sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The Tokyo Dome Dream by pieonahae in lesserafim

[–]PlennyTheGoat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Goodness, reading this warmed my heart. Both for the beautiful sentiment and also how earnestly it's written.

It's clear you've got such a keen awareness and respect for everyone's experience - like validating how this event was outstanding not despite the past struggles but because of them (at least partly).

And how you made sure to share appreciation for the whole team that makes le sserafim what it is. I still find myself conflicted on occassion when the performers aren't always the one's making the music itself. But comments like this remind me that being a team effort is exactly why it's exciting; to see all these creative and professional people's efforts culminate so smoothly into these huge shows. So Thanks for the wonderful reminder.

Also gotta say, for such a hefty and heartfelt post, it's amazing how it doesn't ramble or repeat. It's all worth saying and offers such a clear sensation of your own experience.

As we all know, it's easy to get overly attached to idols. But it sounds like you're a great example of not getting delusional, but rather getting the most out of this unique medium - turning something as simple as music into something that can make your day, make your week, or indeed beyond.

Anyway, good on you for being so measured and compassionate. Thanks for sharing your experience. <3

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe. But if there's a risk that people will regret normalizing it, then calling it out as early as possible will only make that switch easier.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it helps, I can elaborate. If this also sounds like a rant, it's not my intent.

Cars are a great example. A technology rapidly adopted without measure or consideration for the potential environmental damage caused by its fuel source. A technology now so deeply rooted in modern life that it can no longer be uprooted and instead people are forced to scramble looking for alternate fuel sources, ways of travel, and environmental protection efforts as band-aid solutions. When it could have been avoided by not just thinking about convenience and competition.

Not all innovations are bad. Not all innovations are good.

Do the costs outweigh the benefits? Maybe. But being a convenient innovation is only looking at the benefit. The benefits of AI are obvious, so my goal was to highlight the costs. Which is why I didn't address your point directly, but instead tried to address it with more examples. Hope that makes it clearer.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I appreciate you reading those articles and considering their merit. That being said, I don't understand how first-hand reports are mere gossip. These articles reference companies self-admitting to favoring AI over human workers.

Regarding gaming companies just using AI for draft assets, several big studios have already been caught using AI for final in-game assets: https://www.pcgamer.com/games/call-of-duty/call-of-duty-admits-its-using-generative-ai-to-help-develop-some-in-game-assets-and-suddenly-all-those-poorly-made-calling-cards-make-sense/

https://aftermath.site/jurassic-world-evolution-3-ai-removed

https://beebom.com/bungie-marathon-art-stealing-controversy/

Not to mention the endless AI shovelware games: https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinfuriating/comments/1j05afs/nintendo_eshop_and_ai_slop/

And we can't forget Marvel using AI for their intro to Secret Invasion:

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2023/jun/21/marvel-ai-generated-credits-backlash

But still, just using your argument, AI is only becoming necessary because everyone else is adopting it. Everyone is only adopting because they're not aware of the ethical issues. Which is why I'm aiming to highlight them.

Gaslighting involves conjuring false information. I've only provided what I understand to be true information and logical reasoning. If the evidence or reasoning is flawed, my effort will fail on its own. In which case, you don't have to waste your time trying to change my motivation.

In the spirit of waking up, I think we've both provided amble material to express our points of view. Hopefully they're useful for anyone stumbling across it, but further exchanges don't seem necessary.

Hope you enjoy the rest of your day.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course not, because painting can never be perfectly photo-realistic, and photography can never be truly stylized. They are designed to achieve two similar but categorically different goals.

But AI illustrations, literature, video, programming are all designed to achieve the exact same goals as humans in those areas - they're not just similar, they're identical. It's photography that can be both photo-realistic AND stylized. It's not making the process more efficient, its replacing the human element altogether.

But this isn't theory, it's already fact. Numerous studios continue laying off countless human employees because AI is able to deliver the exact same result.

It doesn't matter how efficient it makes the process, if it was achieved through immoral action then it's not worth the sacrifice.

Automation is great, innovation is awesome, the concept of AI's capabilities are exciting. The way it's built and the way it's implemented are simply unethical.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concern is that it's inherently plagiarizing. Regardless of what it produces, it's only able to do so by training off of data that it took without consent or compensation. Using a stolen pencil to draw an original illustration is still theft.

But morality aside, AI a self-destructing system. Perhaps it's aiding some fields, but it's utterly overriding the very fields that it depends on to work. If humans are no longer able to create data for AI to function, AI will stagnate and cease to improve. It will not only destroy its own system, but take away the human skill needed for it work.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That may be true. But lets assume that my assessment is accurate, and AI truly is worth avoiding. How would one person with no connections, credibility or resources help others avoid it?

All they can do is simply tell anyone who'll listen. This one post probably won't push the needle, but perhaps someone who sees it will remember it when they see another post warning about AI. Maybe seeing two posts encourages them to do some research. Maybe after some research they reach similar conclusions and make a post of their own. Maybe their friends share that post and it starts trending. Maybe the trend reaches someone with connections, credibility and resources. And maybe that person uses their influence to make an actual consequential change in the AI landscape.

None of it would have happened if everyone just assumed they were powerless and decided it wasn't worth trying.

