Someone on bluesky reposted this image from user @yeetkunedo that I find describes (one aspect of) my disdain for AI.
Text reads:
Generative Al is being marketed as a tool designed to reduce or eliminate the need for developed, cognitive skillsets. It uses the work of others to simulate human output, except that it lacks grasp of nuance, contains grievous errors, and ultimately serves the goal of human beings being neurologically weaker due to the promise of the machine being better equipped than the humans using it would ever exert the effort to be.
The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.
The people that use generative Al to write things for them have no interest in writing. The people that use generative Al to find factoids have no interest in actual facts. The people that use generative Al to socialize have no interest in actual socialization.
In every case, they’ve handed over the cognitive load of developing a necessary, creative human skillset to a machine that promises to ease the sweat equity cost of struggle. Using generative Al is like asking a machine to lift weights on your behalf and then calling yourself a bodybuilder when it’s done with the reps. You build nothing in terms of muscle, you are not stronger, you are not faster, you are not in better shape. You’re just deluding yourself while experiencing a slow decline due to self-inflicted atrophy.
Damn that hits the nail on the head. Especially that analogy of watching a robot lift weights on your behalf then claiming gains. It’s causing brain atrophy.
But that is what CEO’s want. They want to pay for a near super human to do all of the different skill sets ( hiring, firing, finance, entry level engineering, IT tickets, etc) and it looks like it is starting to work. Seems like solid engineering students graduating recently have all been struggling to land decent starting jobs. I’ll grant it’s not as simple as this explanation, but I really think the wealth class are going to be happy riding this flaming ship right down into the depths.
The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.
Good sentiment, but my critique on this message is that the people who produce this stuff don’t have really have any interest in producing what they do for its own sake. They only have interest in producing content to crowd out the people who actually care, and to produce a worse version of whatever it is in a much faster time than it would for someone with actual talent to do so. And the reason they’re producing anything is for profit. Gunk up the search results with no-effort crap to get ad revenue. It is no different than “SEO.”
Example: if you go onto YouTube right now and try to find any modern 30-60m long video that’s like “chill beats” or “1994 cyberpunk wave” or whatever other bullshit they pump out (once you start finding it you’ll find no shortage of it), you’ll notice that all of those uploaders only began as of about a year ago at most and produce a lot of videos (which youtube will happily prioritize to serve you) of identical sounding “music.” The people producing this don’t care about anything except making money. They’re happy to take stolen or plagiarized work that originated with humans, throw it into the AI slot machine, and produce something which somehow is no longer considered stolen or plagiarized. And the really egregious ones will link you to their Patreons.
The story is the same with art, music, books, code, and anything else that actually requires creativity, intuition, and understanding.
I believe the OP was referring more to consumers of ai in the statement, as opposed to people trying to sell content or whatever, which would be more in line with what you’re saying. I agree with both perspectives and I think the Op i quoted probably would as well. I just thought it was a good description of some of the why ai sucks, but certainly nit all of it.
When technology allows us to do something that we could not before - like cross an ocean or fly through the sky a distance that would previously have taken years and many people dying during the journey, or save lives - then it unquestionably offers a benefit.
But when it simply eases some task, like using a car rather than horse to travel, and requires discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner, then it becomes a source of potential danger that we would allow ourselves to misuse it.
Even agriculture, which allows those to eat who put forth no effort into making the food grow, or even in preparing it for consumption.
This is what CEOs are pushing on us, because for one number must go up, but also genuinely many believe they want what it has to offer, not quite having thought through what it would mean if they got it (or more to the point others did, empathy not being their strongest attribute).
Technology that allows us to do something we could not do before - such as create nuclear explosions, or propel metal slugs at extreme velocities, or design new viruses - unquestionably offer a benefit and don’t require discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner?
We could bomb / kill people before. We could propel arrows / spears / sling rocks at people before. All of which is an extension of walking over and punching someone.
Though sending a nuke from orbit on the other side of the planet by pressing a couple buttons does seem like the extension is so vast that it may qualify as “new”.
I suppose any technology that can be used can be misused.
The people who commission artists have no interest in being an artist; they simply want the product. Are people who commission artists also “slowly committing suicide?”
People who commission art don’t call themselves the artist. That’s the big difference. If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you’re an artist. Then you would be the laughing stock and the butt of many jokes and japes for decades. Because that’s ridiculous.
If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you’re an artist.
It’s not the difference you think it is. Lots of people who use AI art generators don’t call themselves artists either. I certainly don’t, because I don’t care whether I’m called an artist. I just want the art.
I misread you at first so here’s an answer to if someone uses AI art:
Within the jokingly limited sphere of the discussion… “yes”? Particularly their artistic ability in that situation is being put to death slowly as whatever little they might have attempted without access to the tool will now not be attempted at all.
I don’t know as much about if someone were to commission art from an actual person.
Someone on bluesky reposted this image from user @yeetkunedo that I find describes (one aspect of) my disdain for AI.
Text reads: Generative Al is being marketed as a tool designed to reduce or eliminate the need for developed, cognitive skillsets. It uses the work of others to simulate human output, except that it lacks grasp of nuance, contains grievous errors, and ultimately serves the goal of human beings being neurologically weaker due to the promise of the machine being better equipped than the humans using it would ever exert the effort to be. The people that use generative Al for art have no interest in being an artist; they simply want product to consume and forget about when the next piece of product goes by their eyes. The people that use generative Al to make music have no interest in being a musician; they simply want a machine to make them something to listen to until they get bored and want the machine to make some other disposable slop for them to pass the time with.
