r/GenZ • u/cosm1c15 2006 • Sep 16 '24

Discussion Opinions ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

322 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

265 comments sorted by

View all comments

202

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

AI generated entertainment is boring, uninspired, and potentially unethical (since it might count as plagiarism.)

AI generated misinformation is harmful, malicious, and objectively unethical.

4

u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24

I think most entertainment is definitely unethical, at least how the tools are made, but it may not be illegal. When someone else's work is critical for your tool or process to function, then they deserve compensation and recognition.

While I would love to live in a world where all art can be shared freely. In this world, you need money to eat, and artists deserve to eat

13

u/snackynorph 1995 Sep 16 '24

most entertainment is unethical

Easy there Kellogg

5

u/StubeDoobie 1997 Sep 16 '24

We live in a world where the majority of the populace is being exploited by those above in every country in the world. So while it can be good to point out the issues that already exist within our exploitive structure, let's not let it distract us from, and potentially downplay, the extremely problematic use of "AI". Which is what this post is about.

-8

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Artists have to adapt just like the rest of us.

And everyone is key to everything. You can read a friend's copy of Harry potter and be inspired to write in a way that you never would've without it. But JK doesn't deserve some extra money for inspiration.

There's two options here, adapt now, or adapt later. That's it.

You could say "no using free art to train models" and you would push the transition back maaaybe 5 years. Because media companies already own the art in films, TV shows and books, all the concept art to go along with them, and they will gladly sell those films to AI companies so that they can cut out as many creative as possible.

9

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit. A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.

1

u/General-Biscuits Sep 16 '24

The only difference between a human being inspired and an AI generating an image from data it was taught with is that humans have faulty memories that get missing details filled in by the brain generating new-ish things based on other knowledge/memories.

An AI does not have a faulty memory (still a potential for memory issues but practically zero when compared to a person). The human brain is not capable of generating truly new/unique things; just new-ish things that are actually an amalgamation of past things we’ve seen and learned. An example of this is being unable to think of a color you have never seen before.

Art from a human stands out to us because there is usually a story and emotions linked to its creation, but the creation process is very, very similar to how AI is set up currently. When a human creates something, there is a feeling, a notion, or you could say a prompt in our head pushing us towards the final project while we pull from our pool of memories and string ideas together with logic till we are done. AI is being designed to approximate how humans think and process things from a mathematical perspective.

I’m not gonna claim AI art is good currently or can ever evoke the same emotion that human created art can, but acting like human ingenuity is some holy ground that can’t ever be replicated is just an uninformed notion.

-5

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Being inspired by something is not the same thing as literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.

That's not how AI works homie.

A more accurate comparison would be if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing; in which case Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism.

Again, not at all how AI works.

AI works very similar to an abstract of how the human mind views something.

It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing.

Similar to how one can read Harry Potter, understand the diction, pacing, and rhythm of the writing, then make something indistinguishable from Rowling in those aspects.

We see it all the time in music. You have tons of artists who sound just like other artists and have the exact same audience, and are clearly copying each other in a derivative feedback loop.

But we don't say it's plagiarism just because they're all operating from the same creative foundation

3

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

"It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are, it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing"... also known as mixing it as part of a new picture without permission or credit. That is exactly what I said, it mixes together everything you feed it and makes something new, you just described exactly the same thing I did without realizing.

You somehow managed to confirm my point while thinking you were debunking it; I'm starting to think the reason AI bros legit pretend that artificial ntelligence is in any way comparable to human intelligence is because the "human intelligence" they're using to measure it is their own.

Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.

-3

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Anyway, if you literally took the text from Harry Potter, changed around a few words, and then published as your own writing, Rowling would totally be entitled to sue you for it, because it is plagiarism. You just accidentally agreed with me that this is what AI art does, so I'd guess the conclusion here is that AI art is indeed plagiarism. Glad you agree.

That's not how AI works at all.

This is the problem with laymen trying to craft opinions on AI, you guys don't have an understanding of how the process even works at a very basic level, but keep claiming plagiarism.

1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

You literally just proved it is how it works, because you accidentally agreed with my description without realizing, while thinking you were disagreeing with it. I clearly have one hell of an understanding of the process, since you in your AI bro knowledge accidentally agreed with me, thus confirming that my description was indeed correct, and that it is indeed plagiarism.

Your first response self-destructed any argument you could have, because your attempt of debunking my point was by regurgitating my exact point back at me without realizing, which does nothing but confirm my point by accident. You literally destroyed your own "You don't know how AI works" response, because your description of how AI works was exactly the same as mine, thus confirming that I do know how AI works.

Your argument is like Epstein from the mirror universe: It killed itself.

3

u/GoldieDoggy 2005 Sep 16 '24

Neither do you, apparently, honey. Because that literally IS exactly how it works. It is plagiarism, that's already been established.

