El D Posted yesterday at 04:44 PM Posted yesterday at 04:44 PM Gotta say, it's really funny for a proponent of generative AI to demand that anyone else provide exact details, data, or sources for anything. Though, reading that post again... off-hand dismissal, demands for additional sources, shifting of goal posts, diatribes via personal opinion, ignoring legitimate criticisms... You sly dog, you asked chatgpt to write a superhero movie thread post didn't you? 1 1 Global is @El D, Everlasting Player, Recovering Altaholic.
battlewraith Posted yesterday at 04:51 PM Posted yesterday at 04:51 PM 18 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Right because the false equivalence of AI generated art and nuclear weapons are totally the same thing... 🙄 Humanity is still here even with nuclear weapons by the way. The equivalence wasn't between nuclear weapons and AI generated art--it was AI in general. Guess you missed that despite the examples I raised. And yes, humanity is still here even with nuclear weapons. Except the descendants of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the people killed in wars related to or affected by the issue of nuclear weaponry. And the nuclear scientist who are yeeted every year because they are involved in a program developing such weapons. Stuff like that. 30 minutes ago, ZacKing said: I'm guessing you don't believe there's anything good that will come from the development AI? Things like vast improvements in medical research into curing disease, improvements to clean energy, resource conservation, understanding of physics and the universe ... none of that is any good I suppose. Nope, that stuff is great. Rhetorically you've deployed the "it's just a tool argument." Okay so the point is that the tool is very bad under certain circumstances. We should do something to avoid those circumstances. The argument that this has always been a complaint about technology is true but it fails to acknowledge a couple things. First of all, technology has effectively destroyed a lot of human endeavors. Photography largely ended artists paining portraits for a vocation. Film destroyed live theater as a source of entertainment for most people. Etc. It's disingenuous to say that, since these things still persist in niche circumstances that the complaints about AI are shallow or ignorant of history. Secondly, automation in the past has been about replacing human physical labor. AI is about replacing aspects of human intelligence. As these two branches of technology continue to advance--what exactly is the need going to be for actual human beings? Is there going to be a technological wonderland where all human needs are provided for? Or are the people in control of the tech going to make bank while the have-nots struggle to find a way to scrape by? I'm guessing the latter. 54 minutes ago, ZacKing said: How is this any different than before? An artist posting their work online had to contend with others stealing their work and claiming it as their own or directly copying it. Artist's that had work stolen have legal recourse to deal with it. And the general public is against that sort of theft and will generally help artists. With AI, a lot of people don't understand the nature of the theft and have no grasp of the consequences for the people affected. The people that do support the artists though are firm in their resolve and are taking a stand for creatives. Praise be on them. If someone copies your work, they first of all have to have the skill to do so. That immediately restricts it, unlike AI where anyone can generate thousands of knock offs a day without being able to draw a straight line. If people have the ability to copy, generally they will find their own voice rather than cosplay as some other artist. Copying is also an important part of how humans learn. AI doesn't have the capacity to learn anything from emulating people's art. 2
ZacKing Posted yesterday at 05:13 PM Posted yesterday at 05:13 PM 10 minutes ago, El D said: Gotta say, it's really funny for a proponent of generative AI to demand that anyone else provide exact details, data, or sources for anything. Gotta say, it's totally hilarious for an opponent of generative AI to make claims about detrimental and destructive impacts to the game population and community, yet won't provide any actual measurable evidence to support that claim. 11 minutes ago, El D said: Though, reading that post again... off-hand dismissal, demands for additional sources, shifting of goal posts, diatribes via personal opinion, ignoring legitimate criticisms... Though, reading your posts again ... off-hand dismissals, refusal to provide any additional data sources outside of hyberole and conjecture, shifting of goalposts, diatribes via personal opinions, ignoring legitimate counter arguments... maybe you should use ChatGPT. It could help you with your posts. 6 minutes ago, battlewraith said: The equivalence wasn't between nuclear weapons and AI generated art--it was AI in general. Guess you missed that despite the examples I raised. And yes, humanity is still here even with nuclear weapons. Except the descendants of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the people killed in wars related to or affected by the issue of nuclear weaponry. And the nuclear scientist who are yeeted every year because they are involved in a program developing such weapons. Stuff like that. How far back would you like to take this? What about the descendants of the people who were killed by rocks and sticks when humans first started crafting weapons? 