this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
289 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37705 readers
362 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

As soon as Apple announced its plans to inject generative AI into the iPhone, it was as good as official: The technology is now all but unavoidable. Large language models will soon lurk on most of the world’s smartphones, generating images and text in messaging and email apps. AI has already colonized web search, appearing in Google and Bing. OpenAI, the $80 billion start-up that has partnered with Apple and Microsoft, feels ubiquitous; the auto-generated products of its ChatGPTs and DALL-Es are everywhere. And for a growing number of consumers, that’s a problem.

Rarely has a technology risen—or been forced—into prominence amid such controversy and consumer anxiety. Certainly, some Americans are excited about AI, though a majority said in a recent survey, for instance, that they are concerned AI will increase unemployment; in another, three out of four said they believe it will be abused to interfere with the upcoming presidential election. And many AI products have failed to impress. The launch of Google’s “AI Overview” was a disaster; the search giant’s new bot cheerfully told users to add glue to pizza and that potentially poisonous mushrooms were safe to eat. Meanwhile, OpenAI has been mired in scandal, incensing former employees with a controversial nondisclosure agreement and allegedly ripping off one of the world’s most famous actors for a voice-assistant product. Thus far, much of the resistance to the spread of AI has come from watchdog groups, concerned citizens, and creators worried about their livelihood. Now a consumer backlash to the technology has begun to unfold as well—so much so that a market has sprung up to capitalize on it.


Obligatory "fuck 99.9999% of all AI use-cases, the people who make them, and the techbros that push them."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot@feddit.uk 11 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I've never understood the supposed problem. Either AI is a gimmick, in which case you don't need to worry about it. Or it's real, in which case no one's going to use it to automate art, don't worry.

[–] Kroxx@lemm.ee 22 points 4 months ago

The problem I have is when a gimmick is forced on me

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Or it's both depending on the wide variety of actually unintelligent things labelled as "AI".

[–] uis@lemm.ee 5 points 4 months ago

I remember look-up table being called AI...

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 5 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I'm sure it will be used a lot in the corporate space, and porn. As someone who did b2b illustration, good riddance. I wouldn't wish that kind of shit "art" on anyone.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

The problem is that shit art is what employs a lot of artists. Like, in a post-scarcity society no one needing to spend any of their limited human lifespan producing corporate art would be awesome, but right now that's one of the few reliable ways an artist can actually get paid.

I'm most familiar with photography as I know several professional photographers. It's not like they love shooting weddings and clothing ads, but they do that stuff anyway because the alternative is not using their actual expertise and just being a warm body at a random unrelated job.

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry, but it's over. Just like photography killed miniature portrait painting. Or Photoshop killing off lab editing and airbrush touchup. Corporate art illustration is done and over with. For now, technical illustration is viable but I don't know for how long. It sucks but this is the new reality.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't disagree, just pointing out that it's not "good riddance" for a lot of artists that depend on that to have any job in art.

[–] darkphotonstudio@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, that really sucks about the jobs. But that kind of work is soul sucking. Maybe some people like it, but I didn't.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 2 points 4 months ago

All of my artist friends also found it soul sucking, they just needed to make (real) money. Friends of friends with the occasional $20 to spare for a commission just don't pay the bills. I think the only artist friends I have that make a living off their chosen medium and don't hate their job are lifestyle photojournalists.

[–] B0rax@feddit.de 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It is already used in porn. I have heard that there is at least one quite active Lemmy community about it.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 4 months ago

SWIM can tell you there is more than one...