Beginning artists also need good reference material to become good artists and create new transformative material, is that also copyright infringement? For training to be useful you need more refined material than what you can currently produce, that's just how knowledge works. The goal of these AI isn't to produce the same as it's reference material, if it was then you'd have a case. You can easily see from the output of these generators that the vast majority of what it produces is transformative, confirming it's intended goal.

Scraping data is also very well established as not infringing on copyright if used for analysis purposes. And if you've ever done any kind of analytical research yourself for a PhD or any kind of higher educational degree you know this to be a fundamental freedom required for a healthy society, not even just for artists to learn.

Proposing it should be seen the way you put it would essentially turn ideas into a property one can own and license, and I can tell you now, the same companies you probably dislike will own so many of these ideas that you could effectively do nothing without paying a license to one of them. Is this what you want?

And well, shouldn't need to be said but, if a company gets sued when they think they're in the right, they're going to defend themselves lol. And as far as I know none of these lawsuits have been settled in the favor of artists claiming copyright infringement.

Yes exactly. The people who can conceivably use AI the best are those with very little to begin with. And should you create something successful you would most likely eventually hire actual artists to assist you. It's never that black and white. There's a lot of bad things to say about the big companies and their fascination with putting AI into everything, but that's really just overlooking the much broader societal impact of AI, which is much more visibly positive for independent creators and smaller companies.

The sudden change in how copyright infringement is weighted by some feels mostly like a tactic to me too. Which is a shame because you don't need such things to get sympathy from most people. Losing job security is not something people are stone cold about, and will most likely support protections on that basis alone. Misrepresenting or lying about it will make allies shy away from you even if they have your best intentions in mind. As someone else put it in one of these threads: "If ethics is on your side, slam ethics. If the law is on your side, slam the law. If neither are on your side, slam the table." and this fascination with harshly applying copyright infringement to people doing things with AI that artists did without AI since the dawn of time is stupid.

I'd argue not from a different point of view. The overwhelming majority of AI aren't trained to mimic one specific person or style. Users can still guide the AI towards doing that, but that's exactly the same as what @[email protected] said. Most artists using AI assisted tools do not try to intentionally use AI for that, they try to guide it towards new creative expression, as it should be.

So yes, technically there is a clear difference. The people as described by @[email protected] are edging far more closely to intentional copyright infringement than AI is. But still well within the lines of fair and ethical use. Usage of AI is well within those borders as well if used correctly.

Funny - I distinctly remember not having any time to recreationally make, and most importantly, actually finish small art pieces. Because our society nowadays demands me to be working on things that aren't quite art for 80% of the time I'm awake. AI assisted tools have caused me to be able to use that 20% to actually make something again in a satisfactory way. At least for me and most people I talk to in a similar situation, it has allowed me to enjoy being creative again.

Yeah I can't look at artists with zero nuance for AI as anything but being hypocritical. Most artists I know from the industry understand that legally they have no case against these companies because they use the same fundamental freedoms and ideas extracted from the collective human creativity they themselves used to get where they are. And art and creative studies explicitly teach you this. You will spend a lot of time analyzing great works to see what makes them so special, and replicating those ideas as practice.

It's how it's been since forever, and many great artists in history are on record as having directly studied, imitated, or producing homages of other great artists. The Mona Lisa is the best example, it has uncountable derivative works, but nobody questions the ethics of that because we accept even works directly based on another have room for creative input that can make it distinct. And nobody is claiming to have made the original, just their own version.

Hiding or downplaying those facts about the creative industry so you can call AI theft without being a hypocrite is very questionable behaviour, especially since it's often used to convince people that don't know much about the creative process and can't properly realize their ignorance is being taken advantage of to condition them these aren't just a normal part of becoming a better artist. And if pressed on that, the response is usually "but it's okay if a human does it.", admitting that the point was intentionally misrepresented to not hint people in on the fact the AI is doing the same as the human, and not explicit copyright infringement akin to real theft.

You can still not like AI or argue to provide better protections for people displaced by AI, I honestly partially agree. The technology needs to remain something in the hands of the working people that contribute to the collective, not gated behind proprietary services built to extort you. But arguing against AI on a level of theft or plagiarism (barring situations where the person using the AI intends to do exactly that) is just incredibly disingenuous and makes allies not want to associate with you because you're just spouting falsehoods for personal gain. Even if I think you deserve all the help in the world, you're asking me to accept and propagate a lie to support you, I will not do that.

And there's the flipside. Limiting those freedoms in a way that AI would be outlawed or constrained would most likely cause unintentional side effects that can blow up in artist's faces, limiting not only their freedoms but also the freedoms of artists that embrace AI and use it as the tool it's meant to be. And you bet your ass that companies like Disney are just salivating at the idea of amending copyright law once more.

Kings never went away, they just changed to a different form and name to remain accepted in society, as the ones with the crowns ended up in the gallows.

