Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tiamatium t1_jdzrfya wrote

If you can't tell the difference, does it matter?

How are we regulating Photoshop today? How are we regulating digital art today? How are we regulating flat out plagiarism today?

Why the fuck do you want to *regulate art" of all things?! Do you think people should need a special license to create art?! What the fuck is up with this gatekeeping?

None of those problems are unique to AI and none are real. AI is just a tool, and while I know that certain artists want to fight it, ban it or get paid for... "Being fucked" by it, that is not new. In fact we have had this exact problem back in mid-1800's with raise in photography. There is a famous rant from 1860's(?) about all the talentless losers (not my words, I am paraphrasing the author of the rant) who can't paint and who can't graduate from university becoming photographers. Painters who used photographs for reference had to hide it. Painters who said art has to adapt were systemically pushed out of art word and exhibits.

So that is literally not a new problem

11

Neo-Geo1839 OP t1_jdzxiig wrote

The thing is, the arguments you just listed completely ignore the political side of things, as AI technology can potentially sway opinions and may just destroy the reputation of a politician even if he didn't do/say the thing the deep fake says he do (or will do). They will become so accurate that you wouldn't be able to tell if it was faked or real. Elections could be decided just by these deep fakes (in the near future). Like, people immediately reacted to a fake Trump arrest image on Twitter, just imagine that in the future.

If there was no political side to this, I would agree, this is not really a new problem. But the fact that there is one just concerns me. This isn't just about the silly little artist mad that an AI can do something better than him. No, this can be used and would inevitably be used by politicians to attack other and divide the populace even further.

−3

audioen t1_je0ioev wrote

Let me show you my squid web proxy. It runs all the content of the Internet through an AI that rewrites it so that everything agrees exactly to what I like. I appreciate your positive and encouraging words where you are enthusiastic, like so many of us, about the potential and possibilities afforded by new technologies, and are looking forwards to near-limitless access to machine labor and assistance in all things. As an optimist, like you, I am sure that it is certain to boost the intelligence of the average member of our species by something like 15 IQ points if not more.

In all seriousness, though, it is a new world now. Rules that used to apply to the old one are fading. You can't usually roll back technology, and this has promise of boosting worker productivity in intellectual stuff by factor around 10. The words of caution are: I will not call up that which I can not put down. However, this cat is out of the bag, well and truly. All we can do now is to adapt to it.

Iain M. Banks once wrote in his Culture series novel something to the effect that in a world where everyone can fake anything, the generally accepted standard for authenticity is a high-fidelity enough real-time recording that is performed by a machine which can ascertain that what it is seeing is real.

Your watermark solution won't work. Outlawing it won't work. Anything can be fake news now. Soon it will come with AI-written articles, AI-generated videos, and AI-supplied photographic evidence, and AI-chatbots pushing it all around on social media. If that is not a signal for your average person to just disconnect from the madhouse that is media in general, I don't know what is. Go outside and look at the Sun, and feel the breeze -- that is real. Let the machines worry about the future of the world -- it seems they are poised to do that anyway.

5