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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

I’m in the same boat. I actually agree with 90% of veganism. Animals shouldn’t suffer needlessly. People should eat less meat and animal products. Factory farming is horrifying and unethical. Where it falls apart is the universal claim of “Therefore, even the smaller regenerative and ethical farms are evil, because ALL animal use is unethical.” Which, if you follow the logic and consequences, requires us to either support millions of animals in domestic environments without ANY method of financial independence beyond donations or government support. Or, we drive dozens of distinct species to extinction, simply because some people feel personally attacked when I make an omelette. If we could ask the animals themselves, I struggle to believe that a happy cow living on a dairy farm would prefer non-existance to getting milked occasionally when they want to.

I have very little respect for anyone who cannot justify opinions, or get offended when beliefs are questions. If you don’t want your beliefs questioned, don’t announce them.

I’ve tried to have this discussion SO many times, and every time I’m treated like there’s nothing I love more than raping goats and torturing pigs.

That cow that lives on the hobby farm, spends its days roaming fields and eating flowers, then gets milked in the evening and petted with genuine love and affection, is not worse off because the farmer didn’t create a formal contract in order to obtain it’s consent to be milked.

It gave its consent by walking to the milking station, and waiting to be milked.

“Nuh uh! That’s not consent! It didn’t learn English and say the words ‘I consent to being milked,’ therefore milking it is evil!”

Lol wow. Way to show your stupidity. Newtonian physics is a single branch, dipshit.

Organic chemistry is dictated by physics, which is only a single step away from pure mathematics.

I asked what argument you were trying to make, because you keep changing the subject of the conversation to the point of incoherence. But you’re obviously too much of a pathetic religious cuck to engage with actual reason. 👍

Have a meaningful conversation of how an all powerful, good God can allow so much suffering. Either he isn’t good or he isn’t powerful.

Evolution is driven by adversity. Organisms experience stress, seek to relieve themselves of that stress, and improve upon their function iteratively over billions of years.

So is the all-powerful God constrained by physics or not? What argument, precisely, are you making? When the initial comment was to defend the belief in an all-powerful God.

You’re engaging dishonestly and changing the subject entirely. No comment was made on what humans worship or why, every comment was directed at a supposedly all-powerful God.

You made an argument that this all-powerful God was constrained by physics. Then it cannot be an all-powerful God.

That’s the argument against creationism and religions with all-powerful deities.

Magic rock to blame for all my problems? I honestly have no idea what you’re getting at here. Theists blame magic for their harms. Atheists accept it as blind consequences in an uncaring universe. You’re literally assigning theistic beliefs on atheism.

So then this all powerful God isn’t smart or powerful enough to make a universe in which suffering isn’t necessary. Seems pretty limiting for an all powerful, all knowing being.

Do you also make justifications for billionaires that destroy the world? Because you’re putting quite a bit of energy in to justifying something that is supposedly beyond comprehension. Wouldn’t the more honest answer just be “I don’t know.”

No, I don’t think I will. Because I don’t believe there is any answer I can give you that won’t be merry with more insults and arrogance. I made the claim that sentience cannot exist in a purely mechanistic system, like a wrist watch. Because there is nothing there unexplained, unknown, or more nuanced than gears and springs.

The burden of proof lies on you to explain how a wristwatch could have any degree of sentience. And insulting me does nothing but show the emptiness of your claim, and the fragility of your pseudo-wisdom.

Denying ALL knowledge by taking a bong rip and saying “But how can we ever really know?” It’s not wisdom or humility. It’s pretending ignorance is wisdom.

Okay, then you’re upset about copywrite infringement and the resale of the models. I’m not talking about those. You made the universal claim that the technology itself is bad. I’m saying its the PEOPLE who are acting unethically that should get your hate.

You are actively antagonizing people who should be your allies because you’ve decided carte blanche to hate it all, convincing yourself there’s no possible way any of it could be legitimate or ethical.

What about models trained on research papers? Those are LITERALLY designed to spread knowledge.

Are you really going to call me amoral and fracture the opposition to blind greed and destruction, just because I experiment with these local models? What about the scientists that use custom LLMs? Or the research teams?

Okay, then you’re not actually engaging in any degree of coherence. Your ignorance is not wisdom, despite what you seem to have convinced yourself.

Humans have always overestimated the power of tech. The reach of our imaginations has always exceeded our grasp. I don’t think this tech will be replacing people any more than computers themselves replaced people. “Computers” once meant actual people that would sit at desks and compute equations. That job is gone, but its erasure opened up new possibilities that could not have been imagined before. When “modern” computers were first invented, it was assumed that they would replace all humans within a generation. he wrote on his pocket computer from his normal human job that used computers.

Please explain to me how a wristwatch is sentient or conscious.

But you see, it’s okay when they gatekeep because they’re defenders of truth and humanity! Gatekeeping is a good thing when used on people you don’t like! What’s that about equal accessibility and ableism? Shut up! AI bad!

Because if you post a public message on a public forum that everybody can see, you don’t get to decide how your words are used. That’s the fair use license. It doesn’t require additional consent.

And how precisely is it unethical to train an LLM on public data? You keep making that assertion, but it’s built off of a supposed “Lack of consent.” When the fair use license was brought up, you seemed to retreat to the concept that using fair use data to make fair use software freely available to everyone is somehow bad?

You need to explain how the process itself is bad, not just use guilt by association. It seems more like you’re building an opinion based on vibes, not actual reason.

Good for you. Keep wielding that shield of ignorance indescriminantly. Do you also think cryptography itself is harmful, or are you focusing on the specific use and harm caused? Guess what, the technology that made the crypto stupidity possible was used for far more than just gambling on imaginary coins. Once again, you’re conflating the worst implementation of a technology with its use as a general rule. Would you defend a small set of positive and ethical uses of LLMs? Or do you condemn the entire tech, on the assumption that it is inherently bad? Do you know precisely where and how the tech developed for crypto is helpful to you, and improves your privacy and safety?