Wow it's the guy 

Like Himy said, a big problem is also job theft and stuff like that besides the training off of Internet data. I doubt AI will fully replace those jobs for a while but it definitely might happen in some cases. We already have some companies using AI art in their advertisements and marketing instead of humans. And also it kinda just undermines human creativity and all that. With other advances in technology with art like Photoshop or whatever you still have to put work into it. But this isn't being used to make your own art, it's just generating it for you. Why spend a long time putting blood sweat and tears into a drawing or piece of music or whatever when you can just type in a prompt and get it instantly? And it's getting increasingly hard to figure out what is and isn't AI because the tech is advancing.

Quote from Oisin>>

Quote from PJtheARCH3R>>

Quote from Incompetent_Goat>>

This thing might never end. Might as well give me  the chicken.

Man, don't use AI profile pictures. That might be human art, I apologize if it is, but several things don't make a whole lot of sense, and the general way it looks is very AI like

I don't want to just yell at anyone who uses AI because thats rude, but there are many negative effects of using AI

(Kills the enviroment, very unethical, infringes on copyright laws, may evolve to eventually try to kill humans, among other problems)

• Kills the environment 
  
  Sure, AI is terrible for the environment, especially if you ignore all the other elements that impact it. The truth is *Data Centers* are bad for the environment, and AI Data Centers make up a very small percentage of the overall number. Plus, while AI usage is increasing, Power demand is decreasing, All of the claims that AI is going to drain the worlds water away are based on increasing usage WITHOUT compensating for decreased power demand, and it also ignores the fact that the majority of water used is recycled. It's no worse for the environment than watching Youtube or Tiktok videos. Claiming that AI is killing the environment while ignoring the things that are ACTUALLY doing so is literally the same as claiming plastic straws are killing the turtles, and not all the other industrial level environmental problems.
  
  

Using AI is killing the environment just as much as using plastic straws is killing the environment, they are not mutually exclusive. Here is an article from the University of California describing the effects of increased pollution due to AI, or specifically LLMs. The pollution and water usage of these machines disproportionately affects disadvantaged neighborhoods as well, because these Data Centers are deliberately built to not affect more “important” demographic areas. When the water is used to cool down the machines, it is recycled yes, but recycled without being cleaned and additionally heated up from the cooling processes which completely disrupts the ecosystem.Here is an article from MIT explaining the ramifications. Using AI means that you are causing it to run a process much more intensive than just watching a TikTok or Youtube video.

• Very Unethical
  
  Very matter of opinion. I'm sure your claim that it's "unethical" stems from "AI is theft". Theft requires loss. Training AI on existing art doesn't result in any loss. Nor is the absurd claim that it steals pixels and recreates art using those stolen pixels. That's just not how it works. And there's the idea that AI art is unethical because "it's not real art", based on the fact that that it's created with the push of a button. Technically, you can say the same about any photograph - are you going to claim photographers aren't artists? The claim that it's not "art" has been made every time a new way to create art has come on the scene. In 20 years, AI will be the norm, and everyone will be complaining about some new method that's "unethical"
  
  

AI is, inherently, unethical no matter how you look at it. To train such large language models, they need databases of information which are stolen from the internet - not just art, but also your personal data, your posts, everything they can get their hands on. The morality of art is a whole other debate that isn’t relevant here, but when someone makes an artwork, they are entitled to it as theirs even if they do post it. That’s like saying if I were to make a painting and hang it in the hall for people to see, it is perfectly acceptable for someone to steal my painting off the wall and then use it however they want. Physicality doesn’t make it less of a loss. If companies like OpenAI and Midjourney simply asked artists for their artwork to add to a database to train, that would be ethical. But these large scale companies are actively stealing so that they don’t have to pay more money.

• Infringes on Copyright Laws
  
  It doesn't. If it did, they wouldn't be trying to rewrite copyright laws to better define AIs place in the matter. Currently, AI is undefined as far as copyright is concerned. The whole "AI was trained on data without the users permission" has failed in courts over and over again. Currently, Disney is suing midjourney in a case that MIGHT succeed, but the details of that are that people are using Midjourney to create exact copies of their IP. Yes, creating an image of Darth Vader using AI does, in fact, infringe on Copyright laws, But then, creating an image of Darth Vader using Photoshop also infringes on Copyright laws, for the same reason. That doesn't mean *photoshop* infringes on Copyright simply for existing. (There's actually some additional aspects of that case that make it very interesting, can't wait to see how it plays out.)
  
