maybe the project table was upside-down and things ended in the wrong way
ai cant do anything useful. all it can do is steal from people who actually create
Me too, thanks.
Its not stealing. Its copying. Intellectual property is artificial rarity, oppression by the corpo mafia.
when some talentless goober tells AI to make goku punching superman while sonic smokes a bong, the ai is scraping all of the drawings regular people have posted on instagram, deviantart etc, putting it all in an algorithmic blender and shitting out the final result
thats not copying. thats stealing. and its not stealing from corporations. its stealing from regular people, many of who want to make money off of their art.
the question of IP laws is irrelevant
AI doesn’t even make art is the thing without human art to train on and remix its useless horrorific nonsense. Capitalists just found a way to legalize plagarizing for themselves while keeping it illegal to redistribute their hoarded IPs.
useless horrorific nonsense
😅
useless horrorific nonsense
“AI sucks because it’s shitty art” is really not a strong argument for people to go for.
For one, it appears to be largely based on the misconception of AI as only being low effort output from already dated models. Like someone put in “hot girl” and it gave them a generic samey picture like thousands of others. But models are already getting to the point where it’s harder to tell at a glance whether it’s AI, if the person put in even a little effort into prompting.
For another, it indirectly puts down less skilled artists. Those who are doing their best, but have a lot to learn and get better at (which is probably most people who draw). It implies the issue is that the output doesn’t look good enough, but most illustrators will have flaws in what they draw, sometimes even as a conscious stylistic effect if they are skilled enough to be looping back around to manipulating style in that way. The notable difference with AI generated images is a mismatch in effort and choices made; for example, images that are super detailed, yet make basic anatomy errors.
Lastly, it has a fatal problem, which is that if AI tech gets good enough to fool most people at a glance (and some of it is arguably already getting there), then all you need to do is not disclose that AI was used and people will accept it as legitimate “art”.
You are getting at a core of the issue I have with people who are against AI art and AI in general. The issue needs to based on who benefits materially from the use of AI and not on these abstract ideas of “it looks bad” or “it’s stolen”.
The fundamental problem with this is “it looks bad” is subjective and not unique to AI produced art. And “it’s stolen” is also a bit silly because I’m sure everyone has heard “all art is derivative”. Artist inspire other artists and work from that inspiration.
So, while I don’t really disagree with these arguments in theory. They get you nowhere.
The discussion needs to be focused on what a complete flaw it is in our society that only a small number of billionaires and capitalist are the ones actually gaining material benefits from the use of AI. Not to improve workers conditions, not to make our lives easier, not to give artist more tools for inspiration. But to increase profits by removing the cost of our labor all together.
Fundamentally, no one would be upset with AI art if it was used by existing artist and non artists to make cool looking shit. We are only upset that artist are being exploited and having their livelihood threatened. AI and AI are just exposing that already existing structure of labor exploitation to a massive degree.
From the first comment:
AI doesn’t even make art … without human art to train on
context matters
Capitalists just found a way to legalize plagarizing for themselves while keeping it illegal to redistribute their hoarded IPs.
Is the main point you’re overlooking.
I don’t see how I’m overlooking it, I’m simply not criticizing or endorsing that point either way in my previous post. I’m focusing on the component of the argument that an important problem with image generation AI is it being “low quality” output. There are valid criticisms of generative AI and the slop is a real problem, especially as it relates to online problems and content mill spam. But framing image generation as useless on the grounds of it being “low quality” is not solid ground to stand on. Hell, a point I didn’t mention in the other post, but is also relevant to the question of its usefulness and “quality”: Already some artists are using it to assist in their artwork in one capacity or another, though how many are disclosing it publicly is a whole other question, so it may be difficult to tell in the numbers how rare it is. And as long as the environment around generative AI is hypercharged hostility, there is little reason for them to be honest about it.
Not criticizing or endorsing (in 4 paragraphs) the main point (of 2 sentences) is by definition overlooking it.
