The back edge of generated content that I don’t see a lot of discussion about is mislabeling real content, accidentally or not. It’s gonna have a monumental affect on how we consume media, even for those that want to avoid it.
Yep, this is the most important threat of Gen AI in my opinion. The erosion of trust, and the following devaluation of truth, is already hurting society so much. And it will only get worse.
Remember, it’s not just «did someone actually paint this?». It is also «did this actually happen?» and «did they actually say that?».
A promotional image I created for a local queer rally was deemed “AI” by the community (the image was actually the result of me sacrificing 8 hours of sleep.) The vitriol I was hit with, including one of my fellow committee members passive aggressively implying I was lying about it not being AI, was enough to make me no longer want to volunteer my time or skills for my own community.
Which is really fucking shitty. The increased lateral attacks happening because of Gen-AI pitting us against one another benefits those fucks at the top, and they didn’t even have to work for it.
+1. I was releasing free fucking music for indie devs who didn’t have budget or limited budget for this kinda stuff, some mf on reddit who was selling his music saw this, contacted admins to claim it was made via AI, then they took the post down without doing any investigation or even contacting me. Labeled as made with AI. I’ve worked in the industry for over 10 years, there’s literally 0 reason for me to use AI to make music lol From that point onward I just pulled out all of my free libraries from public, if it’s that easy to mislabel somebody’s hard work, and only give the download codes for free for people who did contact me personally and that I was sure they were actually building something.
Then they’ll claim that video of you doing the work is also generated via AI. There’s no way of convincing your regular joe once they made their mind up.
Though people will claim that, creating very long, consistent, and physically-accurate videos is beyond the capability or budget constraints of publicly available models, for now.
I see your point and would like to add, the issue is, some people are like bricks. Like, you could get a more logical reaction(!) from a brick than these people. You could literally paint something in front of them, and they’d still claim it’s not your own work. Like, there’s no way of proving your innocence/righteousness, no matter what evidence you put in front of them. I can not wrap my head how we can communicate with these people.
You’re right that it is the only proof that might appease the masses at this point. That’s what the committee has proposed going forward, too. And I’m feeling a little sour grapes about how the labour I am donating is growing exponentially just to try and outrun GenAI BS.
10000%. Its really ruined everything. So many people like myself are just sticking to media made before 2018 ish. I follow very few artists today that I know are fully legit, but have zero trust for the majority.
Thats OK. I was listening to 60s music in the 90s so I was always an old fart.
I mean I like all music. Mostly heavily into rock/indie, old prog, some dnb, metal, black metal, folk, bluegrass etc. I likejazz but dont seek it out beyond fusion like weather report . the only stuff i dont like is pop or stadium country. Not a huge fan of rap (hip hop thats creative is cool though).
There are interesting signing processes in software being done for photography in camera to help combat this, ironically some utilise machine learning as part of the process. I wonder if something similar could be done for digital art
The most interesting suggestion I’ve seen is a Chain of Trust method. I don’t know all the complicated details, but in short, a trusted central group is established and each person can vouch for others, and those additions can vouch for others, etc, building out a large group of (theoretically) trustworthy creators. If a person ends up being untrustworthy, their link in the chain is “cut”, removing their part of the chain and any cascading issues.
I’m sure the method has issues, but it’s appealing as a mostly decentralized method of rebuking bad actors.
Then maybe stop treating it like a purity signal wielded like a weapon, and judge content based on its actual quality?
I know it’s a radical idea. But artists can use AI and also be fully emotionally invested in the process. Other artists can choose to use no AI at all. And some can even make interesting pieces that would be literally impossible without it.
Aim your ire at corruption and greed. Not the concept itself.
First one that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are more.
Could this be made without AI? Yes, of course it could. But it would require a HUGE budget, and an entire studio dedicated to it.
Is the creator hiding the fact it was AI gen? No, of course not. Would I prefer it be created with studio quality and real actors with real props? Absolutely I would. But absent that, this is still a really cool project.