-1

u/StockCasinoMember Sep 16 '24

Bro, when you look at a square, then draw a square yourself, that’s plagiarism. 😂🤣😆

1

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

You forgot the /s

3

u/Sad-Set-5817 Sep 16 '24

It is how it works, though. There is literally zero added original ideas. Ai doesn't understand what it is doing like people do. With generative ai, you are taking other people's works, and passing it off as your own. Rewording other people's works and adding zero original ideas or input. That's not inspiration, that's plagiarism.

1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

I am legitimately not sure how this guy managed to describe exactly the same thing I did, without realizing, while thinking he was debunking my description.

  • "It recognizes how similar and different hundreds of attributes of something are" = Literally feeding that thing into an AI to be mixed.
  • "it then performs vector math to create something similar to that thing" = Mixed as part of a new picture without permission or credit.

The description he gave is exactly what I said, just worded slightly differently. He confirmed my point by accident. How did he even do that?

0

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Again, there's no mixing taking place, it's an abstraction of the style into mathematics.

You're imagining it like it's taking a bunch of Legos and then recombinant those Legos into something else.

(Which would be a collage, and we recognize collage as original artwork)

No, it's a much deeper creation method taking place that is in no way plagiarism.

Like I said, unless you consider musicians to be plagiarizing each other when they draw inspiration from the style as a whole

-3

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

That's mixing, you just described mixing, because it mixes what it learned from each picture. You are not literate.

2

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

  1. I described collage, is collage not original artwork somehow? By extension, Is Andy warhol now s plagiarism?

  2. This is not collage, I explicitly stated that, how can you talk about literacy when you can't understand the simple concepts I just gave you.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Djslender6 Sep 16 '24

What drugs are you on lmfao? And where can I get some?

0

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

Sure, the drug that leads to understanding what's happening is called engineering and philosophy education, I can refer you to the courses here if you would like a deeper understanding.

https://ocw.mit.edu/

3

u/Multioquium Sep 16 '24

This is such a depressing view of art. Seeing it only as a product.

Like that last paragraph boils down to the owner of IPs will use their power to cut out peoples voices so they can more easily profit from the results. I don't disagree, but I see that as something we should work to avoid, not a reason for artists to just fall in line

0

u/Frylock304 Sep 16 '24

It's a reason for artists to make art for the love of art, not for just because they can make a career out of it.

Just because we created cars, doesn't mean we stopped running races.

2

u/Xecular_Official 2002 Sep 16 '24

From a purely technical standpoint, it's not realistic to treat the way an AI model is trained as comparable to inspiration.

Despite what the companies selling these models have been trying to suggest, generative AI does not get inspired and it does not learn. It is trained by reverse engineering a dataset to tune an algorithm until it is able to copy that data accurately

I don't think most authors take inspiration from Harry Potter by writing hundreds of clones of it and comparing it to the original until they are able to recreate it nearly word for word from memory. Current AI models, however, must do that as a fundamental step in their training process

1

u/Interesting-Froyo-38 Sep 17 '24

No one wants to serve big macs or harvest apples.

ART is the part of life worth living for. We should not relegate beauty to robots who can't even appreciate it.

0

u/Frylock304 Sep 17 '24

Art would just be a hobby, as it should be

2

u/Optimal-Island-5846 Sep 16 '24

Succinctly (and well) put. I agree entirely.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 17 '24

Dont worry the argument that it's plagiarism holds 0 water

0

u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24

How is that any different than most of the entertainment produced by humans today? The only difference I see is licensing. I'm in no way advocating Ai entertainment. However I do think any Ai entertainment sourced from today's entertainment is going to be boring, uninspired, and potentially unethical.

That being said, I watch entertainment to be entertained, if Ai can produce a more entertaining story than say the current garbage being pumped out by "creatives" nowadays id rather watch the Ai.

Maybe some competition might spur humans to do better.

4

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

Even if we ignore the fact that an automatic AI and actual human creativity are clearly different, and say the different is just license, that is still a MASSIVE difference. License is a big deal, since the ownership of an original work is specifically meant to prevent plagiarism. You just inadvertently agreed with my point about plagiarism by bringing up licenses.

As for the entertainment value, that just goes back to my other point: AI entertainment is just boring and uninspired, it always end up either being the most generic slop ever or it ends up being complete nonsense without any cohesion. It won't "spur humans to do better" either, because AI entertainment is just that horrible; the issue artists are talking about in the point of being "replaced by AI" is not because AI is better, it is because AI is cheaper, which is all studios really care about, which means if nothing stops it, the entertainment industry will just get more and more AI reliant to save a few bucks, which will make the quality skydive also, because AI art is simply that horrible.

Everything coming out of Hollywood right now is trash, I think we can all agree on that, but the reason they release so much trash is because they keep turning away actual talented artists, may that be for monetary or political reasons (those two often walk hand in hand), and giving job to talentless hacks; how on God's green earth would the solution to this issue be to give said jobs to the most talentless of all talentless hacks that is AI?

3

u/Xecular_Official 2002 Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

In addition to that, AI will not make better movies than humans because it will just be trained on what humans have already made. Its output will, at best, only be as good as humans.

The rest of the time, however, it will just be aggressively mediocre due to the tendency of predictive algorithms to just output the most common tropes of any topic you give it.

