First and foremost, this is not about AI/ML research, only about usage in generating content that you would potentially consume.
I personally won’t mind automated content if/when that reach current human generated content quality. Some of them probably even achievable not in very distant future, such as narrating audiobook (though it is nowhere near human quality right now). Or partially automating music/graphics (using gen AI) which we kind of accepted now. We don’t complain about low effort minimal or AI generated thumbnail or stock photo, we usually do not care about artistic value of these either. But I’m highly skeptical that something of creative or insightful nature could be produced anytime soon and we have already developed good filter of slops in our brain just by dwelling on the 'net.
So what do you guys think?
Edit: Originally I made this question thinking only about quality aspect, but many responses do consider the ethical side as well. Cool :).
We had the derivative work model of many to one intellectual works (such as a DJ playing a collection of musics by other artists) that had a practical credit and compensation mechanism. With gen AI trained on unethically (and often illegally) sourced data we don’t know what produce what and there’s no practical way to credit or compensate the original authors.
So maybe reframe the question by saying if it is used non commercially or via some fair use mechanism, would you still reject content regardless of quality because it is AI generated? Or where is the boundary for that?
I believe it has a use.
Like, AI can make up roleplaying assets and what graphics needed to be made to translate what objects are and everything. Stuff like that.
But using it for art contests, for bigger projects and all? It makes you look lazy.
Obvious trash
I hate it. For starters, I want to echo a common sentiment in the comments: the way it was taught data seems just so wildly unethical to me. The authors and artists whose works were stolen deserve a paycheck and I mean big time.
Don’t get me wrong, it does cool stuff too. Being able to recognize birds and plants and being able to proofread your texts, stuff like that? That is pretty cool.
But what pisses me off is how much “white noise” it generated on the internet, if you know what I mean. It depends on the search engine, but I’ve caught myself typing -ai_generated or some-such in the search bar just to find something that an actual human made. The search results are just so polluted with this shit. And, of course they want to put AI in everything. Ovens, CPUs, pillows, you name it. I don’t want it. Make it go away.
Define the terms please. AI has existed for decades. What are you focusing on now?
I’m not talking about AI in general here. I know some form of AI has been out there for ages and ML definitely has some field specific usecases. Here the objective is to discuss the feeling about gen AI produced content in contrast to human made content, potentially pondering the hypothetical scenario that the gen AI infrastructure is used ethically. I hope the notion of generative AI is sort of clear, but it includes LLMs, photo (not computer vision) and audio generators and any multimodal combination of these.
I also like the bug ID app. But I like bugs so your milage may vary.
Peel back the veneer of AI and you find the foundation of stolen training data it’s built on. They are stealing from the very content creators they aim to replace.
Torrent a movie? You can potentially go to jail. Scrape the entire internet for content and sell it as a shitty LLM or art generator? That’s just an innovative AI startup which is doing soooooo much good for humanity.
Even if they were able to train them without stealing, the threat they pose to our society would be equally problematic.
Exactly, an equitable solution could be to pay royalties to artists that had their work stolen to train these algorithms. That, however, would require any of the generative algorithms to be operating at a profit, which they absolutely are not.
Copying is not theft
In this case it absolutely is.
Google it
And it would require the LLM owners to admit to stealing that content.
That too
There are two core issues I have with AI generated content:
-
Ownership - All the big players are using proprietary software, weights, models, training methods, and datasets to generate these models. On top of the lack of visibility, they have farmed millions of peoples data and content without their knowledge or consent. If it were up to me, all AI research and software would be 100% open source, public access, non-copyright. That includes all theoretical work in scientific publications, all code, all the datasets, the weights, the infrastructure and training methods, absolutely everything.
-
Lowest common denominator - AI has unleashed the ability for individuals and organizations to produce extremely low effort content at volumes that haven’t been seen before. I hate how search results are becoming totally poisoned by AI slop. You just get pages and pages of sites that abuse SEO to become the top search result and are nothing more than click-farms to generate ad revenue. This is a systemic issue that stems from several things, primarily Capitalism, but also the way we cater to powerful corpos that push this sludge onto us.
I have no issue with AI tools that are actually helpful in their context. For instance, animation software that uses AI to help generate intermediate frames from your initial drawings. Screen reader software that uses AI to help sight-impaired folks with more accurate text-to-speech. AI tools that help with code completion, or debugging.
These are all legitimate uses of the technology, but sadly, all of that is being overshadowed by mountains of sludge being shoved on us at every level. Because those implementations aren’t going to make rich people even richer, they aren’t going to temp investors to dump billions more into AI startups and corpo tech. Helping blind people and indie animation studios is boring and low-profit, therefore in a Capitalist system, it gets shoved to the bottom of the stack while the high-margin slop gets pumped down our throats.
-
It’s just deeply inauthentic. I’d feel tricked if I listened to a song that I enjoyed and found out it was actually a meaningless machine printout.
I have no problem with it. I’ve been using it to make images for my website that I would otherwise not be able to afford to pay a graphic designer to make.
