Oh for fucks sake, why is it the people worst at claiming fallacies are always the first to try to use them. No, this is neither a strawman, nor is it moving the goalposts. If I was moving the goalposts, I would have to create a new justification that could never be actually reached. What I did, was a clarification to counter a bad-faith interpretation.

My point was ALWAYS “This thing would not exist without AI.” Not that it was impossible to exist without it, but that the requirements for its creation exceed what the average person can be reasonably assumed to possess. The average person doesn’t have access to a multi-million dollar studio, and you taking my clarification as an attempt to move the goalposts is an admission to your own strawman attempt, not me moving the goalposts.

As for claiming I’m building a strawman, again, you’re wrong. At worst it would be a non sequitur, as it was an assessment built upon a series of questions. You can claim “No, that reasoning doesn’t follow the logic,” but a strawman is when I actively argue against a position you don’t hold, which is what you did.

And it’s not even a non sequitur, it’s just displaying your actual beliefs in a non-flattering light, which was the entire point.

People are using LLMs to express their creativity due to lack of skill in the creative arts. Painting, drawing, sketching, all of these skills take years of practice to get good at. Up until now, when people had in image in their minds eye, they either had to scour the Internet for someone that had already made that thing, pay someone else to make it for them, spend years learning the skill, or… Just never make it.

Whether you like it or not, these models ARE enabling people to express their creativity in ways that were gated behind money, or years of practice.

Whether you like it or not, demanding a total cessation of their use, is definitionally calling for the restriction on how people express themselves artistically. You don’t like the framing, because your pseudo position is being a champion of artists and the downtrodden, but my argument is that it’s actually just a purity position built on tribal identity and emotion.

And because I can feel your argument building already…

It would be a strawman to pivot to “What about the Grok stuff!” Or “What about all the copywrite infringement!” Which are both genuine issues that exist, nor am I defending them or justifying them AT ALL. But they’re unrelated to the specific point that I am making and was brought up in this thread.

Demanding a universal ban/cessation is inherently restricting people’s ability to express themselves. It’s claiming a tool is offensive or inherently dirty because of unrelated ways in which it has been abused, or used to hurt people. You cannot simultaneously demand inclusivity and accessibility be universal, while also cherry picking specific areas that it’s okay to gatekeep.

Should my nephew with cerebral palsy be insulted and admonished for not learning how to draw his DnD characters properly? Because that is genuinely what is happening from MANY people in this toxic purity movement. Or artists such as this that don’t use AI, but still get these purity police on their ass accusing them of it nonetheless.

And who are you to claim to be the arbiter of what it is to “be art,” Eh? Is the conductor an artist? They’re not writing the music, or even playing a single instrument. Is the interpretive dancer an artist? They’re not actually making anything, just wiggling their arms in funny ways.

What gives you the right to decide what is and isn’t art? How precisely do you think yourself so much wiser and more accurate that the thousands that have come before you proudly claiming that X isn’t and never will be art? Videogames, novels, digital paintings, rock and roll, you name it, and someone before you has said it isn’t and never will be art.

This is nothing more than an argument for purity.

“I do not like this thing, I have decided it is dirty and tainted. Therefore, anything associated with it is automatically tainted. Here are some post-hoc reasonings as to why it is tainted.”

Honestly? No, probably not without…

They’re already planning to rig every election, so even if they lose it’s unlikely they’ll leave. And even if some one did the deed Vance isn’t any better, and the entire admin is stocked with lunatics.

You guys are kinda fucked tbh.

I’m not sure if this is a metaphor, or genuine. But if it’s genuine I’m very curious to know what this instrument is!

If it’s a metaphor, I think it’s a good one. We build, design, draw, and create, with the hope that we make the world a better place in some small way. The person that invented the abacus did so, because they wanted to do mathematics easier. Should those have come before been offended that their years and years of doing math on their fingers was now being stolen and simplified?

This is the march of progress. And it fucking SUCKS that people are being hurt by it. I fully advocate for universal basic income, free education, and fully funded career transitions, because technology will never slow down, and people need to feel comfortable in order to embrace it.

So is the argument that restricting people’s creativity to only be expressed if you have the finances to do so, a good thing?

Because it is indeed literally impossible for the average person to create this without that technology.

https://m.youtube.com/@ChloeVSHistory

First one that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are more.

Could this be made without AI? Yes, of course it could. But it would require a HUGE budget, and an entire studio dedicated to it.

Is the creator hiding the fact it was AI gen? No, of course not. Would I prefer it be created with studio quality and real actors with real props? Absolutely I would. But absent that, this is still a really cool project.

Then maybe stop treating it like a purity signal wielded like a weapon, and judge content based on its actual quality?

I know it’s a radical idea. But artists can use AI and also be fully emotionally invested in the process. Other artists can choose to use no AI at all. And some can even make interesting pieces that would be literally impossible without it.

Aim your ire at corruption and greed. Not the concept itself.

UGH, napkin slop? That’s ridiculous. I only accept memes that are created using 15th century wood burning techniques. Anything else is just offensive.

You’re right. Someone should have taken the 20 minutes required to scribble this out with crayon. Shame on them!

I don’t think that’s accurate to the DSM-5…

You’re right. Anybody that is angry is allowed to condemn literally anything they want indescriminantly.

Somebody mugged me yesterday, so I’m going to demand shoes be outlawed, as they used shoes to run away.

If you tell me I’m being unreasonable, you’re victim blaming.

Okay, so you actually take issue with internet scraping itself? Let me get things straight, do you have a problem with LLMs themselves, or the data used to train them? It seems like an obvious “Yeah, the data is the issue,” to me but I want to clarify because I HAVE seen the other stance before.