There is no such sexual material in the book. An innocent teenage girl asked a raunchy question to a friend she had a crush on because that's the kind of behavior teens display while they grow up and develop themselves. And she got shut down. Nothing graphical was ever shown. It's showing only what was written by that same normal girl disconnected and hidden from the world as they hide from murderous tyrannical nazi's. Raw and unfiltered thoughts and feelings of a normal developing teen, as the girl wrote it for herself, not us. As the Anne Frank Foundation said in the video "A book written by a 12 year old can be read by 12 year olds."

On the odd chance you aren't completely trolling. Anne Frank was a girl going through puberty. She had a crush on her friend and like any normal young person had to deal with scary, unknown, but very normal human feelings and desires of intimacy and love. It's her own fucking diary, she didn't self censor herself for prudes in 2024. She had a war and death hanging over her head at any moment.

And if you actually go look at the book, there is nothing graphic about it. To these prudes having these normal feelings and describing them in a diary is what they consider to be graphic. Here's a Dutch talkshow host absolutely clowning on these people just by showing the passage the controversy is actually about (with English subtitles)

You can certainly try to use the power as much as possible, or sell the energy to a country with a deficit. But the problem is that you would still need to invest a lot of money to make sure the grid can handle the excess if you build renewables to cover 100% of the grid demand for now and in the future. Centralized fuel sources require much less grid changes because it flows from one place and spreads from there, so infrastructure only needs to be improved close to the source. Renewables as decentralized power sources requires the grid to be strengthened anywhere they are placed, and often that is not practical, both in financial costs and in the engineers it takes to actually do that.

Would it be preferable? Yes. Would it happen before we already need to be fully carbon neutral? Often not.

I'd refer you to my other post about the situation in my country. We have a small warehouse of a few football fields which stores the highest radioactivity of unusable nuclear fuel, and still has more than enough space for centuries. The rest of the fuel is simply re-used until it's effectively regular waste. The time to build two new nuclear reactors here also costs only about 10 years, not 20.

Rather continue with wind and solar and then batteries for the money.

All of these things should happen regardless of nuclear progress. And they do happen. But again, building renewables isn't just about the price.

Some personal thoughts: My own country (The Netherlands) has despite a very vocal anti-nuclear movement in the 20th century completely flipped now to where the only parties not in favor of Nuclear are the Greens, who at times quote the fear as a reason not to do it. As someone who treats climate change as truly existential for our country that lies below projected sea levels, it makes them look unreasonable and not taking the issue seriously. We have limited land too, and a housing crisis on top of it. So land usage is a big pain point for renewables, and even if the land is unused, it is often so close to civilization that it does affect people's feelings of their surroundings when living near them, which might cause renewables to not make it as far as it could unrestricted. A nuclear reactor takes up fractions of the space, and can be relatively hidden from people.

All the other parties who heavily lean in to combating climate change at least acknowledge nuclear as an option that should (and are) being explored. And even the more climate skeptical parties see nuclear as something they could stand behind. Having broad support for certain actions is also important to actually getting things done. Our two new nuclear powered plants are expected to be running by 2035. Only ten years from now, ahead of our climate goals to be net-zero in 2040.

People are kind of missing the point of the meme. The point is that Nuclear is down there along with renewables in safety and efficiency. It's lacking the egregious cover up in the original meme, even if it has legitimate concerns now. And due to society's ever increasing demand for electricity, we will heavily benefit from having a more scalable solution that doesn't require covering and potentially disrupting massive amounts of land before their operations can be scaled up to meet extraordinary demand. Wind turbines and solar panels don't stop working when we can't use their electricity either, so it's not like we can build too many of them or we risk creating complications out of peak hours. Many electrical networks aren't built to handle the loads. A nuclear reactor can be scaled down to use less fuel and put less strain on the electrical network when unneeded.

It should also be said that money can't always be spent equally everywhere. And depending on the labor required, there is also a limit to how manageable infrastructure is when it scales. The people that maintain and build solar panels, hydro, wind turbines, and nuclear, are not the same people. And if we acknowledge that climate change is an existential crisis, we must put our eggs in every basket we can, to diversify the energy transition. All four of the safest and most efficient solutions we have should be tapped into. But nuclear is often skipped because of outdated conceptions and fear. It does cost a lot and takes a while to build, but it fits certain shapes in the puzzle that none of the others do as well as it does.

Google Docs, Sheets, and Forms should also get a mention. People forget that before that the only way to work together on documents was a shared drive with file locking while 1 person can work on a file at a time, complicated and unpractical. There are still no massively adopted replacements for these (Or they're made by Microsoft, lol)

"You know you don't need to bring a dead horse every time you want catering right, Jim?"

Not necessarily true. Premium subscribers are worth a ton more to content creators because they get a cut of the premium price for every premium view. And it's not insignificant compared to a non-premium viewer.

