I see you point, but I also disagree, but I also somewhat agree.
"AI" as it is today, is a cancer.
However, generative algorithms could have its place as tools for different purposes.
For interactive entertainment. In things like video games, where you get to actually talk with an NPC in a role playing sense (in a speech to text and then get a response in a text to speech fashion).
Or, as a way to generate concepts to help illustrate a point. I draw worse than most kindergarten children, and could not draw a concept of what I'm trying to explain if my life depended on it. And while I could try and explain the same thing over and over until the person gets it, I find a picture generator able to understand me quicker/better and then able to generate a picture for those I'm speaking with.
But there are many problems with "AI" today, one of which is that it's not actually "Artificial Intelligence". It uses a ridiculous amount of energy, to do statistical calculations on a massive scale. Just so that in can output something that has a "high" probability of being coherent and that also answers the question/prompt (with higher focus on the former, rather than the latter).
There is also the fact that the data it was "trained" on, in most cases are stolen and in a way that causes/caused disruption to services providing the data they steal (or in Metas case, where the logic is: "We didn't share the stolen data, so it's not theft"). And, while I have do have my own not so popular views on copyright, I still see it as stealing.
tl;dr "AI" is a fucking cancer, but the genre of technology might have potential
3 Comments
AstralPath@lemmy.ca · 10 pts · 1y
AI is a fucking cancer.
techognito@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 1y
I see you point, but I also disagree, but I also somewhat agree.
"AI" as it is today, is a cancer.
However, generative algorithms could have its place as tools for different purposes.
For interactive entertainment. In things like video games, where you get to actually talk with an NPC in a role playing sense (in a speech to text and then get a response in a text to speech fashion).
Or, as a way to generate concepts to help illustrate a point. I draw worse than most kindergarten children, and could not draw a concept of what I'm trying to explain if my life depended on it. And while I could try and explain the same thing over and over until the person gets it, I find a picture generator able to understand me quicker/better and then able to generate a picture for those I'm speaking with.
But there are many problems with "AI" today, one of which is that it's not actually "Artificial Intelligence". It uses a ridiculous amount of energy, to do statistical calculations on a massive scale. Just so that in can output something that has a "high" probability of being coherent and that also answers the question/prompt (with higher focus on the former, rather than the latter).
There is also the fact that the data it was "trained" on, in most cases are stolen and in a way that causes/caused disruption to services providing the data they steal (or in Metas case, where the logic is: "We didn't share the stolen data, so it's not theft"). And, while I have do have my own not so popular views on copyright, I still see it as stealing.
tl;dr "AI" is a fucking cancer, but the genre of technology might have potential
haywire7@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 1y
I'm not brilliant by any means but what I have made, spliced together or manipulated into being I did myself with whatever skills I have.
I have learned things along the way and better too, I think.
Now I look at places like deviant art and kinda just meh in it's general direction.
AI art is like trusting autocorrect with your chat up lines. Doomed from the Stewart.