Alrighty, so generative AI works by giving it training data and it transforms that data and then generates something based on a prompt and how that prompt is related to the training data it has. That's not functionally different from how commissioned human artists work. They train on publicly available works, their brain transforms and stores that data and uses it to generate a work based on a prompt. They even often directly use a reference work to generate their own without permission from the original artist. Like I said, there are tons of valid criticisms against Gen AI, but this criticism just boils down to "AI bad because it's not a human exploiting other's work."

The anti AI crowd is getting crazy. Everyone uses it during development. It's a tool for fuck's sake, what's next? Banning designers from using Photoshop because using it is faster and thus taking jobs from multiple artists who would have to be employed otherwise?

GenAI is a glorified Markov Chain. Nothing more. It is a stochastic parrot. It does not think, it is not capable of creating novel new works, and it is incapable of the emotion necessary to be expressive. All it can do is ingest content and replicate it. This is not the same as a human seeing someone’s work and being inspired by it to create something uniquely their own in response.

I never claimed that Gen AI has consciousness, or that what they produce has emotions behind it, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on that. I'm specifically talking about the argument that AI is bad because trains on copyrighted material without consent from the artist, which is functionally no different than humans doing the exact same thing. This isn't me defending AI, this is me saying this one specific argument against it is stupid.

My entire post was a rebuttal of the “functionally no different than humans doing the same thing”. Humans take inspiration and use it to express themselves uniquely, genAI just steals and replicates. They are in no way “doing the exact same thing”.

I feel there is nutjobs on both sides tbh.

You can always tell the people with no artistic talent because they don't understand how AI is different than digital art software like PhotoShop. And they seem to think that artists should just accept having their life's work stolen and vomited up as slop. Fuck anyone who thinks like this. They think they are entitled to my creativity without doing any of the work.  "Everyone is doing it." The absolute degeneration of morality in this era is mind boggling. Have no morals, seek only profit. The fact that so many people cannot take a stand for integrity because of perceived pragmatism is sickening.  I hope anyone that thinks like this gets the AI slop filled hell they deserve. And I hope their careers are the next to be axed and replaced by the plagiarism machines.

“Everyone uses it” is just such a dumb argument. I don’t use it, I’ve never committed any code written by genAI. My colleagues don’t use it. Many, many people choose not to use it.

An unethically developed tool that's burning the planet faster with the ultimate goal of starving the working class out of society. Inb4 alarmism lol tell me the fucking lie if you can.

Not everyone, and it probably multiplies review time 10 fold. Makes maintenance horrible. It doesn't save time, just moves it and makes devs dumber and unable to justify coding choices the AI generates.

Have you seen the pro-AI crowd? The most insane people currently in the tech world.

You can always tell the people with no artistic talent because they don't understand how AI is different than digital art software like PhotoShop. And they seem to think that artists should just accept having their life's work stolen and vomited up as slop. Fuck anyone who thinks like this. They think they are entitled to my creativity without doing any of the work.  "Everyone is doing it." The absolute degeneration of morality in this era is mind boggling. Have no morals, seek only profit. The fact that so many people cannot take a stand for integrity because of perceived pragmatism is sickening.  I hope anyone that thinks like this gets the AI slop filled hell they deserve. And I hope their careers are the next to be axed and replaced by the plagiarism machines.

Just to point out, LLMs are genAI. Lots of code editors provide code suggestions similar to autocorrect/text suggestions using AI. Strictly I doubt any game is made without AI. Not to say it can't be deliberately avoided, but given the lack of opposition to GPT and LLMs I don't see it being considered for avoidance in the same way as art. So Awards with constraints on "any AI usage in development" probably disqualifies most modern games.

I'm in an entirely different industry than the topic at hand here, but my boss is really keen on ChatGPT and whatnot. Every problem that comes up, he's like "have you asked AI yet?" We have very expensive machines, which are maintained (ideally) by people who literally go to school to learn how to. We had an issue with a machine the other day and the same ol' question came up, "have you asked AI yet?" He took a photo of the alarm screen and fed it to ChatGPT. It spit out a huge reply and he forwarded it to me and told me to try it out. Literally the first troubleshooting step ChatGPT gave was nonsense and did not apply to our specific machine and our specific set-up and our specific use-case.

Just to point out, LLMs are genAI. Lots of code editors provide code suggestions similar to autocorrect/text suggestions using AI. Strictly I doubt any game is made without AI. Not to say it can't be deliberately avoided, but given the lack of opposition to GPT and LLMs I don't see it being considered for avoidance in the same way as art. So Awards with constraints on "any AI usage in development" probably disqualifies most modern games.

The anti AI crowd is getting crazy. Everyone uses it during development. It's a tool for fuck's sake, what's next? Banning designers from using Photoshop because using it is faster and thus taking jobs from multiple artists who would have to be employed otherwise?

I'm not going to fault someone for driving to work in a car, but I certainly wouldn't call them the winner of a marathon even if they only drove for a few minutes of that marathon. There's a difference between something that runs the race for you (LLM AI) and something that simply helps you do what you are already doing (I suppose photoshop is the equivalent of drinking gatorade).

By data aggregators, I strictly mean websites like Reddit, Shutterstock, deviant Art, etc. giving them the keys would bring up the cost of building a state of the art model so that any open sourcing would be literally impossible. These models already cost in the low millions to develop. Take video generation for instance, almost all the data is owned by YouTube and Hollywood. Google wanted to charge 300$ a month to use it but instead, we have free models that can run on high end consumer hardware. Scraping has been accepted for a long time and making it illegal would be disastrous. It would make the entry price for any kind of computer vision software or search engine incredibly high, not just gen AI. I'd love to have laws that forced everything made with public data to be open source but that is *not* what copyright companies, AI companies and the media are pushing for. They don't want to help artists, they want to help themselves. They want to be able to dictate the price of entry which suits them and the big AI companies as well. I'm all for laws to regulate data centers and manufacturing, but again, that's not what is being pushed for. Most anti-AI peeps seem the be helping the enemy a lot more then they realize.