101
Thoughts on preemptively banning Gen-AI? (ttrpg.network)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/rpg@ttrpg.network
locked 39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I've been reading about the user revolt on the Twin Peaks subreddit calling for a ban on AI art. As best I can tell we don't really have people posting AI stuff here yet, but I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to ban it before it becomes a problem. I'm soliciting feedback from y'all on this, please let me know what you prefer.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] -4 points 1 year ago (7 children)

AI is just a tool. if some have a philosophical or moral problem with it then they can abstain.

AI not going away, and its use will only increase. so I'm the long term it will either have to be allowed, or this sub will fade into obsolescence.

I see no value in banning it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [+] 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    if it drowns out everything else, it means that it's being upvoted. if it's being upvoted, then it means the community likes it. I see no issue with a preponderance of content coming from a single tool when the community is ultimately capable of moderating it just like any other content. why should I not be allowed to upvote something that I like because it came from AI, just because other people have a moral objection to it? I respect their right to object, but I don't think they should be able to force those values onto me. if that is their goal, then they need to articulate an issue and be persuasive, not make rules in communities in which I'm a participant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    > if it’s being uploaded, then it means the community likes it

    That really isn't how the Internet works at all. Someone uploading something just means that that person likes it. It's not like they're uploading based on the collective psychic demands of the rest of the community.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    "AI is just a tool" is not how anyone uses AI. They treat AI like a free employee who will do the work for them. Note how people don't say it replaces a paintbrush, but that it replaces a commissioned artist.

    "AI is not going away" is just a lie, making it seem inevitable so you stop fighting it. Just like how bitcoin is going to revolutionise currency, and now NFTs are the future.

    I see complete justification in banning the garbage output from the world-burning nazi-built plagiarism machine.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    'People say it's a tool, but they use it for the thing it does!' ... what?

    How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

    Most things that could be commissioned - aren't. The money is never spent. The money isn't real. No one is robbed when a robot does the thing instead, because what it's instead of, is the thing not happening.

    You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it's a flash in the pan. The tech works. You can run it on your own computer, to-day. It plainly serves a desirable purpose. That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting 'people doubted the internet.'

    Any visions of this blowing over should've vanished when it became a porn faucet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    How is that confusing to you? A hammer is a tool, and a hammer does not replace a carpenter. Tools do not replace creatives. Logically following, since AI is used to replace creatives, AI is not used like a tool.

    How else could you use generative AI, except to generate a thing for you?

    You seem to think this is a point in gen AI's favour.

    You cannot kvetch about this replacing all artists forever and still insist it’s a flash in the pan.

    You're right. Which is why I didn't say forever. People are using it to replace artists, and it's going to die off soon. Those are not contradictory.

    It plainly serves a desirable purpose.

    False. Making art is desirable. Having art is only desirable if you like the art, and AI images make me nauseous (not hyperbole). Nausea is not desirable. If you think having is better than making, you aren't a creative.

    That alone makes comparisons to NFTs as spurious as those dolts insisting ‘people doubted the internet.’

    People did doubt the internet. We have articles. But people also massively over-hyped the internet, leading to the dot com bubble. I think comparing a tech bubble to a tech bubble is a fair comparison, especially since it's the same people peddling a new brand of snake oil.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)