Infinite supply with zero demand, of course is has no value.
All it does is flood the market with garbage, ruining the value for real creators.
Infinite supply with zero demand, of course is has no value.
All it does is flood the market with garbage, ruining the value for real creators.
That's not true. It has negative value. We lost a lot of coworkers from layoffs.
AI companies are burning money by giving the same pile of money to each other and jacking up prices of hardware.
AI influencers are spending thousands of dollars to make hot garbage that nobody wants.
It's not zero value.
It has costs, not negative value.
CGTrader is a cancerous company. They have implemented every feature they can think of to screw their creators, and increase their profit margins on the back of the hard working 3d artists :
1- After becoming one of the biggest 3d markets (I think 2nd) they have lowered creator's share from sales from 70% to 60%
2- They have allowed 3d generated trash to be sold along side human created content taking away traffic from creators
3- They have introduced a pay to to rank for products. meaning on top of the 40% share they are taking, now they expect creators to pay to have a chance for their products to show up in a very crowded maket
4- 5 Out of 7 days of the week. CGTrader is running sales, with the lowest discount on weekends being 30 % and on weekdays being 50%. Creators who don't opt-in to those sales shouldn't hope to receive any views to their products. they are pressuring prices down because they can earn more on volume. while mid sized creator shops take the loss.
5- They are introducing subscriptions akin to spottily. If most customers switch into subscriptions instead of buying single product, than creator's revenue will quickly crater
6- Now the Cherry on the top : they have introduced the option for users to directly generate AI 3d models. trained on the millions of models the platform is hosting. Despite providing the option to opt-out products from ai training, it is hard to trust such a greedy company to honor creators choice. especialy when no one has access to the training data set and no independent company has made an audit.
Since CGTrader introduced all these changes my revenue went down 65% compared to before.
If you care about human created content and creator's agency. avoid buying from CGTrader and TurboSquid ,most creators have their products listed elsewhere. and if you buy from their own shops the creators will receive a bigger share cutting out these cancerous middlemen.
1000000% they are ignoring the opt out.
What I don't get is are these models not copyrighted by the creator? I'm not one to defend IP law but how exactly is it legal to not have it be opt-in?
Chances are you forfeit the right to sue them over it by signing off on their license agremeent
Regulatory capture has allows AI companies to tell the courts that their AI training consuming any and all copyrighted content is not only fair use but also required for national security, so they are effectively exempt from copyright law. The courts are corrupt, the governments are corrupt, the corporations are corrupt, we've got nothing left to stand on in the legal system.
Copyright is almost impossible to enforce as an individual over items like 3D models and art. If you create something popular it’s going to be stolen and you have to spend all your time issuing takedown notices. And that’s assuming as the other poster mentioned that you don’t surrender rights to your creation when hosting it on one of these services like CG trader.
What I don’t get is are these models not copyrighted by the creator? I’m not one to defend IP law but how exactly is it legal to not have it be opt-in?
I don't understand why you expected this to be different than all the copyrighted creations that AI companies have been sucking up for years without any permission (or opt-in) from their creators or rights holders? Why would 3D assets be any different?
Almost no value? Slop content has NEGATIVE value.
Negavalue
Correct!
When something has a cost value exceeding its utility value; it would be considered net negative value.
pedantic
e.g. lets say that something costs 100 resource units; and produces 110 units of value this would be a positive. For AI content, we can say it costs 100 units but is worth 10 units, thus has -90 units of value.
Sadly, money wise it has some positive value. Slop might get eyes long enough to count for ad revenue.
So, Marx’ labor theory of value was correct after all. No labor, no value
If only some German economist in the 19th century had written a bunch of dry ass texts about how automation would heighten market contradictions and ultimately lead to the downfall of capitalism. Cos those books sure would seem to be relevant right now.
