Flippanarchy

AI would not be obfuscating the sources of ideas

Who would care? Why would it be important?

mischaracterizing the content of works

Huh?

polluting communication channels with vapid slop

That can already be dealt with moderation tools. If you don't like GenAI slop, just ban the people doing it.

enticing emotionally-vulnerable people to self-destructive behavior,

If people do this (big "if" here), then the cause is again in Capitalism (alienation) giving an incentive to do so.

accelerating disinformation

Root cause: capitalism

enabling scams,

Capitalism

profiling thought-crime

Huh?

producing nonconsensual pornography…?

We were doing that since photoshop.

Just because you can spam a bunch of scary concepts, doesn't mean they stand up well

AI is also just hazardous by its very nature

I think the point is that there's nothing hazardous inherent in its nature, and pointing to the problematic uses under capitalism isn't any more a description of 'its nature' than is pointing to an ass a description of a chair's nature.

AI is a tool, just like any other, and the harm caused by that tool is largely defined by how it's used and by who.

There's no doubt that LLM's and other generative models are disruptive, but suggesting that they are inherently harmful assumes that the things and systems they are disrupting aren't themselves harmful.

Most of what you're pointing to as harm caused by AI is far more attributable to the systems it exists in (including and especially capitalism) and not the models themselves. The only issue that I can see with AI inherently is its energy demand - but if we're looking at energy consumption broadly then we'd be forced to look at the energy consumption of capitalism and consumerism under capitalism, too.

I imagine the sentiment here would be wildly different if we were scrutinizing the energy demand of gaming on a modern GPU.

You can run inference on desktop gpus. Copyrights are a state enforced monopoly, not a law of nature. I don't recognise any control of culture by anyone, including the author. The technology can just as well exist outside of Capitalism

If you aren’t paying for art now then why the fuck are you mad about AI “stealing jobs”? And if you don’t make art for a living I promise you, no one is mad at not having to draw somebody’s Sonic OC or latex fetish to live! Uncouple the need to sell art to live and people don’t stop making art, they make more of what they want to make!!

I kinda wanna make a few spaces I help manage have a rule for April Fools day:

If you did not personally create the image, or pay for someone to create it from scratch, you are forbidden from sharing and viewing it. It is in violation of the copyright of the owner, and they did not give consent to the use of their Intellectual Property to be used and displayed in this manner. Copyright is automatically assumed to the creator, and unless consent was given to the exact person with demands, it is null and void unless stated.

99.99% of all media online weren't given consent to be shared or modified by the owners of the media. Everyone will say it's stupid for a company to try to expand its reach to the millions of faceless users. Yet will simp for them the moment they are briefly against AI. They will vouch for extensions to copyright, and say companies should purposefully creep their money and influence on the internet, because a bad AI model did something weird 5 years ago.

You can’t steal art. Art is a manifestation of emotion, an idea immortalized. You don’t get to own ideas once they pass from your mind to another.

Every bit of art out there in the public is as much mine as anyone’s. Copyright and “intellectual property” are ridiculous concepts with no bearing whatsoever in reality. The very idea you could own part of another person’s intellect is absurd.

“Oh look, you just read this, that means I own the neurons you formed to remember it. Better not use my comment to craft a reply, that would be wrong of you.”

That’s how stupid you sound.

A good solution fixes multiple problems, young grasshopper.

People have always spammed lazy art, and we probably always will. Ancient runes boil down to "So-and-so was here," and we post countless images with text slapped on them every day. Most books are lazy, most TV shows are lazy, most songs are lazy. We mostly pay attention to the good ones, and the rest is background noise.

This is an interesting topic to me. If I paint a landscape, I think most people would say that's art. What if I close my eyes and splash random paints at a canvas? What if I encourage my cat to track paint over the canvas with its paws? What if it's a robotic toy instead of a cat? If I create a program like Minecraft to produce aesthetically-pleasing vistas, is that art? Is a swallow's nest art? What if I physically do the painting, but I allow a random number generator to dictate my actions?

e: Elephants that paint recognizable objects were trained to do so by their handlers. When given access to paint and a canvas, elephants will happily smear the paint around with no apparent logic behind it. No non-human animal has been recorded reproducing an object visually of their own compulsion. Are the random paint smears of the elephant art? If I teach an elephant to paint a house, is that painting art? Who is the artist?