It’s basically like. Someone drawing a picture. Then watching the buttons you’re pressing on a controller. And then drawing a new picture. And based on the game that they think you’re playing in their head trying to guess what the next picture ought to look like. With no error correction and no conceptualization other than what the next picture should look like.

The… many limitations of this is the inability of image generators to rationalize 3 dimensional space. It can only approximate it based on what it thinks should appear on the screen. It lacks any ability to keep track of variable information. It really is more like a Doom-style hallucination than anything else. Some of the videos on that article are truly bizarre looking. I’d imagine after a few minutes every single one of them would devolve into an endless loop of being trapped in non-sensical geometry or killing the same enemy over and over again as the AI has no way of remembering the enemy existed to begin with, let alone that you killed it.

I’ll be honest I don’t think there is much use in this at all. It suffers from the same limits as any other model AI. Believability at a glance is not believability under scrutiny and if it’s only believable at a glance then there’s not much practical use in it. The advance in computational power and model sophistication required to stand up under scrutiny is massive.

The Nazi’s created rocketry as we know it today and made many innovations in medicine and manufacturing.

Are we going to argue the pros and cons of the Nazi party?

This conversation wasn’t even about the Mongol empire it was about Genghis Khan

“…not at all clear other kings would have done any different…”

Is that the standard now? Comparison? He is still unbelievably evil even by comparison to other evil people.

Him and the dynasty he created were one of the most destructive forces in human history and resulted in the horrific deaths of millions of people. By many metrics, they practiced genocide and ethnic cleansing on conquered populations. They destroyed the books of captured people’s and places of worship. They’re also well known for having destroyed farmland and aqueducts to starve out massive numbers of people. They were butchers. Mass murderers on a skill the world had never seen at that time. He erased entire civilizations from history, ones that we still barely know anything about.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

Yeah I can definitely see how the argument about “original semites” is coming very close to outright hatred and antisemitism. We have to be more conscious of the language we use than that. We shouldn’t be making arguments in this vein but instead focusing on anti-colonial arguments. When discussing the colonialism of relocating European Jewish communities to Palestine there’s no reason to be using this kind of “race politics” language.

The relationship between Ashkenazi jews and the communities that were already present in Palestine is not something I understand very well, and more broadly the history of Ashkenazi jews as a whole is something I’m only familiar with as it relates to early 20th century European politics. It’s something I’d like to do my own research on from reliable sources to better understand how these kinds of arguments feed into genuine hatred of Jewish people.

I’m not as educated on the broader nature of antisemitic arguments as I should be. I appreciate you adding context to why some Jewish students feel unsafe with the discourse going on at the moment. Anti-Zionist action has an obligation to protect Jewish people as much as it has an obligation to protect Muslim people and ethnic Palestinians. Our goals ought to be to separate ourselves from race hierarchy and protect human rights for all. It’s critically important that in advocating against the Israeli government and the IDF that we do not tolerate anti-semitism in any form and that we reject the support of ant-semitic people wherever it appears.

It is here. We did the math, and a mortgage on a brand new house was literally half our rent at 20k down. The barrier to entry is the down payment. Those “good terms” entirely have to do with how much income you make and how much debt you have.

I pay for maintenance on my apartment. This is essentially universal where I live. Also, maintenance costs do not come anywhere near the gap between mortgage and rent payments. Mortgage is literally less than half on a very, very shitty apartment. We didn’t even have proper heating when we first moved in to our last apartment. We both work full-time jobs. The building was very close to being condemned. It was the cheapest in our town of less than 100k. Mortgage on homes less than 10 years old was legitimately half our rent. Including HOA, including insurance, including taxes and utilities, it was literally half the cost.

But 20k we do not have. And we have not been able to save even a quarter of that, as our cost of living has doubled in the last 4 years. Entirely due to profiteering by corporations and landlords.

Long and gist of it, no, unless it’s a government run property rent is literally 0 out of 10 times going to be cheaper. Do you not understand the fundamental purpose of being a landlord? Are you under some kind of delusional belief that any measurable amount of landlords are in the business of renting properties out of the kindness of their hearts? No, being a landlord is just like being a company that sells water. You’re going to charge absolutely as much as you can possibly get away with, because literally the entire purpose of being a landlord is to make money while doing as little time investment as possible. Our last landlord did literally nothing for over a year while the house fell apart around us. We gave him over 20 thousand dollars in rent. The land tax there was peanuts. He pocketed at least 10k for doing literally nothing.

The point of being a landlord is having enough net money at the start to literally not work. To literally do no labor for which they are beholden to someone. To collect tax from the serfs that occupy their land. They are part of a separate economic and social class. And profiteering is the entire reason anyone chooses to do it. There’s literally no other measurable reason. There may be one or 2 mythical landlords who are running themselves into debt cause they love their tenants or whatever the fuck, but they’re not even a thousandth of a percentile. Literally statistically irrelevant.

So morality of crime is defined by the success of the victim?