  

The reason it has failed in courts is the same reason you can’t sue Disney for anything. These companies have insane amounts of money and influence, there is no way to win a court case against them. If you don’t think that when you make something, you own it, then that is a separate problem.

• May evolve to eventually try to kill humans
  
  Heh, sure. And the sun may expand to eventually swallow the earth. Better to stop using solar power now! This one is the one that made me decide to reply, because the whole "it might eventually evolve and kill everyone!!" gives me the same feeling as "Women can't be in charge of countries, they might kill everyone in a fit of PMS!" You know who's killing humans right now, no evolution needed? That's right - other humans. Guess that's a great reason to not use Human artists.
  
  

While evolving to kill humans is far off the list, it is currently being used to kill humans now. AI companies like OpenAI partner with private defense companies like Palantir along with standing militaries like the IDF to use generative models to locate targets and kill them with targeted missile strikes. It is also being used to create deepfakes, fake videos of politicians and people, and is at the point where it is even beginning to be presented in court cases as a defense. Using ChatGPT means you are actively training it, which makes it more effective in familiarity with human speech, which makes it more easily able to imitate people, and you also are giving it your information which OpenAI happily and openly sells to other companies such as.. private military contractors.

• Among other problems
  
  Not really. The simple fact of the matter is that the "problems" that people contribute to AI is overblown because they're afraid of new technology. It's funny, when the Matrix came out, part of the prequel showed people attacking AI and robots out of fear and hatred, because Automation was disrupting society. A lot of people laughed at that, claiming it would never happen like that - people would be happy when robots were doing all the work! Yet, here we are, living out the beginnings of the Animatrix. Yes, AI is going to change things, just like the Industrial revolution changed things in the 1900s, and just like the digital revolution and the Internet changed things in the 80s and 90s. Eventually, people will accept it and appreciate the changes - and hopefully will make things better along the way.

 AI by itself isn’t bad, but it has been introduced into a world where right now, it is very very bad and is not being handled correctly. AI would be much better if we weren’t ruled by companies trying to make as much money as possible at the expense of everything around them. The Industrial Revolution had a similar problem that was never addressed - obviously technological advancement was a good thing, but we are now seeing the ramifications on solely focusing on advancement and profit rather than guardrails and sustainability. The earth is boiling and we’re speeding it up with irresponsible use of technology. Don’t use AI. There is nothing AI can give you that anything else can’t. AI one day, hopefully, will have addressed these problems and then we can move on and use it as the tool it was meant to be.

Amen

Oh and to add onto that, here is a times article about an MIT study that showed people who used ChatGPT showed decreased cognitive activity. I didn’t include it in my main argument because it hasn’t been peer reviewed yet, but it’s an interesting read.

Quote from Oisin >>

Quote from PJtheARCH3R >>

Quote from Incompetent_Goat>>

This thing might never end. Might as well give me  the chicken.

Man, don't use AI profile pictures. That might be human art, I apologize if it is, but several things don't make a whole lot of sense, and the general way it looks is very AI like

I don't want to just yell at anyone who uses AI because thats rude, but there are many negative effects of using AI

(Kills the enviroment, very unethical, infringes on copyright laws, may evolve to eventually try to kill humans, among other problems)

• Kills the environment 
  
  Sure, AI is terrible for the environment, especially if you ignore all the other elements that impact it. The truth is *Data Centers* are bad for the environment, and AI Data Centers make up a very small percentage of the overall number. Plus, while AI usage is increasing, Power demand is decreasing, All of the claims that AI is going to drain the worlds water away are based on increasing usage WITHOUT compensating for decreased power demand, and it also ignores the fact that the majority of water used is recycled. It's no worse for the environment than watching Youtube or Tiktok videos. Claiming that AI is killing the environment while ignoring the things that are ACTUALLY doing so is literally the same as claiming plastic straws are killing the turtles, and not all the other industrial level environmental problems.
  