At least one of us is misunderstanding the original comment. It seems to be missing some punctuation, so here’s my understanding with punctuation added and superfluous bits removed:
AI doesn’t […] make art[.] [W]ithout human art to train on and remix[,] it[']s […] nonsense.
which I understand to mean it can output quality only by training on human made art. Which is backed up by the 2nd sentence about legalizing plagiarism.
So your characterization “AI sucks because it’s shitty art” at best strikes me as a misunderstanding, fixated on “horrific,” which is why I commented without downvoting. At worse it seems like a straw man that misdirects the conversation. “AI sucks because it has to take from artists to output anything but nonsense” strikes me as a more accurate summary.
But your arguments against multiple things that were never said and how you use “hostility” lead me to believe you’re not commenting in good faith, or here to steel man the original comment.
Of course there’s hostility. It was hard to make a living as an artist before AI. It can take decades to develop your style and name. If a company takes your work, gives you no credit or compensation, repackages it and sells it- undermines your entire industry and livelihood- that is a hostile act, and hostility is a completely reasonable reaction.
lead me to believe you’re not commenting in good faith
Which says more about you than it ever will about me.
Ya you were right on the money with that understanding of my original comment. Guess i could have worded it better, but i really dont see how they took my comment to mean “AI art is bad cuz i dont like how it looks”
So did you willingly ignore the rest of my post where i quite literally specified that its horrific nonsense when it isnt trained on tons of already existing human made art? And im not even talking about the visual appeal of the art or whatever im talking about how when AI tries to make stuff when its either untrained, or is trained on other AI content it starts to breakdown and cease functioning. It just generates stuff that doesn’t make any sense for the prompts. Good job replying to a post i didnt even make.
I’m sorry, what? So let me get this straight. You’re correcting me to tell me that I misunderstood and that your real take is effectively that an AI trained on nothing won’t produce anything? That’s not even… that doesn’t mean anything. What else would it be trained on if not human material? We’re human beings. Anything artificial we make is going to be human derivative in some way. It isn’t some gotcha to say that when it’s trained on its own output, it doesn’t do particularly well with it. Human beings themselves don’t exactly do well when they spin on their own thoughts in isolation. Mao had some choice words to say on that, in fact, which you probably have some familiarity with. (Side note: this is also a confusing argument to make considering that training on its own output is still training on a derivative of human material, just “remixing the remix” in some sense.)
And telling me I “willingly ignored it” is such a bad faith display that I would expect better of from someone on here. I addressed what I thought was your point with what I thought was a calm argument and you respond with derision and like you are insulted. A bad take is a bad take, no matter who has it. And a lot of people have takes on AI that show they know very little about it. Ignorance isn’t some big deal to me (hell, there’s plenty I’m ignorant about and plenty of times I’ve ventured into a take I did not have solid ground for), but acting offended when ignorance is not given the red carpet is pretty irritating.
For what it’s worth I’m with you on this one. There’s a lot of robot-bashing on the left when fundamentally the complaints are about the commodification of art, not about the tools used to make it. It’s frankly unmarxist to stand against AI, at least generally. I really hope no one here will die on the hill that “intellectual property” is real.
For me, it’s one of those “oh a lot of people talk when they don’t know what they’re talking about” moments. Sometimes you don’t see it until people start talking about a subject you know pretty well and have a spent a lot of time around. Mind you, I don’t mean to imply I’m some expert on the subject matter and others should defer to me and take me at my word on all of it (I’m not, like, an actual ML engineer, which is a whole other level of familiarity). But I do have quite a bit of hobbyist knowledge of it and have had many discussions with people, with nuanced and varying perspectives on generative AI, among people who use it (which is an important part, because people sometimes talk about the subject like anyone who uses AI is a mindless tech bro cultist praying for the singularity to save humanity and that’s simply not the case).
