this post was submitted on 05 Jul 2024
571 points (88.2% liked)

Solarpunk

5507 readers
125 users here now

The space to discuss Solarpunk itself and Solarpunk related stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

What is Solarpunk?

Join our chat: Movim or XMPP client.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

In a post-scarcity solarpunk future, I could imagine some reasonable uses, but that’s not the world we’re living in yet.


AI art has already poisoned the creative environment. I commissioned an artist for my latest solarpunk novel, and they used AI without telling me. I had to scrap that illustration. Then the next person I tried to hire claimed they could do the work without AI but in fact they could not.

All that is to say, fuck generative AI and fuck capitalism!

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 83 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Someone said something that stuck with me the other day. "I don't want AI to create all of our art and music so we can work more. I want AI to do our work so we have more time to create art and music".

[–] IHeartBadCode@kbin.run 46 points 4 months ago (1 children)

The reason for that is that you have to look at this as if you're some greedy corporate bastard.

A robot butler costs money to build and if it doesn't pan out, they're on the hook for the cost. Firing people saves money right now, and if generative art doesn't pan out, they can hire new employees that will work for less.

AI is just the latest craze to justify what these greedy bastards do all the time. The way they're fucking us is new, but the act of fucking us is as old as dirt.

[–] DannyMac@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 40 points 4 months ago (36 children)

If the AI isn't stealing content, then piracy isn't stealing either.

[–] DannyMac@lemm.ee 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Piracy isn't since it is making exact copies of yer booty

[–] NostraDavid@programming.dev 17 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Would that not mean that AIs aren't stealing either? 🤔

It would undermine the exact point OP is making, but I understand what he means, so that still stands.

[–] Colonel_Panic_@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago

Either none of it is stealing or all of it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (35 replies)
[–] Devcatdan@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Haven't seen a penny arcade comics in like 15 years. Gotta say, the art style has suffered. Tycho looks like he has hydrocephaly

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 22 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It may have suffered, but it's distinctive.

The webcomic space is flooded with generic "good art". If you want to stand out and build or maintain your brand - you need a unique look. Artists want their audience to be able to look at a character and instantly know they drew it.

(The best example of this is perhaps the worst human being in webcomics today. You can recognize his style in the first three lines of a face.)

I think PA was in kind of a bad place, because they were popular so early in the webcomic boom and so many people copied their style that their original art became generic. What's going to attract a new teenage reader to PA if it looks just like every other crappy "two guys on a couch playing video games" webcomic they've seen?

So PA had to change their style. And say what you will about it, there's no doubt who drew (or had an AI tool draw) those characters.

[–] pantyhosewimp@lemmynsfw.com 8 points 4 months ago

I stopped reading this comic back in the mid 00s because they didn’t read the Wikipedia editing guidelines, and they got scolded when they edited things incorrectly, so they tried turning their audience into getting revenge on Wikipedia somehow.

[–] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

I feel like I could cut glass with his chins. I stopped reading ages ago as well, so when I found myself back on their site for some reason, it was pretty shocking.

[–] blind3rdeye@lemm.ee 28 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

AI is a lot like plastic:

It is versatile and easy to use. There are some cases for which it is the highest quality product for the job; but for most cases it is just a far cheaper alternative, with bit of a quality reduction.

So what we end up with is plastic being used a lot, to reduce costs and maximise profits; but mostly the products it is used for are worse than they would otherwise be. They look worse. They degrade faster. They produce mountains of waste that end up contaminating every food source of every animal in the world. As a species, we want to use it less; but individual companies and people continue to use it for everything because it is cheap and convenient.

I think AI will be the same. It is relatively cheap and convenient. It can be used for a very wide range of things, and does a pretty good job. But in most cases it is not quite as good as what we were doing before. In any case, AI output will dominate everything we consume because of how cheap and easy it is. News, reviews, social media comments, web searches, all sorts of products... a huge proportion will be AI created - and although we'll wish they weren't (because of the unreliable quality), it will be almost impossible to avoid; because its easier to produce 1000 articles with AI than a single one by a human. So people will churn junk and hope to get lucky rather than putting in work to insure high quality.

For individual people creating stuff, the AI makes it easier and faster and cheaper; and can create good results. But for the world as a whole, we'll end up choking on a mountain of rubbish, as we now have to wade through vastly more low-quality works to find what we're looking for. It will contaminate everything we consume, and we won't be able to get rid of it.

[–] Taleya@aussie.zone 10 points 4 months ago

It's not even the fact it's cheap and easy, it's just a bunch of idiots overinvested and now they're desperately trying to make it A Thing so they can recoup losses.

Mcdonalds tried to shoehorn it into drive thru orders. The place that popularised a set menu you select a a controlled list of items from. Wtaf.

[–] AIhasUse@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago (22 children)

It also makes a way for the poor to be able to afford to get art to make comics and other things when they otherwise would have been unable to hire artists. Generative ai also allows poor people to write code they couldn't before because they couldn't afford the help. It also gives poor people the ability to brainstorm new ideas when they can't afford a team of consultants.

It helps the poor, just like search engines and the internet. There were people back in those days scared of change as well. Gen ai is a huge equalizer or wealth and power. The vast majority of people using Gen Ai are using it for things that they never would have considered being able to hire someone to do anyway.

