Traveller, TAS, and AI

[MarcusIII]

Just endless recycling of the same until it all turns to mud.

Sounds like the movie industry for the last 30 years. At the end of the day the Market will decide how to use and consue AI products.

 

[MasterGwydion]

Sounds like the movie industry for the last 30 years. At the end of the day the Market will decide how to use and consue AI products.

This sounds an awful lot like, "At the end of the day, God will decide how to use and (consue?) AI products." Market rule is mob rule. Saying things like, "Let the market decide" is just a deflection of personal responsibility. It is saying, to let mob rule be held supreme over personal responsibility for the world around us. That is a dangerous viewpoint. It allows for horrible behavior against fellow humans, but hey! That's okay because the mob says it is okay.

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."
- Agent K

I would say the same holds true for being moral. A person can be moral, a mob cannot.

 

[Arkathan]

Letting the market decide, when the market is being flooded by cheap AI crap, burying the human made products, is kind of like sitting on your thumbs while China floods your country with cheap goods subsidized by the party in order to wage economic war.
Remember when China dominated the recycling industry so they could kill it once they no longer needed the resources from recycling?

 

[phavoc]

That isn't the case, though. If the SAG and Screenwriters don't block AI, the suits WILL use generative AI to make their current level of crap AND use AI actors to do it. AI should be used in making humanity BETTER. Tasks that require adjustments too rapid or equations too long for a human to do quickly and accurately. It should NOT be competing with humans in the arts.
The lack of anything else to copy WILL result in stagnation.
What is to stop main stream news organizations, already proven to have no compunction with telling the public blatant lies and frequently under either overt or clandestine governmental control, to employ AI as if it were factual? This is "1984" territory.

Job "revolutions" are a constant. Obama tried to drive a nail in the coffin when he sided with globalists to help to complete stripping the US of manufacturing capacity. He said it would take a magic wand to bring those jobs back. The globalists wanted to turn the US into a service industry economy, and then the liberals raised the minimum wage to the point that robots were cheaper in several states. Result: well-paying manufacturing jobs became McJobs and McJobs got cut. One can argue about the contributing effect of unions getting contracts where janitors got $45 per hour in 1980's dollars, but the results and the actors are the same. The environmentalists told the coal miners to code, and those jobs were already saturated and endangered by generative AI.

The AI slop makes noise/takes up space which SHOULD be going to a talented human. Instead, THOT slop adorns thousands of competing indy/semi-pro products. I pointed out one AI slop creator that averages three submissions per day. Why? Because the lack of talent and a lack of ethics allows the steady churning of dross.

Agreed. AI isn't actually creating anything, it's just ad-libs in a computer. It's great for some things, but creativity isn't (yet) one of them. I've seen very few truly interesting things when AI has managed to rise above it's normal schlocky output. I kind of see it as the old infinite monkey situation - put enough of them together and statistically one of them will author a novel. But the rest of the output is just meaningless garbage.

AI art is a little different - so long as it's human guided. I can't draw for crap, but I can be inspired by previous works and make my own creations - just can't share them outside my head. AI-guided writing can be somewhat the same - provide the parameters, editing and such and you might get better output.

For better or worse AI (actually, let's call it what it is, not what it clearly isn't. AI is NOT intelligence. It's a lot of code and scripts that puts together schlock and does NOT create anything original because it can't. It's more like a pattern matcher) is here to stay. Whether or not it is widely adopted or drops back into the background is another thing. It's similar to self-checkouts. They were supposed to be all the rage and eliminate checkers jobs... until reality showed their very real limitations and stores started removing them, or at least dialing their usage back. AI will (probably) fall into the same thing. Companies are already dialing back some introduction as it's proven to really suck at a lot of things where the promises never materialized.

 

[collins355]

Its just super-duper predictive text - let's be honest.

 

[Vormaerin]

The argument everyone churns out only holds if AI art is better.

The question is actually better at what? Being cheaper? It certainly is better at that currently, though it's not clear the current pricing level is actually a sustainable business model.

The reality is that people cost money. Whether they are janitors or artists. If your primary interest is in how much the owners pocket, cheaper is definitely better. And certainly, that's our culture. People only have value to the extent that they provide greater returns to the wealthy than an alternative.

 

[Endie]

That isn't the case, though. If the SAG and Screenwriters don't block AI, the suits WILL use generative AI to make their current level of crap AND use AI actors to do it. AI should be used in making humanity BETTER. Tasks that require adjustments too rapid or equations too long for a human to do quickly and accurately. It should NOT be competing with humans in the arts.
The lack of anything else to copy WILL result in stagnation.
What is to stop main stream news organizations, already proven to have no compunction with telling the public blatant lies and frequently under either overt or clandestine governmental control, to employ AI as if it were factual? This is "1984" territory.

Job "revolutions" are a constant. Obama tried to drive a nail in the coffin when he sided with globalists to help to complete stripping the US of manufacturing capacity. He said it would take a magic wand to bring those jobs back. The globalists wanted to turn the US into a service industry economy, and then the liberals raised the minimum wage to the point that robots were cheaper in several states. Result: well-paying manufacturing jobs became McJobs and McJobs got cut. One can argue about the contributing effect of unions getting contracts where janitors got $45 per hour in 1980's dollars, but the results and the actors are the same. The environmentalists told the coal miners to code, and those jobs were already saturated and endangered by generative AI.