So yeah, I appreciate the nuance on it. And it’s something I always try to encourage when AI comes up. Though sadly, as you can see from the mood of voting and posting in this thread and others where AI has come up, there tends to be a significant amount of reactive passion outside of communities where people actually use AI and are relatively okay with it. Consistently, I see plenty of thoughtful takes on AI among people who use AI, with mixed feelings about its problems and its strengths, and mixed feelings on what they are okay on using it for or not using it for and why, and that should tell you all you need to know about the nature of AI. That like anything new and disruptive, it can be for better or worse, and needs evaluation along the way. And that’s where we come in, making sure we find a way to take part in what happens with it, not let the capitalists dictate how it goes down. But to do that, we have to understand it properly. We can’t do surface level moralistic evaluations and call it a day. Even setting aside the effectiveness of that as a way to engage with technology, we don’t have the organized power and messaging for that to actually mean anything anyway.
I hesitate to post this cause I’m afraid it’s going to sound like I’m insulting people in this thread, but I guess it’s somewhat of a vent post in a way. It is genuinely tiring that when AI comes up, outside of very niche communities with measured support of it, it starts feeling like people who are normally on the same side are ready to throw hands. I’m not exaggerating when I say that for me, it is stressful to engage with in this community.
It for sure seems like this topic sucks the theory out of comrades and turns them into mini Mickey mice, ready to kill to protect the sanctity of their IP. It’s either that or they’ll suddenly embrace idealism because pictures are only meaningful when they’re metaphysically imbued with human spirit or whatever.
In real life, this doesn’t bother me because I’m surrounded by libs. But it is aggravating how common reaction is on here and hexbear. I don’t understand how avid pirates can be so attached to intellectual property laws.
Good points. I’m ngl, it’s kind of disillusioning. I know there are problems with the western left, but it’s one thing to understand it in the abstract and it’s another thing to see it so starkly in action, that people can be reduced to this over a single issue. It would be more understandable if it was an issue like the many we see under capitalism and imperialism that involve direct and obvious violence. Instead, we see people popping off about what is an under-investigated automation process going on, as to the extent of its societal impact and effects. We know there are problems with AI at least in the short-term, some of which is easily observable, but we can also easily observe some benefits, again, at least in the short-term. Contending with this as “scientific socialists” does have a certain conscious ideological bias (such as in favor of the working class), which I emphasize to say that it is not purely “objective” or something, but be that as it may, it also needs to be grounded in investigation, not merely navel-gazing.
And there is a noticeable lack of investigation relative to the amount of passionate creeds about AI. On this subject, it is especially noticeable to me because I have done investigation, even if informally, and it makes it obvious by contrast when others have not. Some I can only guess could perceive this as a disrespect to them if they think they are informed and I am not being fair to them, but to that I say, “if the shoe fits” as the saying goes. If someone has done the investigation, they should be able to back up their words with more than pure theory and should not be taking personal offense to the accusation that some people aren’t investigating. Marx didn’t merely write Capital via navel-gazing and then call it a day. He observed revolutionary movements, their successes and failures, and adjusted theory based on that. As did others who followed.
Takes on AI, like any other topic, need to be informed by an understanding of what is actually happening with AI in substance and not only via a cursory read of mainstream headlines and the opining of a primarily online reaction (I say primarily online because from everything I’ve personally seen and heard from others, the whole thing of AI being so controversial appears to be a primarily online thing and it’s more common that people in RL simply don’t care much about it one way or another, if they are even aware of its development). Even if everyone did investigate the substance of what is happening with AI, or at least read up on the investigations of others, there would still be disagreements of course, but I suspect they would be more measured and impersonal disagreements, as the discussions tend to be in spaces where AI is a shared hobby of a kind.
IP and copywrite arent the same. IP is a way for companies to own the idea behind a work, a character, setting, etc.
Copywrite (copyright? Idk) is a protection from plagarism. We as leftists support the person who does labor getting the value from that labor. Copywrite when used right is just protecting that idea.
