I would love if we could force the big tech companies to release their models + weights since they're fundamentally products built on the collective labors of humanity (at least some of which is licensed under the GPL or the CC-BY-SA).
If I could hit a button and abolish copyright and the notion of intellectual property, I would.
I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art.
A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming up with songs we'd like to listen to.
They were songs that neither of us were capable of making, but they were genuinely fun to conjure (I won't say "make"--we didn't make anything) and she listens to them in the car pretty regularly now. And when we want something new, we can just conjure up some more.
Yes, I know this is only possible because of the human-created music that served as the training data. I don't intend to comment on the morality/legality of it (although it's fair conversation to have). Just noting that some of us do actually appreciate AI music.
But maybe I'm exactly the sort of sucker from Huxley's "Brave New World" that he warned about. :)
I love music, but it is the feeling, experience, and emotion of the creator that comes through that I enjoy. I love live shows, and I love the passion that the artist brings to a live show. I will never get that from AI, so why would I listen to it? It's the same reason I will not read a book that AI makes. AI may understand the mechanisms of story telling, or what chords sound good to a human ear, but because AI cannot have a lived experience of the world it cannot create. Form without intent. Form without a nature of it's own.
I'm good. I'll pass. I think you see it too, by your commend about being the sort of sucker from 1984 and I hope that you come to realize what you are inviting in.
This belief is not true and I will fight to the bedrock of psychology and nature against this until the ridiculous sentiment is eradicated from humanity's lexicon.
There are fundamental aspects to our perception, across all senses, that lie underneath human creation. You enjoy the warmth of the sun, the cool of a breeze, the sound of a running stream, the majesty of mountains and oceans, the power of storms. These all evoke the sense and appreciation of beauty while being completely removed from a creator. Believing that you care about the creator, and that it fundamentally underpins your enjoyment of sense perception is shallow thinking.
I don't think this is true. I think that if you found out you were in a simulation and that all these things were just electrical pulses being sent to your brain in a jar it would vastly change your perception of the world. And I think that's a good analogy for AI
All I'm saying is that if you were shown undeniable proof that you were in a simulation I think it would change how you felt about "reality".
Why is it so black and white? There are things like warmth of the sun, that I enjoy without the creator. There are also art and music that I didn't appreciate at first before knowing the story and the creator behind them. Then I understood where the piece of art came from and what were the emotions behind it when creating it.
In however many years we'll wake up and wonder why everything is the same....oh wait.
this is exactly why people dont like this. it creates an echo chamber in art which kills what art itself is about. it normalizes noise.
Note that it's you who introduced this reduction, not the GP.
Some people, perhaps most, will enjoy AI art. Artists are at risk of displacement too.
But a subset of art appreciators hold firm that the creator is an essential aspect of the work, and I don’t see that conviction fading.
How large this subset is, I don’t know. But they also happen to be the world’s tastemakers and trendsetters. Their beliefs largely shape our aesthetic world, so their influence may only grow.
I don't necessarily disagree, but I would also argue that there's art in a lot of that output, in the form of intent, decision making and communication. But I admit that the value of those really depends on the eye of the beholder and the situation.
Surely it’ll work this time.
Having said that, some of my drive-by criticisms have lead to lengthy discussions, with or without my further participation. Probably mostly on older accounts I’ve abandoned.
Admittedly, this was not one of them.
As a netizen of forums across decades stretching back to pre-WWW Usenet days .. cheap shots in US centric Capitalism V Communism territory rank high as surely the least productive and least informative uses of ASCII :/
Still, points for being honest :)
I date back to Fidonet. Usenet less so.
But I agree, when our minds and bodies are no longer capable of doing things that machines can’t, the only thing we have left to sell is our humanity
But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must.
The law is our collective action. We socially construct what we value. We could fight to preserve the 5-day work week doing what machines can do. But.. I’d rather fight for collective ownership of the machines.