For a non-premium viewers to provide value to a sponsorship they need to either use an affiliate link and purchase, or at least look. Creators often don't get paid for viewers that don't click the link. And only a small percent of the users is going to do that. And even non-premium viewers already use ad and sponsor block.

Don't be confused - content creators would likely benefit greatly from a higher percentage of premium subscribers on their videos. They are guaranteed income, and sponsors are often a lot more volatile.

Ideas are great - but execution is king. Because execution is where most of your creativity actually makes a difference in how the idea is represented. If you have a good idea and a good execution, it's very hard for someone to take that away from you. If you have a good idea, but execute it poorly, someone taking that idea and executing it better will leave you in the dust. But without the better execution that wouldn't work.

Better execution isn't always fair though - we often start out in life being unable to compete because of lack of experience, financing, and publicity. But it's basically how the entire entertainment industry works. Everyone just shuffles ideas around, and try to execute it better (or different enough) from the previous time the idea made the rounds.

After finding good ideas, get people hooked on your execution, and they will not be able to get that anywhere else unless someone else comes along and does it even better, but with practice that can also be you.

If you're here because of the AI headline, this is important to read.

We’re looking at how we can use local, on-device AI models -- i.e., more private -- to enhance your browsing experience further. One feature we’re starting with next quarter is AI-generated alt-text for images inserted into PDFs, which makes it more accessible to visually impaired users and people with learning disabilities.

They are implementing AI how it should be. Don't let all the shitty companies blind you to the fact what we call AI has positive sides.

Yes, it would be much better at mitigating it and beat all humans at truth accuracy in general. And truths which can be easily individually proven and/or remain unchanged forever can basically be 100% all the time. But not all truths are that straight forward though.

What I mentioned can't really be unlinked from the issue, if you want to solve it completely. Have you ever found out later on that something you told someone else as fact turned out not to be so? Essentially, you 'hallucinated' a truth that never existed, but you were just that confident it was correct to share and spread it. It's how we get myths, popular belief, and folklore.

For those other truths, we simply ascertain the truth to be that which has reached a likelihood we consider it to be certain. But ideas and concepts we have in our minds constantly float around on that scale. And since we cannot really avoid talking to other people (or intelligent agents) to ascertain certain truths, misinterpretations and lies can sneak in to cause us to treat as truth that which is not. To avoid that would mean the having to be pretty much everywhere to personally interpret the information straight from the source. But then things like how fast it can process those things comes in to play. Without making guesses about what's going to happen, you basically can't function in reality.

Yes, a theoretical future AI that would be able to self-correct would eventually become more powerful than humans, especially if you could give it ways to run magnitudes more self-correcting mechanisms at the same time. But it would still be making ever so small assumptions when there is a gap in the information it has.

It could be humble enough to admit it doesn't know, but it can still be mistaken and think it has the right answer when it doesn't. It would feel neigh omniscient, but it would never truly be.

A roundtrip around the globe on glass fibre takes hundreds of milliseconds, so even if it has the truth on some matter, there's no guarantee that didn't change in the milliseconds it needed to become aware that the truth has changed. True omniscience simply cannot exists since information (and in turn the truth encoded by that information) also propagates at the speed of light.

a big mistake you are making here is stating that it must be fed information that it knows to be true, this is not inherently true. You can train a model on all of the wrong things to do, as long it has the capability to understand this, it shouldn’t be a problem.

The dataset that encodes all wrong things would be infinite in size, and constantly change. It can theoretically exist, but realistically it will never happen. And if it would be incomplete it has to make assumptions at some point based on the incomplete data it has, which would open it up to being wrong, which we would call a hallucination.

I'm not sure where you think I'm giving it too much credit, because as far as I read it we already totally agree lol. You're right, methods exist to diminish the effect of hallucinations. That's what the scientific method is. Current AI has no physical body and can't run experiments to verify objective reality. It can't fact check itself other than be told by the humans training it what is correct (and humans are fallible), and even then if it has gaps in what it knows it will fill it up with something probable - but which is likely going to be bullshit.

All my point was, is that to truly fix it would be to basically create an omniscient being, which cannot exist in our physical world. It will always have to make some assumptions - just like we do.

Hallucinations in AI are fairly well understood as far as I'm aware. Explained in high level on the Wikipedia page for it. And I'm honestly not making any objective assessment of the technology itself. I'm making a deduction based on the laws of nature and biological facts about real life neural networks. (I do say AI is driven by the data it's given, but that's something even a layman might know)

How to mitigate hallucinations is definitely something the experts are actively discussing and have limited success in doing so (and I certainly don't have an answer there either), but a true fix should be impossible.

I can't exactly say why I'm passionate about it. In part I want people to be informed about what AI is and is not, because knowledge about the technology allows us to make more informed decision about the place AI takes in our society. But I'm also passionate about human psychology and creativity, and what we can learn about ourselves from the quirks we see in these technologies.