If you write a book someone cant come along and photo copy it and start selling your book under their own name for example.
I am not “anti-AI” despite what the person you responded to tried to make it sound like. I am anti plagarism of hard working artists by huge companies. I would be perfectly fine with an artist for example feeding an AI model exclusively their own work to train it, or public domain works, and then using it to help them with tedious parts of drawing or something like that.
My point of mentioning that AI needs human made art as input to work with is that its essentially a fancy photo copier with extra abilites. But companies are acting as if the AI is “making” things on its own and stealing all the labor value that went into the art it trained on for themselves.
Copyright is one of the 4 types of intellectual property. Your misguided defense of the individual author strengthens publishing companies instead, since they own the means of production to copy and have the lawyers to litigate such violations.
Also you misunderstand how the technology works. Generative AI does not function by copying the data it was trained on, but by using the trends it noticed in that data to piece together something original. Examine the code of whichever LLM and you will never find any books, pictures, or movies stored within. It’s a sophisticated network of associations and dissociations.
Now you might then argue that these generalized statistics also constitute plagiarism, but consider what that entails. If mimicry is criminal, should it then be illegal for artists to imitate another’s style? Should musicians be able to patent chord progressions and leitmotifs? Should genres be property?
Your stance against AI is boxed within the existing bourgeois framework of creative ownership which I hope you agree is awful. I understand the precarity that this tech creates for artists but expanding IP will empower, not weaken, the companies that exploit them.
You seem to be missing the entire point. An artist makes a work, a company takes that work without paying them, feeds it to an AI, and produces other works which they can use as their own.
Examine the code of whichever LLM
The exact mechanisms behind how it works does not matter. Not to mention the fact that not even the people who make LLMs know how their code works. So telling me to examine the code is ridiculous.
This is not about the resulting work being similar it is about the original work by the artist being used to train the AI without their consent, and without compensating them.
When i said the AI is essentially a photo copier i wasn’t talking about the technology behind it. That should have been obvious. I was talking about the material reality of what happens.
Photo copier: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.
Generative AI: Original work is scanned -> new work is created from it.
They are the same in this regard. Obviously i was not implying that they are the same mechanically.
The part that matters is that the original work is where the labor value is put in. It takes labor to create the original work, but does not take labor to produce the new work. Be that on a photo copier making copies, or on an AI generating stuff.
To pretend as if the AI is just the same as some other artist mimicing a style is to show you have no understanding of the labor theory of value, or you simply do not care for it.
If another artist is mimicing a style they are putting in their own labor to do so. They are adding labor value themselves. They are also using the original work in a consentual manner. When an artist puts out work they are consenting to others viewing it and perhaps taking inspiration from it. What they are NOT consenting to is that work being scraped from the internet, fed into an AI, and used to pump out unlimited new works for someone elses profit. Just as they are not cosenting to someone photo copying their work and doing the same thing.
To try and argue that I’m the one supporting a bourgeois framework when you are the one who is seemingly completely ignoring where the actual value here comes from (the labor) is comical.
You continue to argue against things i never said aswell. Implying i advocated for expaning IP, and ignoring the fact i very clearly made a distinction that i don’t support plagarism done by companies. Then implying that whatever i would setup in place of the current system, which i never specified, would somehow benefit companies instead of artists. Funny how you just seem to imagine things I think or say when they arent true. Then argue against those instead of what i actually said. Isn’t there a word for that?
the funniest part is that copyright DOESN’T COUNT ON AI ART because of the monkey incident (peta indirectly helped artists in this case by allowing the monkey selfie, and thus all things not made by humans to be public domain iirc)
I think when companies do it they copywrite it as if the person who prompted the AI made it, and treat the AI like the “tool”. That way they can copywrite it.
i read it somewhere that nobody can copyright material that is not made by humans, but i don’t know anything about copyright tbh
still funny that a monkey that was curious about a random camera made people question copyright at one point
AI doesn’t even make art is the thing
I don’t like genAI either, but I don’t think this is a good argument. Yes it does depend on human made art to exist in the first place, but saying that what it produces is not art is wrong. Ruby was an elephant that was famous for painting. If this qualifies as art, then art is not exclusive to humanity. In the case of genAI you just have machine made art instead of human made art.
soon enough it will do all of those things and we’ll be redundant entirely
Fire, a sharp stone, rope. Don’t be intimidated by a new tool. We invented it to make life easier. Your e capitalist frame is creating a negative ideal.