7 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Nope, that stuff is great. Rhetorically you've deployed the "it's just a tool argument." Okay so the point is that the tool is very bad under certain circumstances. We should do something to avoid those circumstances. Well no, you tried to draw the equivalence between a weapon of mass destruction and AI generated art. One is meant to kill people en masse. The other isn't. I agree, we should do something about weapons of mass destruction. AI generated art? Not so much. 9 minutes ago, battlewraith said: The argument that this has always been a complaint about technology is true but it fails to acknowledge a couple things. First of all, technology has effectively destroyed a lot of human endeavors. Photography largely ended artists paining portraits for a vocation. Film destroyed live theater as a source of entertainment for most people. Etc. It's disingenuous to say that, since these things still persist in niche circumstances that the complaints about AI are shallow or ignorant of history. That's the nature of human progress. Some things are destroyed and others are created. That's not going to change. This also seems to proceed from the very false assumption that people who may have lost a job due to automation or technology were unable to find another job. What about when those technologies that replaced a human being helped make things better/cheaper/more effective for the general public? 10 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Secondly, automation in the past has been about replacing human physical labor. AI is about replacing aspects of human intelligence. As these two branches of technology continue to advance--what exactly is the need going to be for actual human beings? Is there going to be a technological wonderland where all human needs are provided for? Or are the people in control of the tech going to make bank while the have-nots struggle to find a way to scrape by? I'm guessing the latter. I don't have such a negative view of it. If AI can be used to help improve lives and better educate people so they don't have to work in physical labor jobs in favor of better paying jobs, that's a good thing. I don't know what the future holds. Nobody does. 11 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Artist's that had work stolen have legal recourse to deal with it. They still have legal recourse even in the age of AI generated art. 12 minutes ago, battlewraith said: If someone copies your work, they first of all have to have the skill to do so. That doesn't make it right. 20 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Copying is also an important part of how humans learn. AI doesn't have the capacity to learn anything from emulating people's art. I think it can be argued that AI is the new pen and paper or paint or clay. It's just a different tool.
battlewraith Posted yesterday at 06:03 PM Posted yesterday at 06:03 PM 19 minutes ago, ZacKing said: How far back would you like to take this? How far forward would you like to take it? We could develop the technology to blow up the sun, engineer a virus to instantly kill off unprotected populations, etc. And you're just going to shrug and say it's all good as long as there are still some people left alive? Lol. 25 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Well no, you tried to draw the equivalence between a weapon of mass destruction and AI generated art. No I didn't. Go back and read it. It was about AI in general. You also glossed over everything about power consumption and climate change. 28 minutes ago, ZacKing said: That's the nature of human progress. Yeah it's very common for AI advocates to write things off as human progress because it relieves them of any kind of ethical responsibility. And if it fucks up human society it will all have been in the name of progress (ie not them). Artists, writers, and musicians will maybe just try to hack it as plumbers, electricians, etc. so that the general public can have an unending stream of AI slop that was based on the work of previous artists, writers, etc. 46 minutes ago, ZacKing said: I think it can be argued that AI is the new pen and paper or paint or clay. It's just a different tool. I think you're right. It can be argued that is the case. And it's a jaw-droppingly stupid argument. Generally speaking, it's as true as someone going up to a vending machine, punching a few buttons, and when it spits out a sandwich declaring that they are a chef. 2
ZacKing Posted yesterday at 06:13 PM Posted yesterday at 06:13 PM 25 minutes ago, tidge said: You used AI you evil AI proponent you! 🤣
ZacKing Posted yesterday at 06:30 PM Posted yesterday at 06:30 PM 9 minutes ago, battlewraith said: How far forward would you like to take it? We could develop the technology to blow up the sun, engineer a virus to instantly kill off unprotected populations, etc. And you're just going to shrug and say it's all good as long as there are still some people left alive? Lol. None of those things are real. The weapons you attempted to compare with AI generative art are real. 10 minutes ago, battlewraith said: No I didn't. Go back and read it. It was about AI in general. You also glossed over everything about power consumption and climate change. I did read it and yes, you did. This may come as a shock to you, but AI is also being implemented to improve the efficiency of existing power generation along with research into renewables and sustainable energy. It's also being used in medical research for cures for alzheimers, cancer and other diseases. Should those kinds of things get shelved to save an artists job? 12 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Yeah it's very common for AI advocates to write things off as human progress because it relieves them of any kind of ethical responsibility. And if it fucks up human society it will all have been in the name of progress (ie not them). Artists, writers, and musicians will maybe just try to hack it as plumbers, electricians, etc. so that the general public can have an unending stream of AI slop that was based on the work of