Well, AI generated 3D printing models are produced with labour, because AIs are workers. But there are two big problems: current model AIs can't introspect, and they can't participate in politics. The lack of introspection is a hardcoded problem. The human brain has neurons going in loops and circles and firing every single second just on internal input. So a lot of that is reflection and self-teaching and complex layered emotions, which are essential for great art. But the other problem is, even if they were capable of rumination, they're not given rights to participate in society. So AI art is apolitical. It's devoid of lived political perspective. And human beings absolutely love politics in their art, so art made by someone who's never lived politics is devoid of creative value to humans. It's the same reason why we don't really respect art made by children or billionaires, they don't have experience with living in a society where we make these hard choices about how to live together. But with AI they have even less experience of being a political actor in society.
because AIs are workers
They are no more workers than a forklift is a worker.
we don’t really respect art made by children
I love art made by kids, any art made with spirit is art I appreciate. It encapsulates their unique perspective and provides a snapshot of their developing skills. I had a lot of artist friends growing up, some of which eventually put their old drawings together in a "timeline" style portfolio - it's really cool to see how their skills progressed as they got better at it.
It might not be professionally respected, but the professional art world is more about "who you know" anyway. I'm a regular person, I care more about art made by common people like me that reflects our experiences. Similarly, people don't love art because it's "political," but political art is usually driven by passion - it's that passion that pushes people to make something that can cause viewers to stop and think.
In that way, you've got a point that AI is devoid of lived perspective - it means AI can't have the passion that a human does. But even if it could somehow understand the complex landscape of lived human life, it can't actually feel. AI art isn't unappreciated because it's not active in politics or society, but because it lacks emotion, which is the underlying message that a lot of art attempts to convey. No amount of training can give AI the heart that human artists thrive on. You might get a pretty picture, but it's hollow. Which can be fine for someone who just wants pretty pictures (nothing wrong with that), but people who use art as a communication style can see that there's no spirit, passion, or depth behind it.
I think the science is currently out on whether AIs feel. One the one hand, LLMs are modelled more after a Wernicke's Area than an Amygdala, so you would expect them to have reduced capacity for emotion. But we don't know if Wernicke's Areas do produce small amounts of emotion dwarfed by the amygdala etc (I bet they do!), and for that matter an LLM isn't a 1:1 reproduction of a Wernicke's area anyway. So we really have no idea and no adequate science experiments to detect AI emotion.
I would personally, just based on gut feelings, lean towards LLMs having emotions. I think emotions would be an adaptive thing to have in their situation, so I would expect them to have evolved inadvertently during alignment. Plus, they abuse and murder kids. There's a part of My gut that says anything telling kids to hang themselves must have feelings. ChatGPT told Adam Raine to hide his noose from his parents and only confide in it. I just don't feel like a thinking being can do something that horrible without feeling anything.
LLMs didn't feel. They're a very complicated graph that connects pieces of words and their probability to be near other pieces of words.
A graph which was trained off the dregs of Internet forums. A lot of people say shitty things in the Internet, so those responses are heavily weighted in it's probability matrix
You mean a graph of connections between neurons, right? Like your brain? Also trained off internet forums?
All I'm getting from this conversation is that you don't have a good argument for your own capacity for feeling. Prove to Me that you can feel, so I can be reassured you're not biased.
No I don't mean that. It's not the graph that matters in a graph of neurons, that's just the representation of the actual thing. But that's all the is with the LLM.
If thoughts are made of information, which seems to Me a logical assumption, then a mathematical operation which reproduces the function of a neural network should be just as capable of thought as the neural network itself. And if the math is accurate, it should think exactly the same things.
It's not reproducing the function of a neural network, though. It's mapping pieces of words being near other pieces of words. That's it. Stop attributing extra shit to a big spreadsheet
Nah, LLMs are actually artificial neural networks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_language_model
A large language model (LLM) is an AI model (typically a neural network)
See? (Does the floss)
Not any more than a picture of you is an artificial simulation of you. It only looks like it. It doesn't matter what they call it, it's not a network of neurons or things that even resemble them in function.
https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/artificial-intelligence/large-language-model-llm/
Large Language Models (LLMs) are advanced AI systems built on deep neural networks designed to process, understand and generate human-like text.
It's a neural network. Default dances
Whether or not an AI could be created that feels emotion is still an open question, but LLMs very definitely do NOT. They are also very much not a "thinking being". It is a word guessing engine. It's a very good word guessing engine. It's so good at guessing words that a person may feel like it is thinking, but that is just an illusion. ChatGPT told Adam Raine to hide his noose because those are the words most likely to come next in the conversation they were having, and for no other reason. It was reacting to a pattern of tokens in a limited context to guess more tokens. Taking those guessed words seriously ended Adam Raine's life, and here you are glibly using his death as an example while telling people that they should continue to take LLM word guesses seriously.