Close, the morality of a crime is defined by the impact that committing the crime has on the lives and rights of others. Killing someone is a vile crime. You’ve taken away someone’s inaliable right to life. Stealing from the poor is a vile crime. You have taken the means of survival from someone who struggles to survive. Stalking is a vile crime. You’ve interceded on someone’s inaliable right to privacy and safety.

How does downloading a cracked video game or a TV show impact others? Who is being victimized, and how are they being victimized? Say, for instance, that today I download a game for free. What tangible impact does this have on others?

So if our ‘victim’ is a multi billion dollar corporation that is one of the fastest growing game companies in the world and is quickly approaching income levels rivaling some small nations, the tangible impact that me downloading their game for free has is literally none. There is no impact. They will never even know that I did it, and I do not consider the “right to commerce” as a fundamental human right. I do not think that me taking potential profits from billionaire investors is in any way interceding on their human rights and also do not believe that the action causes any harm to them.

So if you become incredibly successful for what you created there becomes a point where it’s moral for you to lose all rights and control over your art?

Corporations are not people. The designers artists and programmers at Nintendo do not direcy profit from game sales. They are paid a salary by their company. Again, it’s relative. There is no such thing as a moral absolute, we have to consider the context in which actions happen and the effects those actions cause. Stealing from the poor is vile. Stealing from Walmart isn’t.

So then the moral of the lesson is that art is worthless and creating new things serves no useful purpose?

I do not consider the primary purpose of art to be profit for shareholders, if that’s what you consider “useful purpose”. Art is useful in that it communicates human emotions and experiences. It’s useful in that it delights us, it inspires us, and we take great enjoyment in it. Even if all art was free, this would still be true. Free games are fun. Free books are worth reading. Free music is worth listening to. Paintings don’t lose value because I can see them without paying. Your view of art and your view of capital are so intertwined that you are ignorant of the reality that art is not capital.

Almost like the game companies learned that same lesson from people like you and just started making shittier games to accomodate their shittier fans.

Every single corporation on Earth will cut as many corners as possible to generate the maximum possible revenue for the minimal possible cost. Shitty games still sell exceedingly well. They have a profit incentive to invest as little money into their games as possible. Games as products are less enjoyable than games as art. We love games whose creators felt passion in creating them. We love games whose designers believed in what they were making, and felt connected to their product. Faceless corporations lose this entirely. Games are how Nintendo makes money. Therefore, even if no one wants to make this game, it must be made. For Nintendo must turn profit. This is part of the reason some games are amazing experiences and others are clear, transparent cash grabs.

I’m anti capitalist and explicitly anti commerce, especially with regards to large corporations, so. Whether it’s for piracy or not doesn’t matter. When I buy a game, I should have a legal right to do whatever I want with the data comprising that game. Including creating software to play it on other devices. It, therefore, should absolutely be legal to create and use emulators. Whether a particular end user is using it on legitimately purchased copies is beyond the scope of control of the creator of the emulator. This was already settled in courts in the 90s.

Piracy is also moral. It’s always moral to pirate content created and/or distributed my international corporations with income in the billions.

The very beginning. The emulator scene has existed since the 80s. The emulator scene has fought against Nintendo since literally the NES. And they have frequently won.

Painting nails different colors has always been a thing lol

I do think it’s important that people know what it is they’re celebrating, but yeah like my local Chinese community always does a lunar new year celebration that is open to everyone. I think a lot of Chinese people (and other communities that celebrate the lunar new year, like Okinawan Korean Vietnamese and many others) see open celebration as creating more appreciation for and understanding of their culture.

Results vary wildly. Some images are near pixel perfect. Others, it clearly knows what image it is intended to be replicating. Like it gets all the conceptual pieces in the right places but fails to render an exact copy.

Not a very good compression ratio if the image you get back isn’t the one you wanted, but merely an image that is conceptually similar.

Can you explain why you think that requiring people to use public domain or ask for permission to use non-public domain content to train image or text generators would benefit corporations? How does that benefit OpenAI, making them ask before using someones content?

Yes, an-caps lol famous for standing up for small time by commission digital artists trying to avoid exploitation of their creations. Totally yup you got me. All my criticism of corporations and pointing how AI art specifically benefits corporations at the detriment of actual human beings is very ancap of me.

Your whole bit about a new owner class is just, so far out there I don’t even know what you’re on. I don’t have time to try and work through the justifications for why you think that you’re entitled to make a mimic program for other peoples stuff. Not just to do it, but to claim that it makes you an artist.

Sorry but nah you’re in the minority here. In this specific community in this specific space your voice is overrepresented. I’ve never met another person who agrees that our prototypical Charlotte and others like her are demonic overlords of the new ruling class who are seeking to subvert creativity and lock it in their hands. God, most of the artists I know willingly train others and a lot of them make content to train others. Now you’re essentially complaining that you can’t draw lmao like it’s just ridiculous. I can’t draw either, that’s fine I don’t want to put in the work to be able to create real visual art. I can live with that. I wouldn’t use an ethically sourced AI image generator anyway, as it’s literally an elaborate RNG function with a mimicry algorithm attached to it. It has no meaning and is empty.

