Industrialization and technological progress has tended to worsen inequality - that is a trend that optimists really need to pay attention to and get ahead of.

It may very well be that in 2050, it might be very hard to actually find any land for yourself.

It's also quite the assumption to assume that people will leave earth. And, it would be an incredible tragedy if staying on earth and having land was something that was essentially for the elite, which it could be in a post-singularity world.

Like, you have to think about land-ownership and how it has gone. As our population has grown and our economy has grown, the price of land has gone up, a lot. But, this is largely due to an asymmetric distribution of resources.

Zoning laws also still exist.

Thinking that we can't get ahead on some of these things is a bit too low-resolution of a viewpoint. AGI is going to make huge strides in asymmetric ways as well. So, it'll be very good at some things, but we'll still need human verification for lots of things for a good while, such as laws, engineering designs, etc.

Also... zoning laws. Fuck needing permission to build a shed on my own goddamn property.

I think you're too threatened by what I say.

I am soon going to own some land of myself and my family actually has a lot of land, so please don't take it as a threat.

I'm actually more concerned about billionaires buying up endless acres of farmland, pricing people out of being able to establish on their own, turning farming into indentured servitude as a profession in the modern era.

So, progressive tax on land ownership... so if you own less than 500 acres, your tax would be low. If you own a few acres or less, your tax should be zero.

If you own 1,000,000 acres? You'd be taxed more, according to the value of the land.

That's the concept.

10000%.

Had a solid SAT verbal and I have a college degree so I doubt that's the problem

Oh well.

I tried to bring some nuance to this subreddit.

This is the problem with reddit. It dumbs everything down.

It's far too popular of a site to be allowed to be run the way that it is.... FFS.

I.e. its too easy to downvote. You should have to comment first. And, all upvotes and downvotes should be shown, and downvotes shouldn't necessarily count against posts rising to the top.

> It’s a battle for monopoly.

Yes, it is. But it's deeper than that.

So, you think its a good thing that Adobe has a hidden term of use to use your private data to train their AI, even though you pay them a subscription?

> “We are in the early birth pains of a new species.” - Terence McKenna

Sounds like anti-humanism. Are you sure that new species isn't the borg?

Lol.

I'm funded by my passion and watching my passion get corrupted by a tool and a bunch of mindless techies.

And, I'm watching you all defend corporations and upvote people who say things like "this big companies are on our side."

Give me a fucking break.

> They are quite literally enabling corporate capture of emerging technologies at a critical point.

You're enabling it far more by setting the bar at zero for allowing companies to have very shady terms of use.

Don't tell me you read every terms of use agreement........ Lol.

What we need are terms of use regulations. But, you're standing in the way of that too and don't seem to think it's important, so you might as well accept your future of corporate slavery.

So... shady terms of service are a good thing?

I expect it to, and possibly within the decade.

The thing is that AI actually vastly outstrips us in narrow problems.

I think that element of it will drive us to AGI sooner than later. That is, much of what AI is already good at should help reel in a lot of the technical AGI problems.

I.e. mapping neurons, mapping complex patterns between neurons and emulating that behavior more robustly.

I think that whatever problems that remain over the horizon, there's a sort of exponential space that we are now in where those unknowns will quickly be reeled in.

It's the nature of information technology itself. I.e. most math was discovered in the past 300 years compared to 10000 years of civilization.

Now our population is massive, which means that the talent pool is also significantly larger. It's inevitable that it will happen relatively soon, in my view, when those things are considered.

Artists don't necessarily hate AI... they rightly hate their work being exploited.

Getting the ethics of AI art ironed out includes protecting artists' work from being used in these tools, and secondly, making it known when a piece of art is AI generated.

A key difference between AI and photography is that you know a photo is a photo and a painting is a painting. AI image generators are a totally new paradigm.

The fact that it obscures the nature of the image is problematic, and tools that identify AI art will become increasingly necessary to preserve the knowledge that something is authentic human work.

Yea... I have taken a bit of an issue with the idea that open source intrinsically makes something good. If I open sourced biotechnology that allows you to create a supervirus, that would be mostly just absolutely terrible.

Mainly in that I find a lot of people don't actually appreciate others' hard work and passion, and then they take that work for granted as well.

People want things like communism and shared labor, but then they fail to actually stand up for other people's hard work and them being justly rewarded for their contribution. And hence, because of that failure, we have exploitative capitalism. Capitalists and communists are both philosophies that stem from selfishness and an unwillingness to stand up for goodness itself, for all.

In this case, the AI art "scrape everyones data" proponents have ZERO appreciation for the hard work, dedication and sacrifice, and because they found a new copyright loophole tool, they're fine using artists work against them.

It's simple naiveté at best, and it's rotten exploitation at worst.

FYI LIAON was funded by these companies so they could protect themselves from lawsuits. It was shady Machiavellianism. Shady Machiavellian types are building AI and people support them.

We are so completely fucked.

Ok communist.

Anyone who does work means thar you're entitled to benefit from your labor, no matter how little means they have, then.

What an asinine argument. You obviously have a callous heart and are willing to take hard work from people so that your fancy tool can be 2% better.

And the irony is the backlash from people like you being so mindless about it is what will actually slow it down.

So, you're an asshole and you're slowing progress. Congrats.

> Stable Diffusion AI doesn't scrape anything. It studies a billion images as visual ideas to produce one image using fractal mathematics. It's nothing at all like scraping and every image it produces is new and not like anything else because it starts as noise at its base.

False.

To train the AI, data was scraped. The AI itself does not scrape data, but lots of private data was scraped without consent.

No one is going to slow progress down. It's like trying to stop a river. What you can do is direct the river around the village.

Yeah.

Not going to get anywhere with you, clearly for the same reason I don't try to teach a dog calculus.

Cya.

AI art is not evil, innately.

The scraping of people's copyrighted, supposedly protected works and then using that work as tooling for your engineered system? That is evil, and it is a human decision that is the evil.

I am actually not against AI at all - in fact, I considered going into it at one time (and still might, especially because the danger seems to be growing and there are some philosophical technical talents I might be able to apply to a lot of specific AI problems).

> Criticism is great when its well founded and comes from genuine concern rather than people attacking the whole concept AI because it lacks a “soul” or is “stealing” their job

So... it's going to replace all of our jobs. The other thing we need to get ahead on is actually getting UBI pushed through.

I'd be willing to fear-monger to get UBI pushed, especially with the way that conservatives tend to act.

> By your logic all artists are unethical and exploitative.

"All."

That's an absolutely asinine conclusion that you stated just to be inflammatory because you're probably kind of an asshole troll type.

Some artists are absolute asshats and do rip people's ideas off rapidly, or collage people's work into photoshop other people's work and paint over it (which is highly frowned upon). Doing stuff like that can destroy your reputation and cost you your professional career.

AI art is basically an automated version of what is already considered bad form.

You seem like you'd be one of these asshats if you actually took up art.

I think you might not be up to date on the topic.

Corridor crew did an excellent video where they showcased the new tech, and credited the artist whose name the used in the prompt, but it was very very much like that artists images.

I think this may more be an awareness issue.

It is absolutely able to copy styles, and with high accuracy. I think artists on artstation are particularly angry because they're very ip to date on the styles and tends of artists, so many of them can also see whose work is being used.