Oh for fucks sake, why is it the people worst at claiming fallacies are always the first to try to use them. No, this is neither a strawman, nor is it moving the goalposts. If I was moving the goalposts, I would have to create a new justification that could never be actually reached. What I did, was a clarification to counter a bad-faith interpretation.
My point was ALWAYS “This thing would not exist without AI.” Not that it was impossible to exist without it, but that the requirements for its creation exceed what the average person can be reasonably assumed to possess. The average person doesn’t have access to a multi-million dollar studio, and you taking my clarification as an attempt to move the goalposts is an admission to your own strawman attempt, not me moving the goalposts.
As for claiming I’m building a strawman, again, you’re wrong. At worst it would be a non sequitur, as it was an assessment built upon a series of questions. You can claim “No, that reasoning doesn’t follow the logic,” but a strawman is when I actively argue against a position you don’t hold, which is what you did.
And it’s not even a non sequitur, it’s just displaying your actual beliefs in a non-flattering light, which was the entire point.
People are using LLMs to express their creativity due to lack of skill in the creative arts. Painting, drawing, sketching, all of these skills take years of practice to get good at. Up until now, when people had in image in their minds eye, they either had to scour the Internet for someone that had already made that thing, pay someone else to make it for them, spend years learning the skill, or… Just never make it.
Whether you like it or not, these models ARE enabling people to express their creativity in ways that were gated behind money, or years of practice.
Whether you like it or not, demanding a total cessation of their use, is definitionally calling for the restriction on how people express themselves artistically. You don’t like the framing, because your pseudo position is being a champion of artists and the downtrodden, but my argument is that it’s actually just a purity position built on tribal identity and emotion.
And because I can feel your argument building already…
It would be a strawman to pivot to “What about the Grok stuff!” Or “What about all the copywrite infringement!” Which are both genuine issues that exist, nor am I defending them or justifying them AT ALL. But they’re unrelated to the specific point that I am making and was brought up in this thread.
Demanding a universal ban/cessation is inherently restricting people’s ability to express themselves. It’s claiming a tool is offensive or inherently dirty because of unrelated ways in which it has been abused, or used to hurt people. You cannot simultaneously demand inclusivity and accessibility be universal, while also cherry picking specific areas that it’s okay to gatekeep.
Should my nephew with cerebral palsy be insulted and admonished for not learning how to draw his DnD characters properly? Because that is genuinely what is happening from MANY people in this toxic purity movement. Or artists such as this that don’t use AI, but still get these purity police on their ass accusing them of it nonetheless.
it’s literally impossible for the average person to become an expert at my instrument (for three more months) because my instrument costs like six figures. i have literally met three people my entire life with one, and they don’t specialize in it the way i do.
i’m publishing the plans for an effective practice instrument that costs $300 in about three months.
i don’t plan on charging, because people are going to get so good at my instrument. i’m currently one of the best in the world but they’ll be able to blow me out of the water in five years with good practice. I’m so excited to see what people will be able to do.
I’m not sure if this is a metaphor, or genuine. But if it’s genuine I’m very curious to know what this instrument is!
If it’s a metaphor, I think it’s a good one. We build, design, draw, and create, with the hope that we make the world a better place in some small way. The person that invented the abacus did so, because they wanted to do mathematics easier. Should those have come before been offended that their years and years of doing math on their fingers was now being stolen and simplified?
This is the march of progress. And it fucking SUCKS that people are being hurt by it. I fully advocate for universal basic income, free education, and fully funded career transitions, because technology will never slow down, and people need to feel comfortable in order to embrace it.
nope, no metaphor. one of the guys i played with in school is teaching nearby, and his school has one of my instruments. technically he has my old instrument i used like 20 years ago and i don’t know how he got it, but that’s a longer conversation he and i need to have. so i’m trying to build them a practice instrument or two (also me one) so they can start churning out world class musicians.