Fire, sharp stone, rope are not almost wholly owned and controlled by various death cults of Silicon Valley rationalist billionaires.
Noone is stopping one from writing or making art; the implication here is one should be paid a living for it. The issue here is captialism not the technology. Artisans having reactionary takes is not new.
… yes. The issue is capitalism rather than the technology. I think that’s very much the implication of that sentence. More specifically, the thing “stopping one from writing or making art” is, you know, capitalism. She’s not saying “AI bad”, she’s saying “way we use AI bad”. What’s reactionary about this?
Where is the implication that “one should be paid a living for [writing or making art]”? Doing (your own) dishes and laundry is not something you typically get paid to do, so suggesting to swap it with writing or making art doesn’t really scream “pay me for writing or making art” to me.
Finally, why shouldn’t writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?
Finally, why shouldn’t writers or or makers of art be paid a living for writing or making art?
That’s a problem under capitalism; the allocation of resources. As a commodity if it is provided more efficiently and cheaper by a machine, should we be regressive and hold back that process so that artists can be paid? Should the weaver still be employed at the invention of the loom?
These are bourgoise ideals defended due to artisans fearing their own proleterisation. Why isn’t the quote in defense of AI doing all four things - the dishes and the laundry, and the art and the writing? Why not socialise the unpaid labour? There’s an inherent patriarchy here as well.
Dishes and laundry aren’t the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it. Something that people want to do. Expressing themselves creatively and making something for others to enjoy in one form or another, or to express criticism of some or other aspect of our world (depending on what art it is). That’s not something a machine can do in a meaningful way. Using AI and other technology to crank out meaningless slop to keep the masses occupied, that’s bourgeois if anything here is. The point of communism is to liberate us all from menial labor and exploitation, from war and strife so we can follow our passions and be truly free, whether that’s being an artist, doing science, or whatever. We can disagree if that’s exactly the point, or maybe I’m tinged by idealism to some degree. I probably am, growing up in a bourgeois society leaves its marks. But if your idea of progress is that we’re just sitting there, watching and reading what the machines tell us is worthy art, then you are the reactionary.
Where’s the “inherent patriarchy” in the image? Did you just run out of arguments?
Metaphysical nonsense.
Dishes and laundry aren’t the same as art. One is manual labor that just has to be done and has tangible utility. The other is creative work that has value to a large part because a human made it.
Tangible? How did you decide to draw that arbitary line? Is it tangible if you can touch it? How about writing code? Is the artisan’s output not tangible? Is creativity not found in other industries? Is the baker not creative?
Your argument against this is essentially the sophistication involved by devaluing those who do manual labour. You’re arguing for the path toward labour aristocracy/petite-bourgoisie to be unobstructed. This is a very reactionary take.
Noone is stopping anybody’s “want” to do art and writing. You just want to just tie that to the above.
Where’s the “inherent patriarchy” in the image?
Who does the unpaid labour here? Why is that normalised? Why use that as a juxtaposition here?
Did you just run out of arguments?
No. I’m a marxist. What’s your excuse?
I think before we discuss this we we should get our definitions clear? Someone workings as freelance logo designer is different from someone working as an employed illustrator, is different from a “free” artist painting in their atelier etc. A website or UX/UI is different from a picture you hang on your wall; a movie poster might be somewhere in between and is still pop culture unless it’s idk some indie movie?