previous artists, writers, etc. It's more common for opponents to change and progress to try and argue ethics and try to paint (forgive the pun) a picture that technology and progress are bad things. You're treating it like it's a zero sum equation. It's not. For every industry and job that disappeared due to technological improvements or progress, new industries and jobs were created. In many cases, much better paying jobs. Your analogy between nuclear weapons and AI generative art wasn't good. The photographer replacing the painter is a better analogy. Sure, the painter lost a job. However, the photography paper makers found jobs, the craftsman who manufactured lenses, camera parts and such found jobs. The people who made camera stands, lighting, photography studios, the photographers themselves all had jobs because of that progress. You are accessing the internet to visit a website to make a post using technology brought about by progress and innovation. You're playing a video game brought about by progress and innovation. Why aren't you advocating for the game to be shut down because the computer technology used to deliver it to you replaced someone's job? You also seem to have a very negative view of artistic people being incapable of doing anything else besides art. And I don't know where you live, but the garbage collectors, plumbers and electricians around here make piles of money. It's not like those are bad professions. Artists aren't stupid and I'm sure have many other skills which they can use to make a good living. 24 minutes ago, battlewraith said: I think you're right. It can be argued that is the case. And it's a jaw-droppingly stupid argument. I disagree. 25 minutes ago, battlewraith said: Generally speaking, it's as true as someone going up to a vending machine, punching a few buttons, and when it spits out a sandwich declaring that they are a chef. That's not really a good analogy either. AI generative art is still requiring human input and prompting to generate an image.
battlewraith Posted 23 hours ago Posted 23 hours ago 12 minutes ago, ZacKing said: I did read it and yes, you did. This may come as a shock to you, but AI is also being implemented to improve the efficiency of existing power generation along with research into renewables and sustainable energy. It's also being used in medical research for cures for alzheimers, cancer and other diseases. Should those kinds of things get shelved to save an artists job? https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-index-state-ai-13-charts The overwhelming investment in AI technologies is in the corporate sector, not academia. The investment seems aimed at streamlining business rather than developing new products. And although it isn't spelled out in this article--there seems to be emphasis on generative AI (ie replacing artists) than the thing's you mentioned. 25 minutes ago, ZacKing said: You are accessing the internet to visit a website to make a post using technology brought about by progress and innovation. You're playing a video game brought about by progress and innovation. Why aren't you advocating for the game to be shut down because the computer technology used to deliver it to you replaced someone's job? Because human beings made it? As opposed to an automated process that vastly increases that negative consequences for human beings over previous technological change. 48 minutes ago, ZacKing said: You also seem to have a very negative view of artistic people being incapable of doing anything else besides art. And I don't know where you live, but the garbage collectors, plumbers and electricians around here make piles of money. It's not like those are bad professions. Artists aren't stupid and I'm sure have many other skills which they can use to make a good living. Your profound disconnect here is that you simply view art as a vocation as another paycheck, rather than something that creatives do as part of there psychological makeup. So rather than limit AI, we should shuffle artists, musicians, writers, etc. into garbage collection, trades, etc., which sounds like a great plan to have a healthy society. Then you have these vocations suddenly deluged by people who were replaced with AI, so the availability of positions, assuming there were that many to begin with, goes away and the wages drop because there are so many people desperate to get in. Artists have skills--related to creating art. So if you lose your job doing conceptart, you might try to land something in graphic design. Except that all of these things are likely to be impacted by AI, so every domain in which an artist has competency might go away. And it's not just artists that are this predicament. 1 hour ago, ZacKing said: AI generative art is still requiring human input and prompting to generate an image. Well, the machine required me to put in a quarter and then hit some buttons. Generative AI is, I guess, very different. "imagine/ a cat riding a motorcycle, in the style of Jack Kirby" phew.....damn that was intense. Really...took a lot out of me. 1
LightMaster Posted 22 hours ago Posted 22 hours ago While the two sides has good arguments, one keep moving goal posts for opposing arguments while another comes off as constantly naysaying despite that the negatives are very real. If you assumed bad faith and resorted to sarcasm and namecallings instead of providing actual strong points, I do not think those who haven’t picked any side and only listening are getting much less endeared to join either side of the argument. I argue the real issue is the misuse of AI by corporates and common people by investing the more mundane or even unhelpful aspects of it, and using the word as an incessant buzzword without getting people to know what kind of AI is even about, as well as overexposure and overly pushy promotion of Generative AI.