Should it be used as a weapon? No. But it fully deserves the ire. Generated content can not and never will be art, and artists that make use of it taint their own work and further enable the societal and environmental harm that accompanies it. The problem here is not a matter of caring too much, but an issue of how to appropriately handle a difficult-to-distinguish imitation of something that matters a lot to a lot of people.
And who are you to claim to be the arbiter of what it is to “be art,” Eh? Is the conductor an artist? They’re not writing the music, or even playing a single instrument. Is the interpretive dancer an artist? They’re not actually making anything, just wiggling their arms in funny ways.
What gives you the right to decide what is and isn’t art? How precisely do you think yourself so much wiser and more accurate that the thousands that have come before you proudly claiming that X isn’t and never will be art?
Videogames, novels, digital paintings, rock and roll, you name it, and someone before you has said it isn’t and never will be art.
This is nothing more than an argument for purity.
“I do not like this thing, I have decided it is dirty and tainted. Therefore, anything associated with it is automatically tainted. Here are some post-hoc reasonings as to why it is tainted.”
Making a lot of assumptions on my behalf for someone that’s supposedly so mad about other people presuming to know better. For what it’s worth, it’s pretty simple - art requires intent, which LLMs will always lack.
The back edge of generated content that I don’t see a lot of discussion about is mislabeling real content, accidentally or not. It’s gonna have a monumental affect on how we consume media, even for those that want to avoid it.
Even caught myself mislabelling real art a few times, ai has destroyed our trust in genuine human stuff
That’s by design!
Yep, this is the most important threat of Gen AI in my opinion. The erosion of trust, and the following devaluation of truth, is already hurting society so much. And it will only get worse.
Remember, it’s not just «did someone actually paint this?». It is also «did this actually happen?» and «did they actually say that?».
A promotional image I created for a local queer rally was deemed “AI” by the community (the image was actually the result of me sacrificing 8 hours of sleep.) The vitriol I was hit with, including one of my fellow committee members passive aggressively implying I was lying about it not being AI, was enough to make me no longer want to volunteer my time or skills for my own community.
Which is really fucking shitty. The increased lateral attacks happening because of Gen-AI pitting us against one another benefits those fucks at the top, and they didn’t even have to work for it.
+1. I was releasing free fucking music for indie devs who didn’t have budget or limited budget for this kinda stuff, some mf on reddit who was selling his music saw this, contacted admins to claim it was made via AI, then they took the post down without doing any investigation or even contacting me. Labeled as made with AI. I’ve worked in the industry for over 10 years, there’s literally 0 reason for me to use AI to make music lol From that point onward I just pulled out all of my free libraries from public, if it’s that easy to mislabel somebody’s hard work, and only give the download codes for free for people who did contact me personally and that I was sure they were actually building something.
We’re gonna have to record video of ourselves doing work at this rate.
deleted by creator
It really can’t. It can fake short video clips, poorly, but the example they gave was of eight hours of labor.
deleted by creator
Then they’ll claim that video of you doing the work is also generated via AI. There’s no way of convincing your regular joe once they made their mind up.
Though people will claim that, creating very long, consistent, and physically-accurate videos is beyond the capability or budget constraints of publicly available models, for now.
I see your point and would like to add, the issue is, some people are like bricks. Like, you could get a more logical reaction(!) from a brick than these people. You could literally paint something in front of them, and they’d still claim it’s not your own work. Like, there’s no way of proving your innocence/righteousness, no matter what evidence you put in front of them. I can not wrap my head how we can communicate with these people.
You’re right that it is the only proof that might appease the masses at this point. That’s what the committee has proposed going forward, too. And I’m feeling a little sour grapes about how the labour I am donating is growing exponentially just to try and outrun GenAI BS.
I hate this part the most, it just helps alienate artists even further
10000%. Its really ruined everything. So many people like myself are just sticking to media made before 2018 ish. I follow very few artists today that I know are fully legit, but have zero trust for the majority.
