Because that is not what's happening. My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle. Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from a creative writer to a grammar checker.
It's tempting to just say that creative work that can be automated this quickly should be automated so that artists can focus on more creative challenges, but this is not how it plays out in practice. Rather, this only allows companies to cut down costs. It is already extremely difficult to find work which will pay a livable wage as a creative. AI has already caused layoffs and negative wage pressure on remaining employees. The only thing that AI has done (at least among my circle of friends) is reduce corporate costs and increase antidepressant prescriptions.
When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita plugin we're discussing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI), I do see a lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill, and I would definitely consider it a form of art.
Of course there will be people just clicking "generate" on a website. But isn't that the difference between consumer and artist? Everyone can press the shutter button on a digital camera to take a snapshot. But the artist knows how to use light, angle and technology to create a photograph with the looks and composition that they intend. (If you compare snapshots from amateur photographers and from professionals, the differences are astounding. And it's not just about the cost of the equipment.)
Certainly, there will be jobs – especially the rather repetitive jobs – that will be replaced by the use of AI, just like stock photos replaced jobs of certain photographers, or just like industrialization and automation replaced the jobs of a lot of craftsmen and artisans. But craftsmen and artisans are still around, and they are paid a lot more than they used to be paid, as long as they provide added value on top of the generic products available on the market!
I would never argue that you CAN'T do something creative with it. The problem is not even this single tool itself, but the greater amalgamation of all AI tools that arise from the general soceital phenomenon of using AI.
The problem with many technophiles is that they have a very distorted view of what they create. They often think it's going to do good because it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage.
If you're interested, feel free to reach out to me because I am starting an anti-AI coalition.
Technology is just what it is. Good and bad are human categories that don't apply to technology per se (and are very subjective categories that change dramatically across time, space, and culture)
What humans use it for is another discussion.
One example:
- You can use nuclear fission to provide light and warmth to millions or blow up millions.
Is nuclear fission good or bad?
I would argue it depends what humans make of it.
Same with what you call "AI".
I wish you luck with your coalition, but once a technology is "out there", you cant take it back. I don't think there is an example in history where that happened, would be curious if you know one.
In a certain light smartphones resemble the moral equivalent of violating the Prime Directive.
"Here, rural areas and undeveloped nations. Take this crippled, distorted window into the greater internet. It happens to be much better at viewing content than creating it and will surveil you more closely than ever you watch it. The preinstalled software is forbidden to remove. Don't view it more than ten minutes a day or the content recommended by social media algorithms may cause malaise. Like and subscribe for more content."
I think you'd be better served making moral arguments rooted in ethical principles that people adhere to in real life, not science fiction.
This is especially important when you consider how unethical the Prime Directive itself is as a principle, and how often Star Trek portrays violating it as the morally superior choice.
The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations, and aims to deny them the agency to make their own choices about how to fit modern technology into their lives and communities. It sounds like a modern variation on "noble savage" and "white man's burden" notions -- not exactly a good look.
> The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations
I believe it seems that way to you.
Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc. yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.
> Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc.
It seems unremarkable that we tend to treat actual children like children, but it's far less mundane to propose treating mature adults like children on the presupposition that due to their cultural or ethnic origins, they must exist in an immutable childlike state. The latter is an extremely dangerous notion, and we ought to be wary of anyone who advances it.
> yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.
I'm not sure that any 'greater good' calculus is part of any consensus whatsoever.
AI here to clone a voice was used to make a mother think her daughter had been kidnapped
(2) People getting fired from their jobs such as illustrators because AI can now do things. Also, people NOT getting hired when they could.
(3) I am a professional writer, and I know of some websites who are using generative AI for articles and hiring less (or even firing writers)
(4) AI removes what remaining reliance we have on each other and makes it less likely for people to talk to each other when needing some basic information. The societal effects of destroying communities where people need each other are pretty clear.
Ok but that can be said of any technology. Chemistry is bad because someone used it to poison their friend. Phones are bad because it can be used for bomb threats, cars are bad because they put out of work the whole horse industry and you can go on and on forever.
Every single technology can be abused but it doesn't mean that they mainly cause damage.
(1) You are right, and that is why we should be much more cautious with technology.
(2) AI is unique in the sense that it has a much wider range and acts much faster. Therefore, it is much more dangerous, similar to how both salt and sodium cyanide are dangerous but the latter is much worse. You need to think in terms of the magnitude of the effect, not just its qualitative nature.
That's actually a problem for the business model of mobile games. A consumer can - or very soon will be able to - pick up AI tools and cut out the middleman org churning out these illustrations, just like they cut out the professionals. It won't be too long before games are made that advertise "put your original characters in the game", and it won't be some complicated character creation tool - it'll be generative stuff.
There's a lot of "but wait, there's more" in what's happening around AI.
> I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but replacing artists at any level is not a good thing.
Everything in the computing space has been shifting labor from one skillset to another skillset and maximizing the output per hour worked so that fewer workers are needed for the same output (but also more tasks are worth doing, because the costs are lower for any given benefit.) Why is displacing people manually building the visual component of video games any worse than, say, displacing typists, secretaries, people delivering interoffice mail -- all of whom also had salaries, dependents, and livelihoods -- while increasing the value of work in the field automating all those things?
Because I have tried it many times and my body has some intense urge for beef, and ground beef IMO is the easiest to make, digest, and cheapest and has fats that are good for you IMO.
Some people think poorly of ground beef because "you don't know what's in it!" But moments later will tell you it's important to eat all parts of the animal because they have different nutrients. Ok then, sounds like ground beef is a good way to get different portions a butcher doesn't think sells well. Give me some foot meat, bring it on.