[–] ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world 25 points 4 months ago (2 children)

shh. if you can't afford to pay people, then you should just die. /s

you're quite right, and it's a shame that generative AI art is treated like a gun and not a hammer. Both can be used to kill someone. (it's not a great analogy, but hopefully people see my point about it generative AI being more than a weapon to kill artists)

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] paw@feddit.org 21 points 4 months ago (18 children)

First of all it concentrates power and wealth on the owners of the models (Microsoft, OpenAI) or the ones that provide the tools (Nvidia).

Yes, there is truth in it, that people who couldn't afford to pay someone to create art, or get consulting, can get this now to a certain extend (if they can afford internet access and pay the AI services they need). But this comes also at the price of lowering the income of the people who provided these services. They now need to compete in the business creation market and not in the market that they trained for. Not everyone can create and maintain a business with or without starting money, just from a skill point of view. Nor does everybody want to.

[–] Deceptichum@quokk.au 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Umm what?

When I run a checkpoint at home, how do you think the creator of checkpoint is profiting or gaining any power/wealth?

This stuff is ridiculously easily self hosted and run independently of any company.

[–] Plastic_Ramses@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

It might be "ridiculously easy" but there is a reason why linux adoption is around 3ish%.

Its because it isnt the easiest option.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)
[–] Veraxus@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is why I focus on distribution rather than training. If you commercialize a model trained on things you don’t own/license, and it generates anything remotely infringing, you should be fully on the hook for every single incident.

But if a model is trained and distributed freely as FOSS, then it’s up to anyone running it to ensure the output is not infringing. This protects fair use while also ensuring that big companies tread more carefully when redistributing models that can violate fair use by competing with those whose work was trained on without permission and are subsequently being emulated without permission.

[–] JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee 8 points 4 months ago (4 children)

Who do you care so much about protecting the failed and unethical law of copyright? Are you going to tell me you don't pirate media too?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (19 replies)
[–] AEMarling@slrpnk.net 24 points 4 months ago
[–] Matriks404@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

I feel like enjoying AI "art" is the same entertainment type as scrolling through Facebook or TikTok. Fine to kill time, but nothing that will improve our lives. In other words It's a perfect media for the future to get addicted to, and get nothing done.

[–] aaaaace@lemmy.blahaj.zone 21 points 4 months ago (9 children)

Tax all AI companies to fund UBI.

If we had representation...

[–] ArmokGoB@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 points 4 months ago

Tax all ~~AI~~ companies to fund UBI.

FTFY

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 4 months ago

You know it is curious that the common folk bear the tax burden while getting no representation and thr ownership class gets allnthe representation but evades taxes.

This echoes something I learned in history way back when we were occupied and had to contend with monarchs. Funny Numbers Or Fight!, Better Dead Than Red! Fuck Off With Your Stompy Jackboots! and such.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago (7 children)

To the "but what about copyright abolition" people:

There's a clear difference between someone making a meme with an image they taken out of context, or a musician using a sample taken from a song the original artist never seen a single penny from it, or an artist making a fanart of their favorite character, and the AI industry scraping all of it and selling it as a "better, more advanced replacement" of all of it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Mango@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago (10 children)

AI doesn't steal any more than you stole from your learning material.

Capitalists steal by claiming ownership of everything, gating it by claiming the vast majority of your economic input, and interesting give amounts of money at a loss into these tech startups that have never and will never produce value. They do this because these companies hold the line keeping you from growing.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (13 children)

People are still confusing art with output... Even if llms could generate a 1:1 replica of the Mona Lisa, do people think it's going to have the same value and be held in the same regard?

Generated output is a gimmick that will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

Edited: typos

[–] stabby_cicada@slrpnk.net 11 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Generated output is a gimmick that will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

Without getting into the definition of "art", yes, people will use generated output for purposes other than "art". And that's not a gimmick. That's a valuable tool.

Rally organizers can use AI to create pamphlets and notices for protests. Community organizers can illustrate broadsheets and zines. People can add imagery and interest to all sorts of written material that they wouldn't have the time or money to illustrate with traditional graphic design. AI can make an ad for a yard sale or bake sale look as slick and professional as any big name company's ads.

AI tools will make the world a more artistic place, they will let people put graphic art in all sorts of places they wouldn't have the time or money or skill to do so before, and that's a good thing.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

will be used by people who have no intention of making art.

I think you mean 'people who have no intention of paying for art.'

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Nelots@lemm.ee 9 points 4 months ago

AI art has a very real place in current society. It's very useful, and is absolutely going to get better and become a normal part of the future. We're not going to avoid it, so we should work on making AI less morally fucked. The technology isn't the problem, the people behind it are. Rather than stealing art, the multi-million/billion-dollar companies behind these models need to pay artists for every single piece of art they use in their models.

[–] Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

I think the way forward is to label and be honest about AI.

So to your point OP, I agree, using AI art is fine, but lying about it is bad just like lying about your vendors.

[–] HailSeitan@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago

Oh look, it’s Mira Murati!

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Sounds like if you want to be able to actually protect yourself from potential infringement, you're going to require your artists to record themselves creating the art the entire process. And that video itself would be part of your defense

[–] merari42@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Now that sounds dystopian as fuck. Because at scale this will involve human workers being tracked all the time and limited in their freedom. Ironically an AI might be used to track what workers do in such a scenario.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›