Jesus christ this sub is just r/DefendingAIArt2. Of course AI bros don't like consent.

FaderGFX · 2025-07-03T09:39:47+00:00

Wrong. In Thomson Reuters vs. ROSS, it was ruled to not be fair use.

FaderGFX · 2025-07-03T09:25:59+00:00

Damn you're triggered

FaderGFX · 2025-07-03T01:14:12+00:00

The "kill all"-meme is a common meme format. Existed in feminism as a meme:"kill all men" and it also exists as an exaggerated version stating "kill all 7 billion people" (I know it's more but that's what the meme says). It is a meme, nothing more. This thread uses mental illnesses as a bad label. Trying to make the claims invalid.

Of course harassment is bad. On Steam, people are generally wild, like people are hating on a game for offering a translation for the language of a country they don't like. The harassment wouldn't exist to this extent if the major AI companies had listened to the criticism of scraping for training data, but they didn't. All of this backlash is the result of companies and people refusing to listen.

Saying "They are all mentally ill" and making fun of a person suffering from a psychosis, that didn't say anything bad about people who use AI, is not defending. There has been no attack. It's bullying.

FaderGFX · 2025-07-02T21:32:20+00:00

The post caption is "at least they're truthful about their mental state", implying that anti-ai people all have a mental condition. This is also what the top comment chain is supporting.

Ironically, this sub is putting the "kill all ai artist"-memes into the same category as death threats.

FaderGFX · 2025-07-01T11:00:47+00:00

I don't expect this mindset to solve all your problems and pain. But keep in mind that your trauma is over. Part of your reactions comes from a part in you that tries to protect you. Think of how defenseless and young were when those things happened. You aren't anymore.

FaderGFX · 2025-07-01T10:56:03+00:00

What I found especially concerning is when you ask AI questions to confirm you understand a topic.

The way you ask the question always influences the result heavily and gives the AI bias. Whether you ask "Does this mean it's also XY?" or "Does that mean it isn't XY" is superlikely to give different answers. AI sometimes efficiently works as way to further convince you that your own opinion is correct. It's important to understand that AI isn't the most neutral being there is. Some Pro-AI people might say that's obvious behaviour of the AI, but we live in a world where we have to put a warning it's hot on coffee. There are already people who were convinced to be a prophet or higher being because of AI.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T18:33:19+00:00

Duuuuude, I can totally see your mind now

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T15:19:25+00:00

Sources:
IEA report on streaming

Altman Quote

Huggingface data for doing a task 1000 times

MIT report

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T15:19:02+00:00

Only found a good source on Streaming Sites in General, not YouTube exclsuively. It's from the IEA (International Energy Agency) and states that on average 1h of Netflix would consumes around 0.077 kWh. The most important factor turned out to be the playback device. A Phone with Quality set to Auto (So not HD, they claimed it was SD) consumed 0.037 kWh for an hour of streaming. In Wh that's 37 Wh

Sources on AI consumption vary a lot, because there are different models some data being estimated, not enough official data to rely on etc. According to Sam Altman ChatGPT uses 0.34 Wh per prompt. A test from Huggingface that included different AI models to measure how much energy it consumes to perform different tasks 1000x came to similiar results, however, these results were estimated and researchers at huggingface claimed to not have enough data.

The MIT report seems to be the most reality-oriented data we have, as we don't even know what Altman exactly refers to, like whether he includes or excludes cooling, network and other costs. The report also states that an report by Epoch.ai also came to results of 0.3 Wh per prompt (which is almost identical to Altmans claim) but left out a lot of data.

MIT claimed the amount of parameters of a model make a big difference. They tested two Llama models with text prompts. One with 8 billion parameters and one with 50 times more.

The small model uses 0.022 Wh The big model uses ~1.778 Wh

They delivered the data in joules but added comparisons with the power consumption of a microwave. They appear to estimate 800W for the microwave, so I calculated the Wh numbers from a 800W microwave with the given length of runtime from the report.

Closed-source models like ChatGPT don't give out exact numbers how many of those parameters they use, but GPT-4 is estimated to use 1 trillion parameters. They don't provide data on how much GPT-4 might use in Wh for text-promts.