There's also the fact that beef is basically the one food you could eat alone 365 days a year your whole life and get everything you need. That doesn't apply to vegetables or chicken or anything else really.
Tldr; many people would say someone that eats a HUGE salad and some meat everyday, no breads or processed garbage would be healthy. Well, drinking 10 lbs of vegetables and having some ground beef is basically that except you're drinking more vegetables even that most people could ever eat in a day.
> There's also the fact that beef is basically the one food you could eat alone 365 days a year your whole life and get everything you need. That doesn't apply to vegetables or chicken or anything else really.
Do you have some sources to back this up? I was under the impression that you should really eat red meat in moderation, but this might be outdated info.
But yeah the general idea makes sense. Once you hit a timeout, change the mask to things that will close existing open things in a valid manner (}, ), ], ")
There is no bubble because literally everyone has whatshapp. It's even available on "dumb phones". I've never met anyone of any age who doesn't have it.
Hello there, nice to meet you. Life without Whatsapp is not easy in the Netherlands, but is possible. The "super bubble" exists though, and it sucks. Most problems come from the "literally everyone has whatshapp" crowd like you, by the way, the people who deny the existence of the bubble.
Could you please stop making my life harder? No, not "literally everyone" has Whatsapp: I don't. Agreeing to T&C of some foreign corporation should not be a precondition to participating in the society, don't you think?
Yeah can confirm that I'm another one in the boat of "would drop WA since Facebook owns it", but it's just borderline unviable to do so if I don't want to make my life much more difficult/put extra stress on all my IRL social connections.
It's hard to understand it if you don't live in NL just how extremely omnipresent WhatsApp is. People use it for everything, from casual family chatter to highly serious conversations to quite literally business-related conversations. Not having WA will absolutely result in things like missing crucial information because "we send it in the WhatsApp group" and that of course in turn will be used as a mark against you when you're say, seeking a job.
This occurred before Facebook bought it and their recent T&S change that allows them to use WA usage to improve their algorithms basically was a case of "enjoy being forced to share your data with no recourse". There was tons of social pushback about it but nobody could do anything about it because the app is so entrenched.
I am thoroughly looking forward to the DMA and its impact on WhatsApp.
I think you're misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the matter.
WhatsApp can be installed on any device. iMessage requires specific hardware, i.e. an Apple iPhone.
It is always possible not to use either and just communicate by SMS (which I prefer myself, but as I understand it WhatsApp came to be used here in Belgium because phone plans are expensive and SMS are still limited/paid on most plans) but that's a different matter.
> I think you're misrepresenting (or misunderstanding) the matter.
The matter here is that the commenter I was responding to says I don't exist. My experience is that folks with that attitude also treat me as if I don't exist. I object to both of these things.
Selling your first-born rights for a lentil soup, or agreeing to adversarial T&C of a foreign corporation should not be a precondition for participating in a society.
You have my Respect (although the person you're responding to probably doesn't mean it like you take it). I probably could only do it while feeling good about it by self-hosting some Matrix bridge. Actually, I'd still feel bad because I'd support the system.
Well, as a parent it really is difficult, you constantly have to explain yourself and arrange alternatives. Some context: Texting (SMSing we call it) is f-ing expensive here, ridiculous (25 ct/message? Unless you buy a plan, but why should you? There is Whatsapp... Nobody is going to use SMS with you, any parent will probably think: "Are you making me send an SMS [to come pick up your kid], really?").
Take heart, times are a-changing, even in sophisticated and freedom loving Netherlands. Its been a long oppresive period where the lemming mob would simply bully you: "I don't recognize your concerns, I don't care, I can't be bothered". But nowadays you definitely see some inroads of e.g., Signal.
But its a steep upward slope to climb. Lots of data-siphoning apps are painted on buses or splash on city ad "walls" but whatsapp is actually a permanent fixture of the urban landscape in so-called "neighbourhood watch signs". A creepy dystopic image if there was one.
> There is no bubble because literally everyone has whatshapp
Given how much Europeans bitch about America and American corporations, I continue to be dumbfounded by the tremendous love for Whatsapp. It's made by Facebook FFS. I am pretty amazed at the number of people who are happier with Facebook managing their private communications than they are Apple.
Or, it's just network effect and a lot of rationalization. That's the simpler answer.
There is only one vtable object per base class; all shapes share the same vtable pointer and your virtual CornerCount would be shared across all Shape instances. You are describing a potential implementation for class static variables.
I think this really depends on your specific university. At my university in Eastern Europe the teachers were bitter and overworked, and that really showed during oral examinations.
Because of the high number students enrolled in the classes, almost all oral exams also featured a written component, very similar to a regular exam. Because of the unstructured nature of oral exams, you would have an arbitrary amount of time to solve it. After that the professor would make you elaborate some of your anwsers, or not, depending how he felt like. The students who performed best were indeed very extroverted and able to convince the professor that they actually meant something other than what they wrote.
The professors also used these exams to give you an arbitrary grade for the subject, depending exclusively on your oral exam "performance". I remember having a high 90% grade in the written part of my Advanced Electronics class. The professor didn't feel I was confident enough in my answers during the oral exam, so he passed me with 1/30 points even though I answered most of the answers correct, thus bringing my grade down to barely a C.
Oral exams sound great in theory but in practice they always felt somewhere between unfair and traumatizing. I much prefer the objectivity of written exams.
It's tempting to just say that creative work that can be automated this quickly should be automated so that artists can focus on more creative challenges, but this is not how it plays out in practice. Rather, this only allows companies to cut down costs. It is already extremely difficult to find work which will pay a livable wage as a creative. AI has already caused layoffs and negative wage pressure on remaining employees. The only thing that AI has done (at least among my circle of friends) is reduce corporate costs and increase antidepressant prescriptions.