  
• Very Unethical
  
  Very matter of opinion. I'm sure your claim that it's "unethical" stems from "AI is theft". Theft requires loss. Training AI on existing art doesn't result in any loss. Nor is the absurd claim that it steals pixels and recreates art using those stolen pixels. That's just not how it works. And there's the idea that AI art is unethical because "it's not real art", based on the fact that that it's created with the push of a button. Technically, you can say the same about any photograph - are you going to claim photographers aren't artists? The claim that it's not "art" has been made every time a new way to create art has come on the scene. In 20 years, AI will be the norm, and everyone will be complaining about some new method that's "unethical"
  
  
• Infringes on Copyright Laws
  
  It doesn't. If it did, they wouldn't be trying to rewrite copyright laws to better define AIs place in the matter. Currently, AI is undefined as far as copyright is concerned. The whole "AI was trained on data without the users permission" has failed in courts over and over again. Currently, Disney is suing midjourney in a case that MIGHT succeed, but the details of that are that people are using Midjourney to create exact copies of their IP. Yes, creating an image of Darth Vader using AI does, in fact, infringe on Copyright laws, But then, creating an image of Darth Vader using Photoshop also infringes on Copyright laws, for the same reason. That doesn't mean *photoshop* infringes on Copyright simply for existing. (There's actually some additional aspects of that case that make it very interesting, can't wait to see how it plays out.)
  
  
• May evolve to eventually try to kill humans
  
  Heh, sure. And the sun may expand to eventually swallow the earth. Better to stop using solar power now! This one is the one that made me decide to reply, because the whole "it might eventually evolve and kill everyone!!" gives me the same feeling as "Women can't be in charge of countries, they might kill everyone in a fit of PMS!" You know who's killing humans right now, no evolution needed? That's right - other humans. Guess that's a great reason to not use Human artists.
  
  
• Among other problems
  
  Not really. The simple fact of the matter is that the "problems" that people contribute to AI is overblown because they're afraid of new technology. It's funny, when the Matrix came out, part of the prequel showed people attacking AI and robots out of fear and hatred, because Automation was disrupting society. A lot of people laughed at that, claiming it would never happen like that - people would be happy when robots were doing all the work! Yet, here we are, living out the beginnings of the Animatrix. Yes, AI is going to change things, just like the Industrial revolution changed things in the 1900s, and just like the digital revolution and the Internet changed things in the 80s and 90s. Eventually, people will accept it and appreciate the changes - and hopefully will make things better along the way. 

 

 I never said AI itself was the problem- obviously AI in of itself isn't something to be immediately destroyed or something drastic like that. It was mostly in relation to art. Also, I'm sure the copyright rules will eventually be updated in regards to AI.

I agree on the environmental impacts somewhat, actually. But most things people use AI for are just really just easy to be doing in other ways, so that's why I like to mention it harms the enviroment (read cynophobias reply)

While it is a matter of opinion, AI being not art is a hill I'm willing to die on.
If someone tells me their an artist and then tells me they do it all with AI, then they are not an artist. Every AI prompter gets pretty much the same style out of their prompts. What is the meaning of their art? How does it show a part of themselves? AI art is pretty shallow and meaningless. At best, its a mock up of something.
Photography arguably shows some part of that person, where they've been, moments they've had, things they wanted to capture and show others. Most photos are just used like that, but there's also a lot of dedicated serious photographers, including professionals.  Photography is different from sitting on a couch and asking a robot to cough up an image. Just because both have a button DOES NOT make them the same inherently. Not to mention how photography can actually take a lot longer than a single click. Selfies? Sure, but a lot of photography, especially professional photography, is a lot higher effort wise and thought and skill is put towards it.

Are you relating sexism to caution with giving control to robots? Also there was further discussion on this that stated that I don't literally think AI is gonna one day boot up and just murder everyone, but it definitely has potential to kill people, if on a small scale and not in a Humans vs  AI war sort of way. Again, its humans fault for the way we train it, but nonetheless that doesn't mean its not an issue. Also, different humans are different people. Some are peaceful, some are violent, some are angry, some are not. However, most of these AI are largely the same (though not exactly). Kurt Cobain isn't hated on because of the unabomber, but thats because those are different people. AI cannot have its own thoughts or opinions like a human, at least not in the same way.