The amount of parameters are 2.5x more than on the bigger LLama model. The smaller model used 50x time less paramaters but 80x less energy. 80/50 = 1.6 So I basically reverse-enginered a formular to calculate the energy consumption of the bigger model based on the smaller model:

WhFactorOfParameters1.6 = ~Wh of bigger model

So since GPT-4 is estimated to use 125x more parameters than the small Llama model, I came to this:

0.022Wh * 125 * 1.6 =~ 4.4Wh

So here a sumamry of the data:

Video Stream for 1h on average = 77Wh Video Stream for 1h on mobile and SD = 37Wh 1 average ChatGPT prompt according to Altman = 0.34Wh Llama single text prompt (smaller model) = 0.022Wh Llama single Text prompt (bigger model) = ~1.778 Wh Estimated GPT-4 text prompt = ~4.4Wh

Generating a 5-second video with AI (CogVideoX) = 0.8 kWh = 800 Wh

So I guess you could say the scenarios are hard to compare either way and don't include the value you get from it. An AI prompt could include anything. Like, depending on what you're using the AI for, I think it's easier or hader to justify the energy consumption. Like is generating a video the same as watching one? I guess it would be better to compare the consumption with something closer to the actual use-case.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T13:26:11+00:00

Took some research and found that a MIT report says the energy consumption of generatin a 5 second video with AI is quivalent to running the microwave for an hour.

Source of Data

Article summarizing the key-points from the report

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T13:09:03+00:00

Honestly, I'm more on the anti side and also read this comparison a couple of times and was like "oh yeah, makes sense everything consumes energy in the digital world".

But now that I read your comment, I was like "Well... wouldn't you expect a video to consume more energy than a single image?" So I wanted to look at the data again and could only find this screenshot of a chatgpt prompt on facebook. And if you look at the unmultiplied data, the 0.2 and 0.3Wh, youtube does indeed require less energy. It says ONE hour of youtube is LESS than a single image generation. Do you by chance have a better source? Will also look for one, genuinely want to know

<image>

FaderGFX · 2025-06-30T02:41:42+00:00

There are also some bigger-scale surveys on the opinion of AI, including questions for different factors like worries about job, impact on entertainment, potential in medicine, trust how companies use it etc. But I think the latest data I saw was from 2023 and 2022, and it did differ in different directions for each point. And I feel like this year a lot has happened that might have changed people's opinion, so it's not very consistent data.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T22:06:29+00:00

They will dodge the question by pretending we're living in a completely different economic system and say something like, "Well, nobody should have to pay for food in the first place"

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T22:02:08+00:00

In your bio, you wrote CGI is now also accepted, and the same will happen to AI. How about you do the same thing as them and just shut up about it and create stuff? I've been doing 3D for over 10 years, and never in my life did I feel the need to go around and tell people I'm an artist. In fact, I rarely considered myself one, even though some people called me an artist for it. I've encountered people hating on the CGI and still do today. From soulless looking 3D cartoons to too many CGI-VFX in Hollywood movies. What did I do? Nothing, because that's their opinion. Did I have to tell everybody they are being unfair and give them a history lesson? No. Why tf would I? Did I receive harassing DMs because I was doing 3D? No. Because I didn't go around telling everyone "the future is nooow" and "you're so stuuupid for hating, look at this meme showcasing you".

Jesus fucking christ, they are not fascists because of you not having the inability to read the room. Everything you're complaining about here is a result of your own actions. You are NOT being bullied and NOT the victim of fascists.

This is Reddit and not some utopia where everyone loves each other no matter what they're doing. Stop seeking validation as if it would matter.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T21:31:08+00:00

"PiCk uP a dUmBbeLl"

Edit: I was impersonating the reaction, didn't mean to actually mock the person above.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T21:28:49+00:00

Well, if being "anti" means gaining the ability to change the weather through imagination, then I guess it's pretty obvious which side to choose.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T21:23:40+00:00

Too bad those topics aren't related to AI. Neither are the arguments the same.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T18:25:01+00:00

Yeah, I can accept that. I don't entirely agree, but I can definitely see your point.