Thats OK. I was listening to 60s music in the 90s so I was always an old fart.
what are your feelings about jazz? i just made some connections at a festival and all of these dudes hate llms
I mean I like all music. Mostly heavily into rock/indie, old prog, some dnb, metal, black metal, folk, bluegrass etc. I likejazz but dont seek it out beyond fusion like weather report . the only stuff i dont like is pop or stadium country. Not a huge fan of rap (hip hop thats creative is cool though).
Thats good to hear!!
i was looking for a specific performer but i just found a playlist of videos someone took at the festival I was at. i rather liked San Lyon. I think this is the singer’s (Sabrina) channel.
There are interesting signing processes in software being done for photography in camera to help combat this, ironically some utilise machine learning as part of the process. I wonder if something similar could be done for digital art
The most interesting suggestion I’ve seen is a Chain of Trust method. I don’t know all the complicated details, but in short, a trusted central group is established and each person can vouch for others, and those additions can vouch for others, etc, building out a large group of (theoretically) trustworthy creators. If a person ends up being untrustworthy, their link in the chain is “cut”, removing their part of the chain and any cascading issues.
I’m sure the method has issues, but it’s appealing as a mostly decentralized method of rebuking bad actors.
Then maybe stop treating it like a purity signal wielded like a weapon, and judge content based on its actual quality?
I know it’s a radical idea. But artists can use AI and also be fully emotionally invested in the process. Other artists can choose to use no AI at all. And some can even make interesting pieces that would be literally impossible without it.
Aim your ire at corruption and greed. Not the concept itself.
Got a “for instance”?
https://m.youtube.com/@ChloeVSHistory
First one that comes to mind, but I’m sure there are more.
Could this be made without AI? Yes, of course it could. But it would require a HUGE budget, and an entire studio dedicated to it.
Is the creator hiding the fact it was AI gen? No, of course not. Would I prefer it be created with studio quality and real actors with real props? Absolutely I would. But absent that, this is still a really cool project.
Ew.
Got it. So not literally impossible.
So is the argument that restricting people’s creativity to only be expressed if you have the finances to do so, a good thing?
Because it is indeed literally impossible for the average person to create this without that technology.
Holy strawman, Batman.
Oh, we’ve also moved the goal posts I see.
I simply asked for a single example of something impossible to create without AI, which you have failed to provide.
You instead redefined “impossible”. Or, at least, added a bunch of qualifying words around it.
The average person can’t make a photorealistic painting. Is that “literally impossible” as well?
Oh for fucks sake, why is it the people worst at claiming fallacies are always the first to try to use them. No, this is neither a strawman, nor is it moving the goalposts. If I was moving the goalposts, I would have to create a new justification that could never be actually reached. What I did, was a clarification to counter a bad-faith interpretation.
My point was ALWAYS “This thing would not exist without AI.” Not that it was impossible to exist without it, but that the requirements for its creation exceed what the average person can be reasonably assumed to possess. The average person doesn’t have access to a multi-million dollar studio, and you taking my clarification as an attempt to move the goalposts is an admission to your own strawman attempt, not me moving the goalposts.
As for claiming I’m building a strawman, again, you’re wrong. At worst it would be a non sequitur, as it was an assessment built upon a series of questions. You can claim “No, that reasoning doesn’t follow the logic,” but a strawman is when I actively argue against a position you don’t hold, which is what you did.
And it’s not even a non sequitur, it’s just displaying your actual beliefs in a non-flattering light, which was the entire point.
People are using LLMs to express their creativity due to lack of skill in the creative arts. Painting, drawing, sketching, all of these skills take years of practice to get good at. Up until now, when people had in image in their minds eye, they either had to scour the Internet for someone that had already made that thing, pay someone else to make it for them, spend years learning the skill, or… Just never make it.
Whether you like it or not, these models ARE enabling people to express their creativity in ways that were gated behind money, or years of practice.