ZacKing Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-index-state-ai-13-charts The overwhelming investment in AI technologies is in the corporate sector, not academia. The investment seems aimed at streamlining business rather than developing new products. And although it isn't spelled out in this article--there seems to be emphasis on generative AI (ie replacing artists) than the thing's you mentioned. That's one article. I can do quick Google searches too. Here is just one article on how AI is being used to help radiologists detect cancerous tissue more quickly and accurately that will, you know, save real lives. https://www.breastcancer.org/screening-testing/artificial-intelligence. Should we stop investing in AI and let people die of cancer to save your artist? Google also shows a whole lot of information about how AI is being used for good things like smart grids, renewable energy forecasting, improving energy efficiency, precision agriculture and resource optimization, food waste reduction, vertical farming - all of which is related to combating climate change ... the list of positives for all of society can go on and on. Again, AI is a tool like other tools and technology before it. It can be transformative and a positive thing for everyone. 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Because human beings made it? As opposed to an automated process that vastly increases that negative consequences for human beings over previous technological change. Human beings invented the light bulb too. That put candle makers out of business. You mentioned photography earlier. The invention of the camera took away jobs from portrait painters. AI isn't doing things all by itself. Human beings are developing and implementing it. What exactly is your suggestion? Get rid of AI to save the artists? Ok, then why not get rid of light bulbs so candle makers can get their jobs back? Get rid of indoor plumbing so chamber pot collectors can get their jobs back. Get rid of every innovation and technological advancement so the people who were displaced because of it can go back to what they were doing. What industries or vocations should be off limits for AI? If its just artists, how is that fair to other industries? Or that's not important? 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Your profound disconnect here is that you simply view art as a vocation as another paycheck, rather than something that creatives do as part of there psychological makeup. I'm not the disconnected one. AI is in no way, shape or form going to prevent anyone from picking up a paintbrush or creatively writing or sculpting or whatever their creative medium is. Those artists will still be able to do all of those things that they enjoy doing. 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Then you have these vocations suddenly deluged by people who were replaced with AI, so the availability of positions, assuming there were that many to begin with, goes away and the wages drop because there are so many people desperate to get in. This isn't true either. History bears this out. You're neglecting the reality that while some jobs may go away, others will be created. People left low paying farming work for industrial jobs that paid better. Those factories grew and more jobs were created. You're ignoring your own example earlier of the painter being replaced by the photographer. I spelled out for you all of the different jobs and industries that came about because of the invention of photography. 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Artists have skills--related to creating art. So if you lose your job doing conceptart, you might try to land something in graphic design. Except that all of these things are likely to be impacted by AI, so every domain in which an artist has competency might go away. And it's not just artists that are this predicament. Most people have more than one skill and most people can learn to do new things. I don't know of a single person who is working the same job forever from graduation to retirement. 3 hours ago, battlewraith said: Well, the machine required me to put in a quarter and then hit some buttons. Generative AI is, I guess, very different. "imagine/ a cat riding a motorcycle, in the style of Jack Kirby" phew.....damn that was intense. Really...took a lot out of me. A human being was still involved in the initial input and further refinement of the work. The machine didn't make it without any human input. 1
ZacKing Posted 20 hours ago Posted 20 hours ago 2 hours ago, LightMaster said: While the two sides has good arguments, one keep moving goal posts for opposing arguments while another comes off as constantly naysaying despite that the negatives are very real. If this is directed at me, then let me say I don't disagree that AI, like any other tool or invention or technological advancement, can be either good or bad. Using caution is a good thing. I don't believe we should hold back on developing AI because it may replace some jobs or industries. If we did that, there would never be progress. 2 hours ago, LightMaster said: I argue the real issue is the misuse of AI by corporates and common people by investing the more mundane or even unhelpful aspects of it, and using the word as an incessant buzzword without getting people to know what kind of AI is even about, as well as overexposure and overly pushy promotion of Generative AI. I agree that corporate control of AI isn't necessarily the best thing. That said, who gets to define what is or isn't a "helpful aspect" of AI? Seems like some want to say that AI taking the place of human artists is a bad thing and isn't helpful. Well, if AI helped someone who can't draw be creative and create their own artwork by using AI, that's not a bad thing, at least to me.