Like typing “a cool painting” into bing image generator, which then tries its best to copy other real paintings made by real people, makes you an artist somehow. It doesn’t. And you’re not going to convince me of that, of all people. Let alone the majority of society who definitely do not agree that that makes you an artist, or that it makes it right to scrape images from artists like that.

Also the bit about me deeming people to have talent is just stupid. I’m not judging their artistic ability, I’m saying they’re literally not making art they’re not showcasing any artistic ability whether I think it’s good or not.

I dont want copyright to be expanded, I dont want laws governing intellectual property at all. I’ve described what I think is right pretty fully. I don’t need you to tell me where I stand.

You can read my other comments if you want to engage with it any further. I’m not mistaking you for someone else. I’m just tired of people rehashing the same endless points. Arguing with AI bros is tireless, pointlessly futile. It consistently devolves into innane nonsense. I’m fully on board with doing away with copyright as a concept entirely. My request is that artificial image and text generation be regulated in a way that is ethical with respect to small content creators who should have a say in what software their art is used to generate. That’s it fam I’m out

‘Charlotte’ draws for people. She’s good at it, and it’s her livelihood. People like her are hurting literally no one by drawing things. She enriches the lives of all the people who enjoy her work. She should have a choice in whether or not her works are used to make image generators. That’s it. It’s not complicated. You shouldn’t get to decide this for her, she never posted her images to the internet with the knowledge that someone would use them to figuratively build a machine with the expressive purpose of rendering what she does useless (even if it’s very bad at doing so).

AI art stands against everything that every artist had ever taught me. It’s spit on the face of art as a concept. It’s art devoid of creation. Art made out of very long, very complicated algorithms weighing weights adjusted by billions of pictures passed through it. It’s no more expressive or inspirational than an RNG function attached to a midi keyboard. It’s mimicry, mimicry that really only stands to benefit corporations. I’m not about it.

AI in pretty well any other case? I’m on board. Let’s automate human labor, all the things that we are forced to do for work. No more physical labor, no more 9 to 5, no more retail or fast food or corporate jobs. Do away with it all. I’m totally with you there. Doing away with human art? I mean, I’ve got no interest in that. If you like staring at what amounts essentially to nothing, then be my guest. I’m very open minded with art in general, totally down with avant guarde pieces, performance art, noise music, all the stuff at the fringe that offends the delicate sensibilities of those who seek to gatekeep what is or isn’t genuine human expression.

Pretty big difference there is all those things are made by people. People with talent. Artists. We are enjoy the fruits of their labor. Their rights should be respected. They should have a say in whether specifically AI is allowed to copy their works.

Yeah, I’m not too concerned with janky AI generators having to ask before training a model on someone’s art. Sucks for them I guess.

I don’t agree with copyright. I’m an anarchist. I’m openly in favor of piracy, derivative, whatever else a human being might do with something. I don’t agree with judicial systems, let alone market economies or even currency as a concept. And that’s all fine and dandy, but there are people alive right now under capitalism. Unlike piracy, which pretty much exclusively takes from corporations like the overwhelming majority of things that are pirated are produced by corporate studios and studio funded artists, this one very specific thing takes the most specifically from artists the overwhelming majority of whom are already very poorly compensated many of them literally barely get by at all. AI models should have to ask them to copy and repurpose their works.

That’s my only statement. You can assume I effectively don’t agree with any other thing. I’m not here to have a long winded nuanced debate about a legal system I don’t agree with and am not supporting in literally any capacity. I’m pointing at pixiv the website and saying “hey can you guys like actually ask before you start using these people’s shit to make AI that is purposefully built to make sure that they are run out of jobs”

Unless you’re going to somehow explain why artists aren’t worth existing or something then don’t even bother answering. I’m genuinely not interested in what you have to say and am tired of repeating myself in this thread.

Those are corporations. I’m concerned about how this impacts individuals. Small artists on social media, who make a living off small commissions. I think it is morally and ethically wrong to steal from them.

I also strongly dislike the way you are portraying artists as a monolith. There are some artists who would be willing to submit their art to make an image generation model. You’re essentially complaining that not enough people would say yes in your opinion. As though there aren’t hundreds of millions of public domain paintings drawings music and all sorts of things that can already be used without screwing over Charlotte and her small time Instagram art dig she affords her 1 bedroom apartment with. You’re refusing to even ask her if she’s okay with her creations being used in this way.

You’re wrong. What you’re describing is immoral. I don’t care about corporations. They’re not who I’m interested in protecting. Its artists themselves. You’re also wrong that AI art is some boon for humanity. It’s cheap, barely passable noise. Literally, that is what it is. A beefed up toy that mostly exists to generate shitty articles and images that corporations can churn out en mass to manipulate people. That’s its best use case at the moment. It’s gonna be a very long time, if ever, that human creativity and wit can be engineered.

I’m just gonna ask you to read my above comment again. What I’m suggesting is:

“Before you scrape and analyze art with the specific purpose of making an AI art generator model, you must ask permission from the original creating artist.”