Sometimes “art” or broadly being-creative becomes a commodity which can be sold, too (my wording here is not exact but you get my point). Art courses, cross-stitching, sewing, like, hobby stuff. Modding games can be seen as a new kind of prosumer culture indutry, externalizing costs while reaping the benefits of a more valuable product, indirectly by creating a fanbase/ecosystem or directly by claiming rights on UGC. It’s also used to find new talent.
“Art” is just an umbrella term for different kinds of work, and different kinds of products. There’s different distribution channels, different degrees of independence and a range of ways on how it interacts with the market.
Metaphysical nonsense.
There’s a certain spark in human craft I won’t deny, but I agree that a Marxist, or generally a more “cold”, view on “art” is usually the way to go. Ultimately humans instruct their LLMs and Diffusion models to create slop, and they will do it and have always done it without them.
Art≠Art
There’s no need to have a “cold” perspective to be marxist. Nothing human should be alien. Capital has countless references to nature.
The importance here is not to mystify here it to metaphysical nonsense. We should not resort to idealism of where human creativity comes from.
Art is clearly subjective and it is the relationship between the viewer and the art that defines it as art; whether it is exchanged for money or not.
However, what is effectively being requested here is to gatekeep who gets to make that art (only those skilled enough) and that art should be paid for; the defense of proprietorship. It is this that is reactionary while appealing to ludditism.
This reply is probably not directed at you but for anyone who is lurking.
I decided to draw the “arbitrary” line at the clear implication of the person who wrote the text in the image that they want to do writing and art. If someone actually wants to do laundry and dishes, sure. But please, show me a noteworthy number of people who like doing those things as much as an artist likes to do art. People don’t usually do their dishes for the fun of it, but because it needs to be done to maintain hygiene and stuff. That’s the tangible utility I meant. Of course a baker can be creative, or even just like baking. If someone wants to bake bread, let them go nuts. But we still should socialise bread baking because we also need tons and tons of bread to feed people who do something else. We don’t need writing and art, not in the same fundamental way at least. We don’t need huge, industrial-scale quantities of art and writing. Sure we need an industrial scale of books in some circumstances, but the original writing can still be done by a human. Of course, if you want to read AI novels and watch AI movies, listening to AI music, nobody’s stopping you.
How is saying that art is not something that should be AI-generated arguing for a labor aristocracy?
The simple fact a woman is person complaining about having to do chores does not make for “inherent patriarchy”. I’m a guy. I do my own laundry and dishes. I’d rather I’d not have to do that and focus on something else. Is that inherent matriarchy now? And even if the patriarchy in this situation isn’t just a figment of your imagination, why is the woman saying that she would prefer not having to do the chores a bad thing?
I don’t know what I would need an excuse for.
All labour should be socialised. Laundry, dishes, writing, art - it doesn’t matter what.
If one wants to create art in their spare time, let them have at it.
The argument made here that we should gatekeep skilled labour by fighting against mechanisation or automation is reactionary and regressive.
Attempting to draw an arbitary line for the artisan by distinguishing their creativity from other’s is not possible without alluding to idealism and mysticism. It is made more obvious when examples of creativity, including in other fields and industry where automation has happened, is recalled.
Division of labour through gender means women disproportionately end up doing unpaid labour including laundry and dishes. The emancipation will include the socialisation of these roles and thereby abolishment of gender. It is irrespective of your personal ability as a man to do the same work.
If this socialisation was helped by automation would you then be saying we should destroy the machines to help preserve the employment of those that do this work for a living? Of course not but you want to apply that standard to artisans by drawing arbitary lines by apparently appealing to the mysticism of creativity.
There’s a clearly a recognition of this inferred from the quote (from our reading; it doesn’t matter if the writer explicitly thought about this). However, that is then juxstaposed with the fact that the labour of artisans should not be socialised. So the writer wants to preserve gatekeeping of the ability to make art in order for some artisans can remain being paid for it.