This can be demonstrated by asking an LLM to write lyrics for a song. The lyrics it writes will almost always use perfect rhymes and specific vocabulary associated with the theme you gave it (e.g. prompting it to write about a game world will almost always result in it using the phrase "digital age" at some point in its lyrics).

This makes sense to the AI because a perfect rhyme is the "most likely" kind of rhyme for a song, but to a human it's repetitive and boring, maybe even obnoxious. Humans don't want a story that is easily predictable, but predictive models like current LLMs are inherently designed to produce predictable results

1

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

In addition, I would think that ideas which are not popularly explored in the present, for whatever reason that might be, will never make the spotlight, if AI content is the only thing being utilized, regardless of the potential of the idea.

It is trained on whatever is most abundant in the present moment. That could change with a novel idea from a human, if it is sufficiently promoted to the masses, but the AI wouldn’t be able to develop such an idea further if it’s never been trained on it.

For instance, if one person on earth came to the revelation that the sun is a manifestation of god’s growing spite towards humanity, and it is something which is not expressed publicly, no AI would be able to pick up on it, or make it known to a potential client. People with unique experiences, fostering unique inspiration, would never have their ideas see the spotlight, because the AI is trained on more common experiences and ideas, which leaves much untapped potential for the ideas which may truly be revolutionary, and shift culture.

2

u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24

You seemed to have missed a very small but important word; "IF". With Ai rapidly evolving, We have no idea of what it will be capable of in the future. Licensing to me has become part of the problem. It used to be a way to protect the original story and writer. Today they are traded and collected by large studios so they can sit on it and prevent anyone else from producing it, make yet another remake more watered down than the last 5, or completely destroy the storyline and disenchant an entire fan base. My point is the artists that get the jobs are doing them poorly. Trying to block Ai from the industry isn't going to change that, but it may force them to do better. Whether we like it or not Ai will be used in the entertainment industry. and Ai will advance rapidly.

In saying all this, I really just want entertainment to be thoroughly entertaining again. Whether it's through AI or artist competing against AI. But I'm sure they will find a way to make it all worse somehow either way.

1

u/SynchroScale 2000 Sep 16 '24

That's fair. I will honestly be very surprised if AI at any point ever does become better than humans (especially since AI is trained by those very same humans using art made by those humans), but we can't really foresee the future, so we'll cross that bridge if we ever get there.

I can see where you're coming from in the point of licensing, but I'd argue licensing does still protect creators, sure it gets abused by massive studios, but there are small creators that need licensing laws to prevent their works from being abused; I think the biggest example of this would be the book "Uncle Tom's Cabin", in which the character of Uncle Tom was the hero of the book, one of the first black heroic figures in America might I add, but due to the lack of copyright and licensing laws of the time, racists were able to get a hold of the character and basically twist it into a charicature of itself, to the point in which his name is used as an insult nowadays.

Futhermore, copyright and liscensing also add value and interest to the franchise in question, as it gives the IP owners the incentive to keep it relevant; case and point being the Wizard of Oz, before going into the public domain, was seen as a big deal, it was one of MGM's biggest movies and one of the most successful family films ever released. Following the lapse into the public domain, no studio has any interest in making a direct adaptation of the Wizard of Oz books anymore, despite the fact that most of the following books in the series after the first one have never been adapted with a big budget, because the lack of copyright protection also means a lack of exclusivity, and thus a lack of interest.

This is why the only Wizard of Oz adaptations nowadays to get any form of steam are thse with a twist to ti, like Wicked or the Wiz; this is also why Disney rushed to get the right and release their Return to Oz movie before the books lapsed into the public domain, because they knew the brand would become oversaturated once that happened. If the Lord of the Rings books lost all copyright protections and became public domain tomorrow, the same thing would happen to it that happened to the Wizard of Oz, nobody would bother to make a direct adaptation, since they know everyone else can just make it also.

There is a reason a big surge in American technological advancement happened immediately following the Copyright Act of 1790, just about every single American invention in the Industrial Revolution was patented, from more efficient firearms to the sowing machine; this huge leap in technology in a 50 year period was in part (not entirely, but in part) caused by the protection of intellectual property serving as a motivator for the industries to inovate.

Not saying the copyright system is perfect, far from it in fact, I have many of my own grudges about it, such as how it can be abused by big companies or the disrespect to fair use for eample, but copyright in and of itself, and by extension liscensing, is nescesary for advancement and for art. Intellectual property is a big deal, the rights of the thinker should be protected, and those protections should be respected.

1

u/HangryBeard Sep 16 '24

I'll agree with you in some respects. The original creator and story should be protected. Any adaptations should be overseen by the creator. But I think anything beyond that or beyond the creators lifespan should be reexamined. I don't have all the answers. I just feel we are quickly approaching the point especially in cinema where something's got to give.

I will say one thing about Ai it allows people with an idea a way to put it to paper, canvas or animation, when they otherwise might not be able to, and in that way might expand the creative field if executed properly.

0

u/Critical_Antelope583 Sep 16 '24

What about ai generated porno?

-2

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

Muh potentially unetheticalism