And if it is just the data, does that mean your REAL issue is the act of internet scraping itself? Because then you’re also going to have to condemn every search engine and indexing algorithm in the world and go back to pre-indexing days when we just typed in the URL as the only method.

Or is it the monetisation that you don’t like? Because then the models I provided should be exempt because they’re 100% free.

Humans have always overestimated the power of tech. The reach of our imaginations has always exceeded our grasp. I don’t think this tech will be replacing people any more than computers themselves replaced people. “Computers” once meant actual people that would sit at desks and compute equations. That job is gone, but its erasure opened up new possibilities that could not have been imagined before. When “modern” computers were first invented, it was assumed that they would replace all humans within a generation. he wrote on his pocket computer from his normal human job that used computers.

The issue is, I’d say the same applies to every model that produces useful outputs.

That you know of. Your lack of awareness is not an indication on the stance of the technology itself. If you have a problem with Grok, as I do, then condemn Grok, Twitter, and that pathetic man child that owns them.

If you tell somebody that the LLM they’re using is unethical, they’ll nust go use another convenient corporate model.

Yeah, so actively fight against these toxic corporate activities. Fuck OpenAI. Fuck Google. Fuck Twitter. But the instant negative reaction to their shared tool is getting quite a few additional people caught in the blast.

And “public data” is not enough for me, because that typically means scraping copyrighted content from public websites, I’m not aware of a model that uses only data with permission

Again, this is an expression of your ignorance, not reality.

OLMo 2 was trained on Wikipedia and other fully public forums. Its training sources and data is fully accessible and open.

GPT-NeoX is an untrained model that you can train yourself. It’s literally just the foundations anybody could use.

Pythia is fully open source, and one of its training sources was GitHub. Which does genuinely bring in to question whether or not you can use GitHub to train AI. Personally, I don’t see how branching a repository is any different than using the code to train a model. But the current anti-AI trend has people EXTREMELY sensitive to this concept.

My wife is a materials science researcher, and works for a university here in Germany. She uses AI to drastically increase the speed that she programs calculations and simulations. Yes, it regularly spits out nonsense, and she’s constantly having to refine and tweak it, which she can effectively do because she has a PhD in the field. She has repeatedly told me that the actual programming was always the least favourite part of her job. But now that she can get an LLM to write the actual code, all she has to do is go back to refine it, and spend more time thinking, and less time reading stack exchange.

Another group used Evo 1 and Evo 2 to create novel genomes for bacteriophages in the fight against antibiotic resistance. There is a nuanced debate on whether those models are technically LLMs, since their language is actual sequencing rather than written descriptions. But they are structurally nearly identical.

My personal project is iterally just for funsies, to see if I can mimick human learning and dreaming by combining an LLM with a more abstract NN. So the weights are never frozen, and it actively hallucinates and dreams scenarios between weight adjustments and re-initialization.

I don’t know how to make it not lie, and I’m not sure if that’s possible. But I see that akin to asking “But how can we make X-rays safe to be used in shoe stores again?” Maybe we can’t, but that doesn’t mean we should ban them entirely.

You and I seem to agree whole heartedly with the harms. Over use, abuse, misunderstanding, etc. are terrible and causing real harms.

But I see people pointing their ire at every instance of the word indiscriminately, actively antagonizing those who are actively trying to make the changes they supposedly support.

Cool, then go after the corporations shoving tech in places we don’t want it.

Go after the data centers that are displacing families and wasting resources.

Go after the media for misrepresenting reality and distorting truths.

Those are all real harms with real actors. Getting angry at the camera because someone took blackmail photos of you is nonsense.

Yeah, except that’s a complete shift from “This technology is bad,” to “I don’t like the way this technology is being used.”

You could write a 5,000,000 word thesis on all the ways ANY technology could be abused, and it STILL would not be a refutation from its beneficial uses.

Explain to me why open source LLMs, trained on public data, so both the training data and the resulting model are both 100% free and open source, are bad. For something to be universally bad, it CANNOT have any positive uses. Otherwise the real assessment is that it shouldn’t be abused, not that it shouldn’t exist at all, which I 100% agree with.

Because that’s the claim that needs to be defended. I am not defending OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. at all, so suggesting I am would be dishonest. I am not saying it should replace teachers, or scientists, or programmers, or anything like that, so suggesting I am would be dishonest.

I am not defending the corporate practice of explosive expansion, which causes these major issues. As that is a product of psychopathic capitalism abusing a technology, not an inherent property of the technology itself.

If you want to justify how an emotionless, mindless, will-less technology is inherently bad, you need to address its BEST, most ethical uses. Not its worst. You’re making a universal claim. I reject the universal claim. I don’t need to explain the abuses, because I am not justifying or defending them. The responsibility is yours to explain how the ethical uses are somehow bad.

https://lemmy.zip/comment/28450273

Why act like an ass?

Being a sarcastic ass does nothing to refute my point. I don’t have to be an oracle to look back at history and see 100% of technologies finding an eventual use. I don’t know how the problems will be solved, and I don’t need to know what their uses will be in order for the trend that has continued for 1,500 years of recorded history to most likely be true.

You, on the other hand, have to somehow show that THIS technology is so wildly unique that none of the examples from the last 1,500 years are informative.

Edit: sorry, got some things mixed up in my brain. Just because you can’t identify a use for a technology doesn’t mean a technology is bad. Unless you are personally familiar with every single technology, profession, and process on the entire planet, and those that will be invented in the future, and can act as the ultimate arbiter of what is and isn’t useful. Alcohol is very harmful. But also good at sterilisation. X-rays are very harmful, but also good at medical imaging. Gunpowder is very harmful, but also makes pretty fireworks.

Cool, your personal experience doesn’t dictate the global population. And you just reiterated my point. What about the people in your circles that don’t talk about it at all?