This reeks of bourgoisie “feminism”. The emancipation here is for individual liberty at the expense of class consciousness. The individual wants socialisation of domesticated labour not for universal emancipation but so they could gatekeep who gets to do art. It is individualism for reactionary ideals. Patriarchy is a structural concern, it is not a synonym for misogyny.
It’s ok if your excuse is if you are uneducated about this. We are all learning.
The argument made here that we should gatekeep skilled labour by fighting against mechanisation or automation is reactionary and regressive.
The argument of gatekeeping art only works in a society where art is not taught to people. If we were taught how to express ourselves artistically, the need for AI art would not exist outside of mass production and cost cutting. There’s much more to art than just labor. A common argument I see artists use is that the process of creating art is in itself fulfilling. GenAI takes that away to spit out a done image that at the present moment is made from the unpaid labor of artists worldwide that never consented to their labor being used that way.
You are right that fighting against mechanisation and automation is reactionary and regressive, and that’s why we shouldn’t do that, but instead help artists organize to fight for their rights in this hellhole of a system that is throwing them under the bus.
STEM types or AI defenders will point to you talking about the “human touch” and dismiss you because of it.
Really the whole “luddite” take against those who aren’t in favor of AI overlook how a machine doing art or writing isn’t exactly helping anyone or making things easier. For starters the AI tends to be very derivative and functionally steals other people’s works in a way an industrial machine didn’t when the loom was replaced.
Also since when are artists bougie? Almost every artist I know is dirt poor or barely middle class, working a menial job on the side as they continue to pursue art.
AI has its functions and benefits but these LLM machines labeled as “AI” aren’t it. And that’s probably what the artist is focusing on more.
The best use of AI I saw was with my local public transportation authority, who used it to handle the logistics of the operation.
Problem is, your laundry and dishes, not to mention bathroom cleaning, still need a lot of manual labour that AI can’t do because it does not exist in physical world outside of computer, but the art and writing can be done just inside of computer.
yeah, but people like to draw stuff and compose music by themselves, and not so many people enjoy washing dishes and doing laundry, so…the ideal would be focusing in something doing the wash of dishes and laundry so we can spend time drawing
stickmenstuff and makingemo songs about lovemusicHuawei is experimenting with humanoid robots driven by AI so you wouldn’t have to be professional programist to order them to do something but it’s still the future, though i seen videos with such robots already manning warehouses.
I was just commenting about physical feasibility of things, which idealists like the lady in question don’t seem to understand. Which is especially funny considering even that can be traced to capitalism, which don’t give a shit into real scientific advances but the quick buck lying on the path of easiest resistance. As is easily checkable by western media and writers spending decades fantasising about such advancements in robotics, but China actually doing more about it in few years once they finally overcame their overexploitation by the west.
That’s a good point, Joanna Maciejewska, but I don’t see what laundry and dishes have to do with white genocide in South Africa. Claims of targeted violence exist with “Kill the Boer” cited as racial. However, evidence suggests that farm attacks are part of general crime, not systematic genocide, though perspectives vary.
We have dish and clothes washing machines already…
my classmate who makes music on spotify was scared when he found out about suno ai and how it makes music faster than him (who makes 1 song in a few months)
yea… we do not live in that epic science world we want :(
How good is the quality of music though? If it’s anything like AI art, animation, videos, or writing then it leaves a lot to be desired. Even the most impressive AI video generator looks good but begins to show more and more cracks the longer it goes on.
The music sucks if you actually listen to it (and not just have it as background noise) but it doesn’t stop get rich quick grifters from flooding Spotify with it. Also there’s Word going around that Spotify uses ai songs in their own playlists so they don’t have to pay royalties
vocals are tin can quality, i heard.
that guy was scared shitless and people listen to grifter-made music advertised as the modern equivalent of lofi hiphop to study to with words like “cute” “soft” “dog” “cat” as titles of those compilation videos so i guess it’s good enough to fuck over audio artists