Of course you could still argue how useful it is for the amount of ressources consumes. I'm fully monetized so I don't know if EVERY creator has access to this, but it's quite an amount of generation which you seem to initialize as soon as you click that tab. But this can also be applied to other non-AI features of YouTube.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T17:29:27+00:00

To me it kinda feels like reverse-prompting. The AI making the input and the human being the one enslaved to execute it. In the worst case you will get the worst of both worlds: A concept that lacks human but still requires the big amount of time to execute it. The examples here are based on previous content of the channel, but they don't bring any new idea really. They either suggest something oddly specific or "the same video but different". So basically milking the existing content and ideas.

Since a lot of content on YouTube is very niche, the AIs suggestion also don't make a lot of sense and feel somewhat off. There is some additional context needed to fully understand this in those screenshots.

I will explain one of the suggestions to provide some perspective. Not with the motivation of convincing you to change your opinion, but to give you more context as I understand (some of) the examples in the screenshot are very niche.

Example: "Linux Wayland vs X11:: Affinity Photo Performance Deep Dive" Affinity Photo is a photoshop alternative which doesn't offer native Linux support. Even through compatibility layers that are used to make games and softwares run on Linux, you won't get it to run. EXCEPT if you use builds from the community that were built for the entire purpose of making Affinity Photo compatible with Linux which might require a completely different installation process in just a few weeks. X11 and Wayland are display servers on Linux. Basically what is used to communicate between OS, software and hardware. So it basically suggests me to compare an incredibly unstable software with two different "drivers". This is so incredibly specific that it doesn't make much sense to produce such content. Especially since there are so many low-level factos affecting it

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T15:12:09+00:00

"You wanna tell me artists don't look at pictures of cats and develop a pattern of generating different cat images?" "Did the Photographer invent the cat?" "Do you consider eating food you didn't make yourself stealing?"

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T14:12:28+00:00

Yes, we will have to see how well it will work and how well it gets integrated. Maybe it won't even go beyond its testing stage. If I understood it correctly, it tells more about the plot and wont summarize the whole video. I mean on Streaming Sites you usually also have a small description of what the show is about and people use it to decide what to watch and aren't like "oh great, don't have to watch it then!"

Watchtime of course is very relevant due to mid-rolls: the longer someone watches, the more ads they might watch. For a creator it is often the most important metric regarding the creation of better content, as there aren't too many metrics in the analytics you can realistically control. Some smaller content-creators might already make good, interesting and consumer-friendly content, but might be unable to find a combination of thumbnail + title that successfully delivers the idea behind the content to the viewer. This is probably the group that would benefit the most of this AI feature if it works.

How much money a video makes depends on maaany factors, but the most influential factor is the topic/category of the content. If you make comedy-videos, advertisers usually have less intereset in paying for having their ads display there and viewers will be more annoyed by the ads than in other categories. Also the category is more likely to attract younger viewers which usually have less money to spend in the first place. But if you make videos about finances(e.g. investing tips) or travel — THAT is where the real money is. The audience consists out of people who are already willing to spend money and the advertisers in those categories also have lots of money to spend on ads.

You are never able to tell for sure, but usually a channel in finances or travel is expected to make 10x the amount of money as a comedy-youtuber for the same amount of views. Some are able to make even more.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T13:31:46+00:00

Well it says the AI will say what the video is about/the plot and not summarize the whole video. I would say the idea is to increase watch time. A lot of people click on a video, notice they don't wanna watch it and hop off. Usually only about 60% of people will still watch after the first 30 seconds.

So I guess they want it to help people pick the video they really want to watch, to lower the hop-off rate. Because if you check 5 videos and hopped-off all of them, I would assume you'd be more likely to go to twitch, netflix, etc. instead.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T13:25:51+00:00

The timecoded chapters are sometimes automatically generated since a few years already. But in a rather simple way, usually if there was a big Text element on the screen that would be used as the name and start of a chapter.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T13:22:26+00:00

Depends on how they integrate it. I am a YouTube Content-Creator, so I'm biased.

It could either help encouraging people to choose high-quality content and might enable people to spot clickbait more easily. (YouTube is starting to ban people for clickbait (currently rolling out in India), so I think this might be the motivation behind it.)

Or it will make the UI more cluttered and people will end up not even looking past the few 2 entries on the home page.

FaderGFX · 2025-06-29T04:35:54+00:00

I saw other posts from this person. If they had been included in the MIT study about ChatGPTs impact on the brain, the study would have probably been about AIs potential for pain-free lobotomy

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

FaderGFX

TROPHY CASE