The AI slop makes noise/takes up space which SHOULD be going to a talented human. Instead, THOT slop adorns thousands of competing indy/semi-pro products. I pointed out one AI slop creator that averages three submissions per day. Why? Because the lack of talent and a lack of ethics allows the steady churning of dross.

All you are saying here, yet again, is the self-contradictory "AI is crap but people won't prefer human art" with a gloss of invoking 1984, for effect.

Since I can't be bothered typing it all out again: is AI art slop which people will avoid, or is AI art genius-level, in which case people will prefer it and the "omg great artists will starve even more than now" argument is available? Until that's addressed, I'm going to Cato it up and say, ceterum cetero...

I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, [I]somehow[/I], great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out [I]only holds if AI art is better[/I].

 

[Condottiere]

We're already screwed.

At least, the ninety nine percent.

Optimistically, my prediction is that artificial intelligence will be used against itself, in that everything will be analyzed, and what's artificially created will be pointed out.

As regards news, and other stuff people might be interested in online, what I've always thought is that a new set of gatekeepers, that users have become to trust, will direct and/or link them to locations that are perceived as accurate, and they will likely find of interest.

 

[Arkathan]

AI is slop art, flooding the market like cheap cut rate products and pushing out real art. If not stopped, corpos will use it exclusively. State Media WILL use it to push lies.
It isn't a matter of consumer preference when all that gets stocked is cheap crap.
AI being slop is not unsupported. The participation trophy crowd will use AI and the corporations will use AI. The idea that the human sector cannot be pushed out is as ridiculous as saying the middle class is safe. Globalists have been intentionally destroying the middle class for decades.
In spite of being exposed, large numbers of people get all of their information from corrupted media or are afraid to step out of their Echo Chambers due to cancel culture. When disagreeing on any one point of dogma is enough for your so-called friends to abandon you as an X-ist X-ophobe, weak minded people or those who feel trapped conform.
I told you earlier that I could speak on history and ethics, but you went on a musical tangent. So when I point out the dangers, they are real. We have too many people in high places who would love to crush our spirit, kill our imagination and make us both ignorant and totally dependent upon them for everything. This is yet another insidious tool in their belt.

 

[MarcusIII]

Letting the market decide, when the market is being flooded by cheap AI crap, burying the human made products, is kind of like sitting on your thumbs while China floods your country with cheap goods subsidized by the party in order to wage economic war.
Remember when China dominated the recycling industry so they could kill it once they no longer needed the resources from recycling?

Irrelevant. The market always decides regardless of emotion. "The Market" is a econ term. As in The Market is always right. Which it is because a horse is a horse is a horse of course. It is an axiom.

 

[Endie]

AI is slop art, flooding the market like cheap cut rate products and pushing out real art. If not stopped, corpos will use it exclusively. State Media WILL use it to push lies.
It isn't a matter of consumer preference when all that gets stocked is cheap crap.
AI being slop is not unsupported. The participation trophy crowd will use AI and the corporations will use AI. The idea that the human sector cannot be pushed out is as ridiculous as saying the middle class is safe. Globalists have been intentionally destroying the middle class for decades.
In spite of being exposed, large numbers of people get all of their information from corrupted media or are afraid to step out of their Echo Chambers due to cancel culture. When disagreeing on any one point of dogma is enough for your so-called friends to abandon you as an X-ist X-ophobe, weak minded people or those who feel trapped conform.
I told you earlier that I could speak on history and ethics, but you went on a musical tangent. So when I point out the dangers, they are real. We have too many people in high places who would love to crush our spirit, kill our imagination and make us both ignorant and totally dependent upon them for everything. This is yet another insidious tool in their belt.

OK so you believe that AI is "slop art" and "cheap crap." So, yet again:

I can't believe that everyone keeps presenting the same, unsupported argument that "AI is slop and everyone will use AI instead of human creations which are far better but nobody will use them despite that because, um... something."

There are plenty of crap but cheap artists on the internet right now, churning out their identical, furry slop. And yet, [I]somehow[/I], great artists make great art. The argument everyone churns out [I]only holds if AI art is better[/I].

 

[Arkathan]

And you ignored every other part of the argument.

 

[Arkathan]

Irrelevant. The market always decides regardless of emotion. "The Market" is a econ term. As in The Market is always right. Which it is because a horse is a horse is a horse of course. It is an axiom.

Tell that to people who want raw milk in states that ban raw milk.
When the product has been pushed out because the company/person that made it cannot cut costs like AI can, the market cannot decide, since the choice is removed.
Try buying non-GMO seeds for a farm, and then using seeds from your yield for several years. Pollen from your neighbor's field comes in and now Monsanto sues you out of existence for having their genes.

 

[MarcusIII]

And you ignored every other part of the argument.

Because it isn't relevant to the Market being always right.