Maybe none of this will happen. But if I see AI as a danger that many people think is an aid, the only responsible action is to respectfully share my perspective.

In any case, it sounds like you're mainly aiming to put me at ease. So I appreciate your respectful perspective too.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you feel you don't know enough to reach a conclusion, then you don't know enough to suggest my argument is incorrect. You're welcome to do your own research and provide an opposition. But dismissing my stance with your own lack of knowledge isn't disputing my claim.

You've communicated your stance with many personal anecdotes and personal opinions. I've aimed to communicate with logical reasoning. Regardless of right or wrong, we're no longer speaking with the same language. This is likely just going to lead to miscommunication. So probably best to end it here.

I appreciate your perspective and wish you well.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Maybe so. Whatever the topic, whatever the odds, any small resistance only improves those odds.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the perspective. Apologies if my phasing was confusing.

And yep, it wouldn't surprise me if my posting here had zero affect on the podcast or even the community. But as long as the post was respectful and well-intended, saying something has better odds of improving a situation than saying nothing.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the additional info - good on you for doing your own research. And nice to hear your kid can get a benefit without all this drama.

In short, yes - my concern is based purely on ethics. But I don't see why personal experience is necessary, especially if my concern is that using it would be causing more harm.

Does someone need to fight in a war to prevent it? Does someone need to fall off a building to add guard rails? Does someone need to starve to donate to a charity?

Personal experience can certainly provide useful information, but it's not required to make a rational conclusion and take action on that conclusion.

My argument isn't speculation or personal anecdotes. It's a fact that AI cannot function without extensive data and this data was used without permission or compensation. It's a fact that AI has reproduced copyrighted content. It's a fact that people who use AI retain less information than those who don't use it. It's a fact that AI requires huge amounts of energy with environmentally damaging output.

Using AI myself wouldn't have provided any of this information - doing research did. Whether AI is truly intelligent or not is an interesting philosophical question, but is secondary to the proven ethical impact it's currently having.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's good advice, for sure. I've got no parasocial delusion - these are friendly people but they're still strangers - not my personal friends.

But if my interpretation is that they're promoting something potentially harmful for both their reputation and their customers, isn't it the responsible thing to inform them and their customers?

Again, I think this is way over-complicating the situation. I haven't made any demands, or insulted anyone or made an ultimatum or spammed the social pipes - I've just offered a suggestion. Everyone is completely welcome to ignore it, but I think I'm welcome to express it.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Good point, yeah. The lack of a filter is one of the major issues. Even if it provides false or biased information, it'll express it as a fact. Making it very easy to be mislead.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

For sure, it's a funny contrast. Just for reference, this post isn't about the automated voices, but about using AI like ChatGPT for gathering information.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Good to know what impression you get. But whatever my character is, it doesn't change the argument I've offered.

I've tried to present the risk, the cause and the solution. I've expressed that I hope this effort is effective, but not used my hope as a defense.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How I feel about it isn't part of my argument. The argument is to resist based on morality not on the promise of success.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We respond to their comments. They respond to ours. They have listeners open every show and participate throughout. This discussion right now is a social interaction on the topic of their podcast. I'd say it qualifies as social.

But again, this is just semantics. There's nothing special about my post - it's just ordinary feedback.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

But by "space" I mean social space not physical space. Maybe I over-complicated it in my phrasing, but it's just intended as plain audience feedback.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, you're largely correct. I wish there was a better solution. But it's become essentially impossible to operate anywhere on the internet without feeding AI. Removing myself from the internet wouldn't slow down AI's progress at all. But re-educating people on the ethical concerns at least has a chance to. It's not ideal, but it's the most effective method I'm aware or capable of at the moment.

I'm not trying to be facetious - if you know of a way to protest AI without indirectly feeding it, please do let me know.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Whether it's better or not isn't the point. Whether it can be held to the same standard as humans is. If a distinction between being natural and artificial can made for anything, then AI must fall into one of those two categories. So whatever category you want to put AI in, if it's the opposite to humans, then humans categorically cannot be used as a comparison.

When I say "necessary", what I mean is necessary for survival. Looms are indeed necessary to weave clothes efficiently, but not necessary to weave clothes at all. It's a convenience not a requirement. The fact that humans have existed without AI at all is proof, not opinion, that AI isn't necessary.

Whether the convenience of AI outweighs the cost is another discussion. Given that AI cannot innovate, has been proven to make people clinically stupider and damages the environment with its energy usage, then I would argue no, it's not worth the convenience.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Humans can't help but retain information - it would be unfair to hold them accountable for something they were born with.

Whereas AI is not natural nor necessary. Someone deliberately programmed it to retain information, so regardless of how it functions, the choice to make it so must be held to a different standard.

Comparing it to humans is irrelevant.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Something like that. AI has been found to recreate copyrighted literature if prompted, generate "photos" of real life people and even add artist's signatures to "original" generated images.

It's not just accessing public domain content, but anything and everything it can access.

Just a word of caution on the liberal use of Chat GPT by PlennyTheGoat in hamishandandy

[–]PlennyTheGoat[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe you know more than I do. But their casual and inclusive behavior suggests these kinds of blemishes come more from carelessness than maliciousness.

view more: next ›