I also use it to help me figure out wording to get the right tone to my message. I’ll read a few iterations and then work off of the one that I like best. The AI one is not always better, but it’s great to get quick alternatives for comparison.
What would you say if your work was used in ai and no one would pay you for your work?
Is it really that different from me hiring a graphic designer and asking them to create art for me in a specific style. Even more so if I hiring someone from a country with low wages?
If you hire a graphic designer to create something for you, presumably you pay them.
With ai, someone took their creations and trained the ai to create images and didn’t pay them.
So yeah there’s a difference.
Either way, someone is getting paid to create something.
Not necessarily.
Think of it this way. A graphic designer should get paid each time they create something and each time it is used, or they get paid a LOT for creating it then it is used as much as the new owner wants. We are seeing cases where someone creates something, gets paid a small amount then it’s stolen after that.
Designers can’t stay in business
Think of the person that spends money to create a song, the song has one person who buys it for $1 (normal customer) then everyone else illegally downloads it. Can the artist stay in business? Can the artist afford to continue making music?
It the graphic designer has their stuff stolen, put into ai and people use the work to create other works. The designer is now going to have to charge an insane amount to create other works. Now the cost to hire a designer is so high that many people just settle for ai.
I see what you are saying, but the “art” I’ve created with AI would never have been done by a graphic designer as it would be too costly.
I would have instead used whatever I could find in Canva. So, graphic designers are not losing out from me, but it lets me elevate my work.
it STINKS
As someone who has had her art stolen for usage in an AI output, AI generated images are considered a form of art theft for good reason.
AI content is low-quality slop. That said, sometimes low-quality slop is the best option for what you want, and in that case, it can make sense to use. That slop can also make a useful ingredient for other, better works, so long as its just a small peice used appropriately.
I think it’s a bad idea in general, currently being produced in unethical ways by people with unethical aims, consistently failing to deliver on a tenth of what was promised and already ruining a lot of stuff despite its frailty.
Well, I’m a mod of [email protected], so…
The rise of what recently/popularly has been referred to as “AI” is a massive scam/bubble.
Thoughts on AI-Generated Content
AI-generated content is a fascinating and rapidly evolving area that raises important questions about quality, creativity, and the role of technology in our lives. Here are some key points to consider regarding AI-generated content, particularly in the context of consumption:
Quality and Acceptance
-
Current Capabilities: As you noted, AI has made significant strides in generating content that can sometimes match human quality, especially in areas like audiobooks, music, and graphics. While the technology is improving, there are still limitations, particularly in producing nuanced or deeply creative works.
-
Consumer Acceptance: People often accept AI-generated content in contexts where the artistic value is less critical—like stock photos or simple graphics. This acceptance suggests that as long as the output meets a certain standard of utility or aesthetic appeal, consumers are willing to overlook the lack of human touch.
Creativity and Insight
-
Limitations of AI: While AI can generate text, music, and visuals based on patterns learned from existing data, it struggles with true creativity and insight. Genuine creativity often involves emotional depth, personal experience, and cultural context—elements that AI currently cannot replicate.
-
The Filter of Quality: As you mentioned, the internet has conditioned us to filter through a lot of low-quality content. This experience has heightened our ability to discern quality, making us more critical of automated outputs. The challenge for AI-generated content is to rise above this noise and provide something genuinely valuable.
Future Potential
-
Collaborative Creation: One promising avenue for AI-generated content is its potential as a tool for human creators rather than a replacement. For instance, writers might use AI to brainstorm ideas or overcome writer’s block, while musicians could use it to generate backing tracks or explore new styles.
-
Evolving Standards: As technology progresses, our standards for AI-generated content may evolve as well. What seems inadequate today might be seen as acceptable or even impressive in the future as both creators and consumers adapt to new capabilities.
Conclusion
In summary, while there are valid concerns about the limitations of AI-generated content—especially regarding creativity and insight—there’s also potential for it to enhance human creativity and fill specific niches effectively. As technology continues to advance, it will be interesting to see how our perceptions shift and how we integrate these tools into our creative processes. The key will be maintaining a balance between leveraging AI’s capabilities while valuing the unique contributions that human creators bring to the table.
Nicely done, AI-generated response!
Which did you use?
I also think it is a tool being used to help push out whatever content the person using it wants.
It may be seen in the history books as akin to the Industrial Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution, sometimes divided into the First Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution, was a period of global transition of the human economy towards more widespread, efficient and stable manufacturing processes that succeeded the Agricultural Revolution. Beginning in Great Britain, the Industrial Revolution spread to continental Europe and the United States, from around 1760 to about 1820–1840. This transition included going from hand production methods to machines; new chemical manufacturing and iron production processes; the increasing use of water power and steam power; the development of machine tools; and the rise of the mechanised factory system. Output greatly increased, and the result was an unprecedented rise in population and the rate of population growth. The textile industry was the first to use modern production methods, and textiles became the dominant industry in terms of employment, value of output, and capital invested.
-
