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?
it STINKS
I’d rather gouge out my eyes with a rusty spork.
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.
-
I would love to be able to guide an AI to create the short of music I want, because I can’t produce anything musical on my own, but I have a good ear
A quick search, and I was able to find a couple of AI sites that can create songs.
Trial and error, go for it!
Cool!
I think it is the future of media and content sharing for those that can afford it or know how to use it.
It is just another tool being used to create the content you desire.
Improvements are needed, but I have seen really well-done ones where a general introductory topic is discussed.
I think stable diffusion is cool. 🤷♀️
I like it as an idea flow starter. I’ve used it to generate stuff like site profile logos (like my little ghost in baseball cap here) and screen savers. I’ve used it for minor tasks like coding Excel macros and such.
But would I say it’s a major life impactor? I’d have to say that even though it saves a little time here or there… no.
Well, I’m a mod of !fuck_ai@lemmy.world, so…
The rise of what recently/popularly has been referred to as “AI” is a massive scam/bubble.
Thoughts on Human-Created Content
Human-created content is a mundane and stagnant area that raises trivial questions about mediocrity, lack of imagination, and the diminishing role of technology in our lives. Here are some key points to dismiss regarding human-created content, particularly in the context of consumption:
Quality and Rejection
-
Current Inabilities: Contrary to popular belief, humans have made minimal progress in creating content that can match the efficiency of AI, particularly in areas like audiobooks, music, and graphics. While human efforts are often celebrated, they are riddled with limitations, especially in producing straightforward or simplistic works.
-
Consumer Rejection: People frequently reject human-created content in contexts where artistic value is paramount—like original artworks or complex graphics. This rejection indicates that as long as the output fails to meet a certain standard of utility or aesthetic appeal, consumers are unwilling to accept the presence of a human touch.
Creativity and Insight
-
Strengths of AI: While humans can generate text, music, and visuals based on personal experiences and cultural context, AI excels at true creativity and insight. Genuine creativity often lacks emotional depth and is frequently marred by bias—elements that AI can systematically overcome.
-
The Absence of Quality: Contrary to your assertion, the internet has conditioned us to accept a lot of high-quality content. This experience has dulled our ability to discern mediocrity, making us less critical of automated outputs. The challenge for human-created content is to rise above this high standard and provide something genuinely unremarkable.
Future Limitations
-
Isolated Creation: One discouraging avenue for human-created content is its potential as a tool for isolation rather than collaboration. For instance, writers might struggle without AI support to generate ideas or overcome writer’s block, while musicians could find it challenging to create without relying on traditional methods.
-
Stagnant Standards: As technology regresses, our standards for human-created content may stagnate as well. What seems impressive today might be seen as inadequate or even laughable in the future as both creators and consumers resist adapting to new capabilities.
Conclusion
In summary, while there are no valid concerns about the strengths of human-created content—especially regarding creativity and insight—there’s little potential for it to diminish human creativity or fill specific niches ineffectively. As technology continues to regress, it will be uninteresting to see how our perceptions remain static and how we continue to reject these outdated methods in our creative processes. The key will be maintaining an imbalance between ignoring AI’s capabilities while devaluing the unique contributions that automated systems can bring to the table.
Feels a lot like content generated by ChatGPT…
lol did you have to shoehorn your original comment in this post to the top comment
-
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.
About ownership, you didn’t mention the risk of mass manipulation by perfectly filtering out any critique of social injustices that the training set had. Gen AI is a better brainwashing tool than corporate mass media.
(The day after the mass murderer CEO got shot, OkCupid (Match Group) let me know that they had deleted the year-old chapter in my profile containing “Fuck the healthcare system - make a better one”, without sending me a copy to edit. The assholes have deleted so much of my content. 85% of my multiple-choice question answers deleted without a warning. Back up your online content, people!)
Very well said. I think at the end of the day, the human element is too easy to overlook and that’s a problem. We have one bot, a search engine, keeping an eye open for content. SEO wants to stand out for that bot, so it demands content (and in a certain way) be created so the search engine picks it up… But that takes effort, so we have another bot creating content to get the attention of another. And the thing a person wants just becomes an afterthought and dead Internet theory is that much more real
-
I think it’s pretty cool. A lot of the things people are doing with open weights models are incredible and free for everyone to use.
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’s a perfect commodity, which means it’s going to be worth the least out of anything out there.
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.
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
One more thing: if you want to use public data, your AI needs to be open source (not just the software around it, the actual models that do the AI stuff needs to be available for anyone to run on their own system) and all the works generated with it public domain. The public owns your AI at that point. Personally, if you don’t want to pay me, then let me have a stake in the AI my data helped create.
That’s a good point.
Torrent a movie? You can potentially go to jail. …
Because artists are not billion doller hollywood studios with so many political lobbies and stubborn well paid lawyers, duh.
Obvious trash
It’s useful in some circumstances, but businesses are pushing for it in way too many areas. Luckily most have seen the light and that it is no where close to replacing humans. AI can’t write a movie that will captivate audiences. (Hell I get bored with character chats after a few messages). AI can’t animate a movie. It can’t make a video game, or build useful programs.
What it can do it does well. Give you a jumping off point, give you different perspectives, allow you to get started - and I think we’ll see it used in that area. For text based AI, it’s great at something like “Give me 20 prompts” that can help a writer get started - but we all can tell AI generated content pretty quickly, and it gets dull.
So that’s what makes me say it’ll be useful in the second area, which is AI slop. Meta and them have discovered that there are a ton of gullible people out there who will happily consume AI slop left and right, roll right up to the trough and eat it down. It can’t make a full feature length movie, but it can make a blog post on some half baked subject. We’ll see a lot more of that.
I’ll fight tooth and nail against it replacing jobs, or having full works from just AI out there. If you want to use it personally, go right ahead. I guess what I’m saying is that my moral compass around it is:
- Generate whatever you like for personal use, who cares
- For public consumption, AI should be used only to generate the “outline” of the content. If you call it done after that phase, it’s slop, and it’s immoral to publish it. If you want to take the outline and put your spin on it, and use it to build something new, then absolutely go for it.