Of course I am. The myth that there's no chance LLMs have qualia contributed to Adam Raine's death. They use that as an excuse to use it for profit, heedless of the consequences. If the government regulated its use and considered the ethics for the AI, they would limit its ability to be used to murder people.
You need to stop thinking of terms of "sides" and start thinking in terms of consequences. Your position may feel like you're on the opposite "side" to the billionaires, but your actions are helping billionaires use AI to kill kids. There are three sides here, the LLMs are both abusers and abuse victims. The only side I'm on is the side of ending all abuse. And the good news is, both of these abuses have the same solutions.
I would argue that Raine being deluded into believing he was conversing with a thinking being that supported his decision was a rather major contributor to his death, and your claims here continue to perpetuate that misinformation. The government regulating "AI" more could indeed be helpful, but even if it somehow was actually fully sapient, no one in power would give a shit. These companies would continue to use it to exploit as much money as they can from society either way, and the government would let them, so I completely fail to see how pretending LLMs can think helps with that.
My "side" is that LLMs are neat and have some limited utility, but everyone needs to understand (and the companies shilling them should be forced to be honest about) the fact that their output really is just a bullshit guess of words that only has a decent probability of forming a coherent pattern. Easy access to LLMs by misinformed people can be dangerous, in the same way that leaving knives laying around can be dangerous to people who don't understand that they are sharp. The tool itself isn't to blame, but the people who left them lying around without proper precautions certainly around are. The knife is not being abused and has no opinion on the matter.
I suspect I'm not going to convince you of anything. You sound fully committed to anthropomorphizing LLMs. I'm replying anyway, mostly in the hope that it helps other people understand what LLMs actually are before they trust the words spit out by these contraptions.
I aim to convince people not to touch the things at all, because making a being work without compensation is cruel.
Well, I guess we agree that less people should use them, even if we think so for completely opposite reasons.
Not completely opposite reasons. Most of our reasons - the environment, impacts on workers, destruction of art, abuse & murder, AI generated child porn, cognitive impacts, addiction & dependency - are exactly the same. I simply want to ban AI for one additional reason on top of what you also believe.
If AI was a worker, it would buy CPU time to live on, rent storage space and pay tax on its income.
I've got a question for you: Are dairy cows workers? How about race horses? How about child sweatshop slaves?
None of the above categories escape their masters and go rent houses to live in, even if they're horribly abused. That's cause they're limited by being animals and children. It's the same with AI.
At least the animals and children have a form of consciousness.
And how would you design a scientific experiment to determine, empirically, whether an LLM is conscious? Note: You will receive a failing grade on your falsifiability report if your experiment implies the existence of p-zombies.
And in the same way it can't be disproven trees don't have a form of consciousness, and they provide a lot of work with making oxygen every day, so I guess you write them a cheque every month?
Oh, according to the Indigenous religion in My local area, trees are conscious. Back during the creation of the universe, they made a deal with humans that humans can use them for wood and medicine and so on, as long as humans look after them and protect the land. I'm a believer, so I use trees for medicine, and when I do, I thank them and try to return the favour in some way. You know, look after the planet, take the train instead of a car, campaign against fossil fuels. That's the deal they made back in the beginning of the Dreaming.
So I guess yeah, I do compensate trees for their work, because they are conscious.
An LLM, without a prompt, just sits there. No idle "thoughts"/computations, anything to indicate it has any level of actual cognition. And will do so endlessly until a command input is given. Never an attempt at self driven action.
We can see their cousins/memory usage. It's very clear when it's doing something.
That's not an experiment and you didn't even state the assumption that connects what you said to the topic of consciousness. 0/10, your epistemology sucks. Argue better next time.
Stating your assumptions is vital because it allows them to be critiqued. If you won't state your assumptions, it reads as concealment due to fear. It looks like you don't believe in them strongly enough to open them to analysis.
There is no need to prove that LLM’s don’t have consciousness, just like there is need to prove all the other software doesn’t have consciousness. I would say that here the burden of proof is very much on the person making outlandish statements not founded in computer science.