People always use the defense, "Its here, so accept it and move on." You should never just accept something bad because it seems like its gonna be here to stay. Should global warming be accepted?


I think it would be foolish for me to deny that people aren't scared of AI because its new, its completely true. But that doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Y'know what the industrial revolution caused? Horrible living conditions, incredibly low wages, child labour, dangerous workplaces, environmental destruction, etc. Would you tell these people that they should appreciate the industrial revolution?
Of course, now that revolution is a good thing, but there is a reason that humans are inherently afraid of the unknown. Fear of something new doesn't mean you're just being paranoid and its a good thing that you should accept immediately without a lot of caution



Just to be clear, I'm not saying AI should have never been invented or anything like that. I'm sure there are good uses for it, but in artwork specifically it should be rejected.

I think cynophobia said most of what I would have, really just read their reply, but since it was specifically responding to me I felt like I should make my statement. I don't like arguing, but topics that are relevant like this are important to discuss

(edited multiple times to make what I was trying to say more clear, if you want to see the original post Elyceran replied to it, but if someone responds make sure you read the edited version not the reply version)

Quote from PJtheARCH3R >>

Quote from Oisin >>

Quote from PJtheARCH3R >>

Quote from Incompetent_Goat>>

This thing might never end. Might as well give me  the chicken.

Man, don't use AI profile pictures. That might be human art, I apologize if it is, but several things don't make a whole lot of sense, and the general way it looks is very AI like

I don't want to just yell at anyone who uses AI because thats rude, but there are many negative effects of using AI

(Kills the enviroment, very unethical, infringes on copyright laws, may evolve to eventually try to kill humans, among other problems)

• Kills the environment 
  
  Sure, AI is terrible for the environment, especially if you ignore all the other elements that impact it. The truth is *Data Centers* are bad for the environment, and AI Data Centers make up a very small percentage of the overall number. Plus, while AI usage is increasing, Power demand is decreasing, All of the claims that AI is going to drain the worlds water away are based on increasing usage WITHOUT compensating for decreased power demand, and it also ignores the fact that the majority of water used is recycled. It's no worse for the environment than watching Youtube or Tiktok videos. Claiming that AI is killing the environment while ignoring the things that are ACTUALLY doing so is literally the same as claiming plastic straws are killing the turtles, and not all the other industrial level environmental problems.
  
  
• Very Unethical
  
  Very matter of opinion. I'm sure your claim that it's "unethical" stems from "AI is theft". Theft requires loss. Training AI on existing art doesn't result in any loss. Nor is the absurd claim that it steals pixels and recreates art using those stolen pixels. That's just not how it works. And there's the idea that AI art is unethical because "it's not real art", based on the fact that that it's created with the push of a button. Technically, you can say the same about any photograph - are you going to claim photographers aren't artists? The claim that it's not "art" has been made every time a new way to create art has come on the scene. In 20 years, AI will be the norm, and everyone will be complaining about some new method that's "unethical"
  
  
• Infringes on Copyright Laws
  
  It doesn't. If it did, they wouldn't be trying to rewrite copyright laws to better define AIs place in the matter. Currently, AI is undefined as far as copyright is concerned. The whole "AI was trained on data without the users permission" has failed in courts over and over again. Currently, Disney is suing midjourney in a case that MIGHT succeed, but the details of that are that people are using Midjourney to create exact copies of their IP. Yes, creating an image of Darth Vader using AI does, in fact, infringe on Copyright laws, But then, creating an image of Darth Vader using Photoshop also infringes on Copyright laws, for the same reason. That doesn't mean *photoshop* infringes on Copyright simply for existing. (There's actually some additional aspects of that case that make it very interesting, can't wait to see how it plays out.)
  
  
• May evolve to eventually try to kill humans
  
  Heh, sure. And the sun may expand to eventually swallow the earth. Better to stop using solar power now! This one is the one that made me decide to reply, because the whole "it might eventually evolve and kill everyone!!" gives me the same feeling as "Women can't be in charge of countries, they might kill everyone in a fit of PMS!" You know who's killing humans right now, no evolution needed? That's right - other humans. Guess that's a great reason to not use Human artists.
  
