RR: Okay, so an anti-AI project where you get the AI to generate large amounts of objectionable content: Feed an image generator this line of text: children in suicide vests. Generate 1000 images, and publish as a set. Run the content through an AI image merge to make it into a video. Catch some writhing Cthulhu horror.
DA: Using AI to make an anti-ai project is like doing a mass shooting for an anti-gun project. Yeah, the intent will take for some, but a lot will say “people made the original images, so we’re the real issue, not the *insert tech here”.
RR: Mass shootings are strong anti-gun arguments though. It highlights the apathy of the tech. I'm not for AI regulation in the art sphere. I think it will lead to different art.
DA: Yeah I think it will too. Those machine learning image creators are interesting in that they transcending traditional art/creation ownership laws by using bits of millions of images and artwork to create "original" images. It certainly raises a question of copyright/ownership in the age of the internet.
Mass shootings can make an anti-gun argument, yes, but people who are pro-gun to the point of dismissing shootings (in other words, the proponents of AI) have gone out of their way to decouple the technology from human acts. The promise of the internet/gun is that it’s apolitical, or simply a tool, yet how much lobbying and politics is involved in both? There’s just a lot of doublespeak for different pieces of technology when people try to actually place moral judgments or predictions on it.
RR: I'm afraid the automation of creative efforts could mirror the negative effects of industrial automation, meaning everyone's inundated with shallow spiritual trinkets. I think botnets and GTP-3 posts are already happening on a massive scale.
One thing would be to make a publicly artificial social media movement (SMM) that has all the superficial elements of an 'authentic' (I doubt these exist anyway) SMM, with the intent of leading people to search for more legitimate markers. Ideally, they'd just quit believing in social media movements.
DA: Using AI to make an anti-ai project is like doing a mass shooting for an anti-gun project. Yeah, the intent will take for some, but a lot will say “people made the original images, so we’re the real issue, not the *insert tech here”.
RR: Mass shootings are strong anti-gun arguments though. It highlights the apathy of the tech. I'm not for AI regulation in the art sphere. I think it will lead to different art.
DA: Yeah I think it will too. Those machine learning image creators are interesting in that they transcending traditional art/creation ownership laws by using bits of millions of images and artwork to create "original" images. It certainly raises a question of copyright/ownership in the age of the internet.
Mass shootings can make an anti-gun argument, yes, but people who are pro-gun to the point of dismissing shootings (in other words, the proponents of AI) have gone out of their way to decouple the technology from human acts. The promise of the internet/gun is that it’s apolitical, or simply a tool, yet how much lobbying and politics is involved in both? There’s just a lot of doublespeak for different pieces of technology when people try to actually place moral judgments or predictions on it.
RR: I'm afraid the automation of creative efforts could mirror the negative effects of industrial automation, meaning everyone's inundated with shallow spiritual trinkets. I think botnets and GTP-3 posts are already happening on a massive scale.
One thing would be to make a publicly artificial social media movement (SMM) that has all the superficial elements of an 'authentic' (I doubt these exist anyway) SMM, with the intent of leading people to search for more legitimate markers. Ideally, they'd just quit believing in social media movements.