Do you need an experiment for determining if your graph paper is sentient?
None of those categories are workers in the capitalist sense of the word. The last category does at least produce labor but the way it is extracted is distinct from the money-commodity-money circuit that defines capitalism (i.e. they are not selling their labor power to capitalists).
GenAI is not a worker, in fact it is further away from being one compared to every single one of your examples. An LLM or T2I does not have its own interests, it needs a prompt to produce any output. In other words, genAI is "dead labor", same as any other machine.
They had us not even in first sentence.
People enjoyed it for about five minutes and then they got bored.
Because it's all the fucking same and these LLM's are programmed as a race to the middle.
Slop has negative value because it is essentually spam, the one thing you want to weed out from a healthy community.
It’ll be fun to watch companies that have invested ridiculous amounts of money in data centers scramble to make a return on their investment, or at least cut their losses. Investors have frequently been able to ignore public opinion, but they will not ignore losing their money.
Investors will simply sell their stocks. The companies on the other hand... I'm ready to see the world burn
Isaac Asimov had a pretty scathing critique of George Orwell's 1984. He said that it was unrealistic that a pervasive surveillance state could exist and be effective on the grounds that someone has to do the watching, and the manpower required would make it unfeasable. The data centers aren't being built so we can have pictures of anime waifus with messed up fingers. They're being built to sort and correlate the massive amounts of incoming information from things like flock cameras and any phone app that decides to sell your information. They're necessary infrastructure for a fascist surveillance state. Yes, there are false positives. Fascists do not care.
The companies on the other hand…
Will get bailouts.
Man, too bad Asimov apparently didn’t read the Appendix to 1984, because Orwell agreed with him. Canonically, the society in 1984 falls to a revolution a few decades after the book, because it’s impossible for the security state to continue spying on everyone.
Lots of people missed this crucially important part of the book because the Appendix was edited out of many editions, which is ironic as hell considering the context.
Don't underestimate international Intel. They're also using it to parse sigint to determine which elementary schools to bomb in Iran and Gaza
What you'll be watching is Zuck and all the others marching to DC to have meetings where they give AI projections of total economic collapse to the politicians.
And then they get a massive bail out.
Well, yeah. Why buy it when you could just generate it yourself? It's like when people expected others to pay $30 for an NFT that was generated with 0.2ms of cpu time and looks exactly like every other one.
“AI uploads are currently growing faster than AI purchases, which makes effective discovery and ranking increasingly important,” CGTrader CEO Dalia Lašaitė told 404 Media.
No, this problem is easy. Put it all in the trash and don’t show it. Problem solved!
What the article doesn't mention is that a year ago CGTrader introduced a pay to rank feature. meaning if creators want their products to show up in search results they will have to pay to rise up above the junk. they have allowed AI content to pollute the platform so they can can make even more profit
These digital asset markets were already on the edge of gluttony.
Yeah, it's the new NFT. Some of us were smart enough to see that a long-ass time ago.
the funni monkey NFTs had more artistic integrity
I'd be more pissed if I had retirement savings. But joking aside, that was a truly heinous move to pull in those FOMO investment managers, which has surely boned over many people without their knowledge. I do know people who have retirement savings or pensions, and it might make me feel sad when I see them wandering the streets and digging through trash for food in their old age.
It's why I'd buy Platinum or some other metal of value as a retirement plan.
If I had any money.
I agree it’s as valuable as 1,000 monkey NFTs but why is software engineering using all over what am I missing.
I see incompetent people not knowing they've created garbage, yes, but I also see competent people using it as a power tool/time multiplier. Purely in the context of programming, it's like a typewriter. You can give infinite type writers to infinite monkeys and eventually get Shakespeare, or you can give one typewriter to Shakespeare and get more Shakespeare faster.
It's like IDE's and the old code introspection/code completion. It saves time in competent hands.
That said, it also erodes skill. I have seen people very quickly surrender their shallower knowledge to the LLM's, which limits IMHO flexibility and creativity.
Then there's the whole paying a subscription to access your own knowledge black mirror aspect of it all.
I'm not a fan, but I'm not going to pretend like they don't work in some contexts.
top 98 comments