pretty much low threshold for prominent politicians, barring few exceptions. 50 - 60 is common.
So unless you came to power specifically on issues of internet and telecommunications, chances are - you have as much understanding of the issues of internet privacy as the regular person of that age, who lives most of their life offline.
So, when issue arrives they do the only thing they can - bring some experts and work with interest groups. Unfortunately - that often means big business could try to influence the experts or try to bring their own.
So most regulations historically were either tone deaf crackdown on freedoms that don't fix problems or the best kind of regulation from the big business standpoint - lack thereof.
And since (at least from the PoV of politicians) terminally online folk, like ourselves, are a divided minority (even if quickly growing) we don't have enough of the voterbase to pursue us on the internet issues.
I don't believe there is a big conspiracy. Although some three letter agencies could salivate at the prospect of mandatory ID, most people in politics simply didn't react, as they didn't with other internet crisises.
There is some parallel to climate catastrophe. With environmentalists divided and far away, and oil lobbyists close and offering more power through campaign funding - there never was a pragmatic reason to fix the issues.
As for solution - in my mind getting big money out of politics is a prerequisite. And to do that, unfortunately, people need to get involved in politics themselves - voting not enough.
Organise alternative power structures, such as labor unions. Do information campaigns about the issues of money in politics.
Try to create a voting block worth pursuing, so the issue will be picked up by current elites.
It can be frustrating, but democracy is literally the easiest system for a regular person to influence. Use it to the fullest extent
"i am an artist" ☝🤓
I had a feeling that there was another problem with these ai.
They're putting so much out so fast without any form of precaution that it felt almost intentional.
I was kept being told that how much freedom it has, but these companies monetized the hell out of them with limits of what they can do and how many times they can use it. So honestly I don't see what kind of freedom that people actually have with it.
And the worst part about it is they don't think anything is going to happen. They're comfortable believing companies would lose customers or that it's a necessary thing for progress, that kind of BS.
But the problem with convenience is that it gets so good to you that you forget to fight. They let it go on brushing aside problems and even siding with it if it excites them enough, they would be the first ones to complain about it but it's too late to do anything.
I'm looking at what's laid out before me, if this is the price to pay for progress I'd rather stay in the past for a little longer.
We live in a cyberpunk dystopia
"Good intentions." Making a lot of charitable assumptions about their intentions.
As long as it's not on the cloud, if the AI is local to your computer you should have no problem
1:57 I like my right to privacy thank you very much
watch til the end dumbass
Pandora's box has been opened. It can't be corrected without the fix being more damaging than the problem.
Also, unfortunate truth: most people don't actually care about the harm ai generated art can cause.
AI implementation has gone way beyond art already. And we've seen basically nothing yet compared to what we're going to see.
In terms of government conduct, however, it isn't even kind of new. Going on since before you were born, before I was as well. The internet has given it more of a spotlight...and given how little most people react, conduct has gotten more brazen.
That was a massive logic leap from free access to AI to requiring proof of identity. I agree entirely with you on the problems of requiring ID on internet services, but I believe we can have free access to AI without it.
AI is already being used as a propaganda tool by multiple governments around the world, this was inevitable the moment the technology was developed. The best way to counter it is to have AI freely available so that people will see what is possible with AI and learn to be sceptical of things that could be AI generated. Even before AI, most things on social media were fake, maybe AI will wake more people up to this fact.
I feel like ai will turn out to be like the meta verse and people will realize that it’s kinda useless in daily life
you just described china
I think the original reason was simply because the guys who work with the kind of code that works with these kinds of neural networks and hardware are the same kind of dudes that work on Linux and are use to Open Source code and projects. Just like ... hmm, how do I put this ... science is open, right? Like when someone makes a scientific discovery, they publish a paper on it and how they did it for everyone to replicate. Because of this, the next scientist can quickly learn this new idea and it might give them an idea on how to progress it to the next step faster. Open Source coding works the same way, and A.I. being open source like it is, is specifically how it's been able to progress as quickly as it has been.
Now here, in this video, you're arguing that it's been done on purpose as an excuse to regulate the average person. And I won't deny that such arguments are being thrown around now. But I'm also going to counter-argue this from a very American perspective: what world would you rather live in? A world where everyone has access to A.I., or a world where only the rich, powerful, corporate, and governments have access to A.I.?
I call this an American argument because I think an analogy to it would be the right to bear arms. Most European countries, and even Canada now, don't want to let the average person have access to firearms because "a ton of damage will come from it", obviously. And that's true. But one can also tell that people who are determined to hurt someone are going to use a knife, or a car, or even an iron skillet to do so - but now if the rich and powerful in corporations and government want to assemble armies of people with machine guns to use force to get their way, the average man no longer has any recourse or chance to fight back against them in those countries. In the United States, the argument for the average person to always have a right to defend themselves with firearms persists, even at the expense of bad people having access to them and using them to do terrible things on a daily basis, because that is still seen as a sacrifice we're willing to make to stand a chance against potential tyranny.
I argue A.I. being publicly available to everyone is much in the same vein - if the public didn't have access to A.I., and only the rich and governments did, then the rich and governments would much more easily be able to use it to create misinformation to persuade and control the masses. Now, since A.I. is open and available to all, yes - it's causing problems, lots of small problems left and right in peoples lives - but these small problems and tiny A.I. hoaxes have now made the average population much more aware and conscious of the possibility of something being fake, which makes governments and corporations struggle much harder to use this otherwise very influential technology to influence us in the way they want.
So in other words, I think you're aware of the problem, but you're looking at it from the wrong perspective. You end the video here saying "You may think it's harmless, but know that it's the development and feeding into this technology that will strip your rights away," is like protesting outside of a gunsmith's forge, yelling at him that his support of firearm technology will one day be used by government's to take away his right to defend himself. Clearly, no. The technology will develop with or without his participation, and the government will use it to take his rights away regardless. By learning it, understanding it, and utilizing it while he can, he can utilize it to keep the government's misuse of the same technology at bay.
That's what I think you and the anti-A.I. crowd don't understand, Midas. Just like the Luddites learned before you, the stance of fighting against a new technology being developed won't ever stop it or protect those endangered by it. In keeping with the firearm analogy, the only thing that can REALLY stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. And likewise, if you want to stop the bad guys with A.I., you need to support us good guys using A.I. for good, and stop belittling us or lumping us in with the bad guys because the technology is scary and powerful.
Could not have said this better myself. These anti-AIG zealots have really lost grip of reality. The fact that Midas even had the gall to pretend she knows the "REAL" reason behind the feasibility of AIG art is already telling of how arrogant, entitled, and dishonest she truly is.
The clown didn't even bother to provide any evidence to her rage bait preaching embarrassment of a video.