The people that use generative Al to write things for them have no interest in writing. The people that use generative Al to find factoids have no interest in actual facts. The people that use generative Al to socialize have no interest in actual socialization.
In every case, they’ve handed over the cognitive load of developing a necessary, creative human skillset to a machine that promises to ease the sweat equity cost of struggle. Using generative Al is like asking a machine to lift weights on your behalf and then calling yourself a bodybuilder when it’s done with the reps. You build nothing in terms of muscle, you are not stronger, you are not faster, you are not in better shape. You’re just deluding yourself while experiencing a slow decline due to self-inflicted atrophy.
Damn that hits the nail on the head. Especially that analogy of watching a robot lift weights on your behalf then claiming gains. It’s causing brain atrophy.
I’m quite happy for a forklift driver to stack pallets and then claim they did it.
But that is what CEO’s want. They want to pay for a near super human to do all of the different skill sets ( hiring, firing, finance, entry level engineering, IT tickets, etc) and it looks like it is starting to work. Seems like solid engineering students graduating recently have all been struggling to land decent starting jobs. I’ll grant it’s not as simple as this explanation, but I really think the wealth class are going to be happy riding this flaming ship right down into the depths.
Good sentiment, but my critique on this message is that the people who produce this stuff don’t have really have any interest in producing what they do for its own sake. They only have interest in producing content to crowd out the people who actually care, and to produce a worse version of whatever it is in a much faster time than it would for someone with actual talent to do so. And the reason they’re producing anything is for profit. Gunk up the search results with no-effort crap to get ad revenue. It is no different than “SEO.”
Example: if you go onto YouTube right now and try to find any modern 30-60m long video that’s like “chill beats” or “1994 cyberpunk wave” or whatever other bullshit they pump out (once you start finding it you’ll find no shortage of it), you’ll notice that all of those uploaders only began as of about a year ago at most and produce a lot of videos (which youtube will happily prioritize to serve you) of identical sounding “music.” The people producing this don’t care about anything except making money. They’re happy to take stolen or plagiarized work that originated with humans, throw it into the AI slot machine, and produce something which somehow is no longer considered stolen or plagiarized. And the really egregious ones will link you to their Patreons.
The story is the same with art, music, books, code, and anything else that actually requires creativity, intuition, and understanding.
I believe the OP was referring more to consumers of ai in the statement, as opposed to people trying to sell content or whatever, which would be more in line with what you’re saying. I agree with both perspectives and I think the Op i quoted probably would as well. I just thought it was a good description of some of the why ai sucks, but certainly nit all of it.
Everyone who uses AI is slowly committing suicide, check ✅
Cognitive suicide.
Well, philosophical and epistemological suicide for now, but snowball it for a couple of decades and we may just reach the practical side, too…
Edit: or, hell, maybe not even decades given the increase in energy consumption with every iteration…
When technology allows us to do something that we could not before - like cross an ocean or fly through the sky a distance that would previously have taken years and many people dying during the journey, or save lives - then it unquestionably offers a benefit.
But when it simply eases some task, like using a car rather than horse to travel, and requires discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner, then it becomes a source of potential danger that we would allow ourselves to misuse it.
Even agriculture, which allows those to eat who put forth no effort into making the food grow, or even in preparing it for consumption.
This is what CEOs are pushing on us, because for one number must go up, but also genuinely many believe they want what it has to offer, not quite having thought through what it would mean if they got it (or more to the point others did, empathy not being their strongest attribute).
Technology that allows us to do something we could not do before - such as create nuclear explosions, or propel metal slugs at extreme velocities, or design new viruses - unquestionably offer a benefit and don’t require discipline to integrate into our lives in a balanced manner?
We could bomb / kill people before. We could propel arrows / spears / sling rocks at people before. All of which is an extension of walking over and punching someone.
Though sending a nuke from orbit on the other side of the planet by pressing a couple buttons does seem like the extension is so vast that it may qualify as “new”.
I suppose any technology that can be used can be misused.
The people who commission artists have no interest in being an artist; they simply want the product. Are people who commission artists also “slowly committing suicide?”
People who commission art don’t call themselves the artist. That’s the big difference. If people found out you commissioned the painting that you later told everyone at the party that you painted yourself, and that it is practically your work of art, because you gave the precise description of what you wanted to the painter, and thus you’re an artist. Then you would be the laughing stock and the butt of many jokes and japes for decades. Because that’s ridiculous.
"The best person who ever painted spots for me was Rachel. She’s brilliant – absolutely fucking brilliant,” Damien Hirst said. “The best spot painting you can have by me is one painted by her”.
It’s not the difference you think it is. Lots of people who use AI art generators don’t call themselves artists either. I certainly don’t, because I don’t care whether I’m called an artist. I just want the art.
I think you may be generalizing a stereotype.
Then you arent getting art. Your collecting pretty computer generated images
That’s fine.
But your arent getting art. It’s just not. And yes. Your a stereotype.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzfkErkWDM
I misread you at first so here’s an answer to if someone uses AI art:
Within the jokingly limited sphere of the discussion… “yes”? Particularly their artistic ability in that situation is being put to death slowly as whatever little they might have attempted without access to the tool will now not be attempted at all.
I don’t know as much about if someone were to commission art from an actual person.
the analogies used and the claims made are so dumb, they make me think that this is written by ai 🤣