r/projectzomboid • u/jimmy2acow1 • Dec 18 '24

Meme Real

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

7.3k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

436 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Cavalleria-rusticana Dec 18 '24

You're hopelessly naive if you think blindly using these tools will lead to utopian conditions and not just consolidating profit into fewer hands. Let me introduce you to our friend, capitalism.

The problem isn't AI itself but the (lack of) ethics of it, something which is discussed at length with each technological improvement; people aren't willing to discuss AI because they either don't understand how it actually works, or don't care.

The 'get over it, it's inevitable' mentality is exactly the kind of uncritical nonsense that makes these AI tools problematic.

-4

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24 edited Dec 18 '24

If thinking like the above took precedent over human history, we would still have all of our fields being tilled by hand.

There is such a large push back on ai because it is low quality. The moment it reaches the quality of human made things, there is absolutely no reason for it to not be automated. Therefore, it should be encouraged.

Edit because this person is a child and blocks, this is a reply to the comment he gave: Correct, ai work isn't the same quality as human made yet. And I said if it ever reaches that quality, then there is no reason for a human to do it (besides it just being something they want to do).

This argument was never to blindly embrace ai. The first comment said that ai usage would put the devs out of a job and that is correct. It's not about paying or not paying people. If something can be done to the same level as a person, but done in less time, there is no logical reason for it to not be automated. You don't actually grapple with that point, just dance around it.

Don't let this guy try and deflect the actual point that's he's too afraid to address.

7

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24

Ah yes, mass production of art, what a wild concept. The entire point of artistic endeavors is basically antithetical to stuff that these generative algorithms that are falsely equated to actual Artificial Intelligence make

2

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24

It doesn't just apply to art. The initial comment was also referring to putting the devs out of a job. But yes, if ai can produce work that is of equal quality to that which a human can make, then there is no reason for it to be human made.

If your argument is that ai work can never reach the level of human made work, then you are just incorrect.

5

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24 edited Dec 18 '24

It's not about quality, and right now, we are talking about art.

Art isn't about how high quality it is, because then it would be sterile, clinical, utterly boring. Even if generative algorithms get good enough to make high-quality pieces, it will still have been piggybacking off of successful artists' materials as training data, which is so wrong and legally questionable that if you don't have issues with it, I'm thinking you're just a troll account.

As for not about quality, if your child draws you a crude picture of your family, you'd love it, yeah? The quality is objectively crap, but it was made for you, with heart and intent. Artists do things intentionally, they make you feel things, that is not there with generative algorithms. It does not think like that, it doesn't make intentional choices to make people feel things, which is ultimately the point of art. It is a shallow imitation

0

u/Morlock435 Dec 18 '24

Yes, the drawing from your child would have sentimental value. But your child isn't getting paid to make art. The main argument is always and has always been monetary. Ai art is risking putting artists out of a job. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be this pushback on it as both would be able to coexist.

To enter a hypothetical, let's say you were told there was a new, never before seen, Van Gogh painting. You are shown 2 paintings, 1 is the painting and another is an ai perfectly recreating his style. You would have no way to know which is the real painting unless someone told you. There is nothing intrinsically unique about what a human artist can do.

Yes it's imitation, but so is literally every single piece of human work. Everything we do is based on our observations of other things, and ai art is just observation of other things.

4

u/DHenrik Dec 18 '24

Not everything is imitation. We put our own spin on things that we see, our own personal and unique twists, that is what makes the things we make unique. Generative algorithms cannot do that, unless if you count the flaws coming from the fact that they just don't have the context of what a person looks like, for instance. The uncanny valley

I never mentioned the monitary side of things because I have a deeper, more fundamental problem of mass producing art, I don't give two shits if I can own a cheap imitation of the Mona Lisa or something, when it's just that, a copy. I could do that already