6 ms·

They also don't take 20 years to become smart like pesky resource-exhausting humans. I bet you could be up and running from a pup in 10-20 months.

by krsw 7mo ago

Forgeties79 7mo ago
I still can’t believe Altman said that. I mean I can, but still.
- the_af 7mo ago
  It helps to picture some sort of extraterrestrial saying this. Maybe someone like Alan Tudyk in "Resident Alien". It makes much more sense than to assume it's a human being saying these things.
- jordanb 7mo ago
  These guys can't watch a dystopian scifi movie without picturing themselves as the bad guy.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    Yup. The Torment Nexus meme proved depressingly accurate.
- charcircuit 7mo ago
  I can because I have also used similar arguments. There are people who say that you should use a real artist instead of AI due to AI's water use. Yet in actuality asking a human to draw something will require more water. There are people who think AI uses more resources than humans which is why it must be said.
  - the_af 7mo ago
    > There are people who say that you should use a real artist instead of AI due to AI's water use. Nobody I know says this. In fact, I've never heard of this ever before, and I read artist and hobby communities pretty hostile to AI, but I never once read this nice strawman you've built. People say you should use a real artist instead of AI for a multitude of reasons: - Because they want to enjoy art created by humans. - Because it provides a living to artists, even artists for minor work like advertising or lesser commercial illustrations. - Because AI "art" is built by stealing from human artists, and while human art has a history of copying and cloning, never before has tech allowed this in such a massive, soulless scale. Sam Altman gave a deranged, completely out of touch reply, and he should be called to task for it, not defended. A human being is not some number on a spreadsheet, built over 20 years in order to achieve some "smartness" goal. That's a very stupid thing to say.
    - pksebben 7mo ago
      It's that second point. We live in an age of artificial scarcity created by a system of social organization that we've mostly not argued about since the 50s, that's now showing it's stretch marks. If it weren't for the need to 'earn' a living, I'd say to the other two points: Por que no los dos? Save for the capital argument (which is valid, I'm not saying it isn't. You will starve if you don't make money), why is it necessarily true that the two (AI and people) are in competition? In fact, I think "actual" artists would benefit incredibly from the use of AI, which they could do if it weren't a shibboleth (like I said, for good reason). You'd no longer have to have an army of underpaid animators from vietnam to bring your OC to life - you could just use your own art and make it move and sing. We'd not need huge lumbering organizations full of people who, let's be honest, work there making other people's dreams come to life in large part because it's a better bet than taking a joe-job at the local denny's (after all, you're doing the thing you love even if it isn't truly "yours"). I've had this discussion with younger folks, who are legitimately shook by the state of things. They're worried that all the work they've done to this point is going to be moot, because they've correctly assessed that the whole capital system isn't going anywhere any time soon, and they've been prepping to try and get a job at netflix, or disney, or paramount - because that's the world we've handed them. They see those positions drying up and what else are you going to do? They have the power financially and politically and without them you're doing "not art" for work, which sucks because you need to work. I say; eat the rich. General wildcat strikes until UBI. Tax the everloving shit out of capital gains and peel back personal income taxes. We (the millenials) were handed a steaming pile of shit for a world, so at least we know what would constitute not an absolute disaster for Zeds, Alphas, etc. Have I gone totally off the rails for a conversation about AI? Actually, I don't believe so. The cultural pushback is a function of a busted system. After all, it's the economy, stupid.
    - charcircuit 7mo ago
      >Nobody I know says this. >I never once read this nice strawman you've built. The instance of it I found was in a YouTube comment section.
      - the_af 7mo ago
  - Forgeties79 7mo ago
    Over a year ago yeah I occasionally heard that argument or some light variation of it, though not nearly to this ridiculous extent that you’re portraying now. Now? It’s basically a strawman. Most people’s objections revolve around the theft/reckless scraping that has literally taken down public infrastructure required to train these models as well as the ridiculous expectations being put that all of us implement it in literally every aspect of our lives even if it doesn’t fit, especially professionally.
  - jraph 7mo ago
    > a human to draw something will require more water. That human would require the same amount of water whether you ask them to draw or not, and would exist anyway because they are not born for productivity reasons. "Creation" of humans isn't driven by the amount of work to accomplish. You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something. Same for energy consumption. This argument doesn't work at all. What you do for humans to use fewer resources is to work on making us produce less garbage, and produce things using techniques that are less resource-intensive.
    - groestl 7mo ago
      > You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something. That's certainly not true. Asking me to think hard about something will cause me to burn more calories. Asking me to do physical work even more so.
      - jraph 7mo ago
        Would you be completely at rest if you were not asked to produce stuff? Do you think AI replaces our hard thinking and our physical work? AI or not, I personally intend to keep thinking and my physical activity.
        groestl 7mo ago
        I don't do any moral judgement at all, and I also don't predict the future. I respond to "You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something.", because that statement is false. (Mental) work has an effect on the human metabolism.
        Forgeties79 7mo ago
        This whole discussion is wild to me. Comparing people and machines like this is not productive. It is not actually answering a serious question.
        jraph 7mo ago

They also don't take 20 years to become smart like pesky resource-exhausting humans. I bet you could be up and running from a pup in 10-20 months.

by krsw 7mo ago

They also don't take 20 years to become smart like pesky resource-exhausting humans. I bet you could be up and running from a pup in 10-20 months.