Whether you like it or not, demanding a total cessation of their use, is definitionally calling for the restriction on how people express themselves artistically. You don’t like the framing, because your pseudo position is being a champion of artists and the downtrodden, but my argument is that it’s actually just a purity position built on tribal identity and emotion.
And because I can feel your argument building already…
It would be a strawman to pivot to “What about the Grok stuff!” Or “What about all the copywrite infringement!” Which are both genuine issues that exist, nor am I defending them or justifying them AT ALL. But they’re unrelated to the specific point that I am making and was brought up in this thread.
Demanding a universal ban/cessation is inherently restricting people’s ability to express themselves. It’s claiming a tool is offensive or inherently dirty because of unrelated ways in which it has been abused, or used to hurt people. You cannot simultaneously demand inclusivity and accessibility be universal, while also cherry picking specific areas that it’s okay to gatekeep.
Should my nephew with cerebral palsy be insulted and admonished for not learning how to draw his DnD characters properly? Because that is genuinely what is happening from MANY people in this toxic purity movement. Or artists such as this that don’t use AI, but still get these purity police on their ass accusing them of it nonetheless.
It is literally impossible for me to read the rest of your post when your opening paragraph is just full of incorrect statements.
I’m also about 90% sure it’s just ai slop.
it’s literally impossible for the average person to become an expert at my instrument (for three more months) because my instrument costs like six figures. i have literally met three people my entire life with one, and they don’t specialize in it the way i do.
i’m publishing the plans for an effective practice instrument that costs $300 in about three months.
i don’t plan on charging, because people are going to get so good at my instrument. i’m currently one of the best in the world but they’ll be able to blow me out of the water in five years with good practice. I’m so excited to see what people will be able to do.
What is the instrument?
expensive. i’ll be publishing under my stage name, and it will be absolutely not newsworthy
I’m not sure if this is a metaphor, or genuine. But if it’s genuine I’m very curious to know what this instrument is!
If it’s a metaphor, I think it’s a good one. We build, design, draw, and create, with the hope that we make the world a better place in some small way. The person that invented the abacus did so, because they wanted to do mathematics easier. Should those have come before been offended that their years and years of doing math on their fingers was now being stolen and simplified?
This is the march of progress. And it fucking SUCKS that people are being hurt by it. I fully advocate for universal basic income, free education, and fully funded career transitions, because technology will never slow down, and people need to feel comfortable in order to embrace it.
nope, no metaphor. one of the guys i played with in school is teaching nearby, and his school has one of my instruments. technically he has my old instrument i used like 20 years ago and i don’t know how he got it, but that’s a longer conversation he and i need to have. so i’m trying to build them a practice instrument or two (also me one) so they can start churning out world class musicians.
Should it be used as a weapon? No. But it fully deserves the ire. Generated content can not and never will be art, and artists that make use of it taint their own work and further enable the societal and environmental harm that accompanies it. The problem here is not a matter of caring too much, but an issue of how to appropriately handle a difficult-to-distinguish imitation of something that matters a lot to a lot of people.
And who are you to claim to be the arbiter of what it is to “be art,” Eh? Is the conductor an artist? They’re not writing the music, or even playing a single instrument. Is the interpretive dancer an artist? They’re not actually making anything, just wiggling their arms in funny ways.
What gives you the right to decide what is and isn’t art? How precisely do you think yourself so much wiser and more accurate that the thousands that have come before you proudly claiming that X isn’t and never will be art? Videogames, novels, digital paintings, rock and roll, you name it, and someone before you has said it isn’t and never will be art.
This is nothing more than an argument for purity.
“I do not like this thing, I have decided it is dirty and tainted. Therefore, anything associated with it is automatically tainted. Here are some post-hoc reasonings as to why it is tainted.”
Making a lot of assumptions on my behalf for someone that’s supposedly so mad about other people presuming to know better. For what it’s worth, it’s pretty simple - art requires intent, which LLMs will always lack.
deleted by creator