  
• Among other problems
  
  Not really. The simple fact of the matter is that the "problems" that people contribute to AI is overblown because they're afraid of new technology. It's funny, when the Matrix came out, part of the prequel showed people attacking AI and robots out of fear and hatred, because Automation was disrupting society. A lot of people laughed at that, claiming it would never happen like that - people would be happy when robots were doing all the work! Yet, here we are, living out the beginnings of the Animatrix. Yes, AI is going to change things, just like the Industrial revolution changed things in the 1900s, and just like the digital revolution and the Internet changed things in the 80s and 90s. Eventually, people will accept it and appreciate the changes - and hopefully will make things better along the way. 

 

 I never said AI itself was the problem- obviously AI in of itself isn't something to be immediately destroyed or something. It was mostly in relation to art. Also, I'm sure the copyright rules will eventually be updated in regards to AI.

I agree on the environmental impacts somewhat, actually. But most things people use AI for are just really just easy to be doing in other ways, so that's why I like to mention it harms the enviroment (read cynophobias reply)

While it is a matter of opinion, AI being not art is a hill I'm willing to die on.
If someone tells me their an artist and then tells me they do it all with AI, then they are not an artist. Every AI prompter gets pretty much the same style out of their prompts. What is the meaning of their art? How does it show a part of themselves? AI art is pretty shallow and meaningless. At best, its a mock up of something.
Photography arguably shows some part of that person, where they've been, moments they've had, things they wanted to capture and show others. Most photos are just used like that, but there's also other types of photography that are definitely different from sitting on a couch and asking a robot to cough up an image. Just because both have a button DOES NOT make them the same inherently.

Are you comparing women's rights to the rights of a robot right now? Also there was further discussion on this that stated that I don't literally think AI is gonna one day boot up and just murder everyone, but it definitely has potential to kill people, if on a small scale and not in a war sort of way. Again, its humans fault for the way we train it, but nonetheless that doesn't mean its not an issue

People always use the defense, "Its here, so accept it and move on." You should never just accept something bad because it seems like its gonna be here to stay. Should global warming be accepted?


I think it would be foolish for me to deny that people aren't scared of AI because its new, its completely true. But that doesn't mean it should be dismissed. Y'know what the industrial revolution caused? Horrible living conditions, incredibly low wages, child labour, dangerous workplaces, environmental destruction, etc. Would you tell these people that they should appreciate the industrial revolution?
Of course, now that revolution is a good thing, but there is a reason that humans are inherently afraid of the unknown. Fear of something new doesn't mean you're just being paranoid and its a good thing that you should accept immediately without a lot of caution



Just to be clear, I'm not saying AI should have never been invented or anything like that. I'm sure there are good uses for it, but in artwork specifically it should be rejected.

 I agree, I changed my pfp now.

I just looked up what tbf means and it gave me the Wikipedia article for three letter acronyms... No (GP) Google

(It told me like right below but still)

*finishes eating* Man, that rainbow sure was delicious.

Really dude? After pride month? How could you??

Quote from The_Mighty_Dragon_Bard >>

Really dude? After pride month? How could you??

 (It's cause I changed my PFP) 

Sorry, it was really tasty tho. *Looks at camera* I really enjoyed tasting that rainbow. *Skittles now will pay me thousands of dollars*

For some reason my brain assumed you were eating the disco wizard

Quote from PJtheARCH3R >>

For some reason my brain assumed you were eating the disco wizard

 No, I still don't know how to activate that on the app so he eludes me. For now :) 

yo glad to see this is still goin

i havent been on dnd beyond in like 2-3 years do the people i used to talk with still use it

This is the one constant on this site

Quote from Bobthebarbarian51105 >>

yo glad to see this is still goin

 This won't end until someone gets the last comment

Quote from Scienceboy1 >>

Quote from TheMadGibber >>

Quote from Bobthebarbarian51105 >>

yo glad to see this is still goin

 This won't end until someone gets the last comment

 GIBBER POST ON THE CULT OF JEFF

 Ok but like

What if I didn't *9999 troll faces fill the room* Would make Jeff sad tho so I won't do it

(Also like not to be rude but that does come off kinda annoying. Plus for all you know I was gonna but you literally posted that post one minute after I posted mine...)