Forgeties79 7mo ago

I still can’t believe Altman said that. I mean I can, but still.

the_af 7mo ago
It helps to picture some sort of extraterrestrial saying this. Maybe someone like Alan Tudyk in "Resident Alien". It makes much more sense than to assume it's a human being saying these things.
jordanb 7mo ago
These guys can't watch a dystopian scifi movie without picturing themselves as the bad guy.
- the_af 7mo ago
  Yup. The Torment Nexus meme proved depressingly accurate.
charcircuit 7mo ago
I can because I have also used similar arguments. There are people who say that you should use a real artist instead of AI due to AI's water use. Yet in actuality asking a human to draw something will require more water. There are people who think AI uses more resources than humans which is why it must be said.
- the_af 7mo ago
  > There are people who say that you should use a real artist instead of AI due to AI's water use. Nobody I know says this. In fact, I've never heard of this ever before, and I read artist and hobby communities pretty hostile to AI, but I never once read this nice strawman you've built. People say you should use a real artist instead of AI for a multitude of reasons: - Because they want to enjoy art created by humans. - Because it provides a living to artists, even artists for minor work like advertising or lesser commercial illustrations. - Because AI "art" is built by stealing from human artists, and while human art has a history of copying and cloning, never before has tech allowed this in such a massive, soulless scale. Sam Altman gave a deranged, completely out of touch reply, and he should be called to task for it, not defended. A human being is not some number on a spreadsheet, built over 20 years in order to achieve some "smartness" goal. That's a very stupid thing to say.
  - pksebben 7mo ago
    It's that second point. We live in an age of artificial scarcity created by a system of social organization that we've mostly not argued about since the 50s, that's now showing it's stretch marks. If it weren't for the need to 'earn' a living, I'd say to the other two points: Por que no los dos? Save for the capital argument (which is valid, I'm not saying it isn't. You will starve if you don't make money), why is it necessarily true that the two (AI and people) are in competition? In fact, I think "actual" artists would benefit incredibly from the use of AI, which they could do if it weren't a shibboleth (like I said, for good reason). You'd no longer have to have an army of underpaid animators from vietnam to bring your OC to life - you could just use your own art and make it move and sing. We'd not need huge lumbering organizations full of people who, let's be honest, work there making other people's dreams come to life in large part because it's a better bet than taking a joe-job at the local denny's (after all, you're doing the thing you love even if it isn't truly "yours"). I've had this discussion with younger folks, who are legitimately shook by the state of things. They're worried that all the work they've done to this point is going to be moot, because they've correctly assessed that the whole capital system isn't going anywhere any time soon, and they've been prepping to try and get a job at netflix, or disney, or paramount - because that's the world we've handed them. They see those positions drying up and what else are you going to do? They have the power financially and politically and without them you're doing "not art" for work, which sucks because you need to work. I say; eat the rich. General wildcat strikes until UBI. Tax the everloving shit out of capital gains and peel back personal income taxes. We (the millenials) were handed a steaming pile of shit for a world, so at least we know what would constitute not an absolute disaster for Zeds, Alphas, etc. Have I gone totally off the rails for a conversation about AI? Actually, I don't believe so. The cultural pushback is a function of a busted system. After all, it's the economy, stupid.
  - charcircuit 7mo ago
    >Nobody I know says this. >I never once read this nice strawman you've built. The instance of it I found was in a YouTube comment section.
    - the_af 7mo ago
- Forgeties79 7mo ago
  Over a year ago yeah I occasionally heard that argument or some light variation of it, though not nearly to this ridiculous extent that you’re portraying now. Now? It’s basically a strawman. Most people’s objections revolve around the theft/reckless scraping that has literally taken down public infrastructure required to train these models as well as the ridiculous expectations being put that all of us implement it in literally every aspect of our lives even if it doesn’t fit, especially professionally.
- jraph 7mo ago
  > a human to draw something will require more water. That human would require the same amount of water whether you ask them to draw or not, and would exist anyway because they are not born for productivity reasons. "Creation" of humans isn't driven by the amount of work to accomplish. You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something. Same for energy consumption. This argument doesn't work at all. What you do for humans to use fewer resources is to work on making us produce less garbage, and produce things using techniques that are less resource-intensive.
  - groestl 7mo ago
    > You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something. That's certainly not true. Asking me to think hard about something will cause me to burn more calories. Asking me to do physical work even more so.
    - jraph 7mo ago
      Would you be completely at rest if you were not asked to produce stuff? Do you think AI replaces our hard thinking and our physical work? AI or not, I personally intend to keep thinking and my physical activity.
      - groestl 7mo ago
        I don't do any moral judgement at all, and I also don't predict the future. I respond to "You are not causing more water to be used by asking a human to work on something.", because that statement is false. (Mental) work has an effect on the human metabolism.
        Forgeties79 7mo ago
        This whole discussion is wild to me. Comparing people and machines like this is not productive. It is not actually answering a serious question.
        jraph 7mo ago