battlewraith Posted 19 hours ago Posted 19 hours ago 4 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Should we stop investing in AI and let people die of cancer to save your artist? Of course not. But maybe we should stop subsidizing automated processes that are trained on human art (without the consent of artists) to generate revenue for large tech companies. 9 minutes ago, ZacKing said: What industries or vocations should be off limits for AI? If its just artists, how is that fair to other industries? Or that's not important? It's not just artists. I've said that. Imagine you're working your factory job and the manager comes in and informs you that they want you to train a robot that will replace you. Stuff like that is happening. But I guess, based on your comments, the manager could just say "hey it's technological progress. Think of all the people that lost their job because of the light bulb." And the workers would be like "dang man, you got me" and they'd go train the automatons that would make them irrelevant. 18 minutes ago, ZacKing said: I'm not the disconnected one. AI is in no way, shape or form going to prevent anyone from picking up a paintbrush or creatively writing or sculpting or whatever their creative medium is. Those artists will still be able to do all of those things that they enjoy doing. Yup. Just not as a career. And as long as they can afford supplies. And energy after a long day collecting trash--although I see that being increasingly automated as well. 20 minutes ago, ZacKing said: History bears this out. What you can't seem to grasp is a historical process that shifts people from one job to another vs. modern automation that replaces human labor altogether. A technological advance in the past may have eliminated jobs but opened up new industries. Automation with AI will eliminate jobs AND probably be able to automate whatever new related industries pop up, if anything pops up at all. If you replace all human workers at a call center with AI, the technological advancement is no longer needing people. Other than that, the call center is the same. There is no technological advancement that will prompt a bunch of new jobs from that. 29 minutes ago, ZacKing said: Most people have more than one skill and most people can learn to do new things. So after spending years to develop skills as an artist and taking on considerable debt if you're not wealthy, people are just expected to jump ship and hop on to a different career. Which puts them in competition with people who actually were seeking those jobs to begin with. A more reasonable plan is to simply resist AI bullshit. Form communities that don't allow it. Support businesses that don't use it. Educate the general public about what it entails. AI models require an enormous amount of data to train. Good artists will strive to prevent theirs from being used. Without their input, companies will have to rely on inputing AI generated data which leads to model collapse. 1
ZacKing Posted 18 hours ago Posted 18 hours ago (edited) 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: Of course not. But maybe we should stop subsidizing automated processes that are trained on human art (without the consent of artists) to generate revenue for large tech companies. I see. So long as it's saving an artist's job, it's fine. If AI is replacing someone else, well then tough luck on them. Got it. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: It's not just artists. I've said that. Imagine you're working your factory job and the manager comes in and informs you that they want you to train a robot that will replace you. Stuff like that is happening. But I guess, based on your comments, the manager could just say "hey it's technological progress. Think of all the people that lost their job because of the light bulb." And the workers would be like "dang man, you got me" and they'd go train the automatons that would make them irrelevant. You're still proceeding from the very false assumption that people being displaced by technology and automation are unable to find other meaningful work. This isn't true and history bears this out over and over again. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: Yup. Just not as a career. And as long as they can afford supplies. And energy after a long day collecting trash--although I see that being increasingly automated as well. You're assuming that there will no longer be a market for human created art and that artists won't be able to find other good paying work. Also, I don't know why you're hung up on artists going into trash collecting and treating trash collecting as if its some demeaning, degrading job. Again, the electricians, plumbers and yes, the trash collectors around here are living in very nice houses with nice cars, boats, RVs, and sending their kids to private schools. Seems like they're doing pretty well to me. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: What you can't seem to grasp is a historical process that shifts people from one job to another vs. modern automation that replaces human labor altogether. A technological advance in the past may have eliminated jobs but opened up new industries. Automation with AI will eliminate jobs AND probably be able to automate whatever new related industries pop up, if anything pops up at all. If you replace all human workers at a call center with AI, the technological advancement is no longer needing people. Other than that, the call center is the same. There is no technological advancement that will prompt a bunch of new jobs from that. I can grasp history just fine. I know enough about it to know these same arguments were made for all kinds of technological advances in the past and they didn't lead to the destruction of the world economy like some alarmists predicted it would. As far as there being no other jobs or opportunities cropping up, this isn't true either. Who programs the AI? Who will maintain the infrastructure and technology supporting all of this? You seem to be fantasizing about some fantasy far off future where anything and everything is automated fully with no human interaction required ever. We're nowhere even remotely close to something like that, if ever. Even if humanity does get there, well, then I guess people will have a lot of time on their hands to do things like be creative and artistic instead of toiling away at some job. 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: So after spending years to develop skills as an artist and taking on considerable debt if you're not wealthy, people are just expected to jump ship and hop on to a different career. Which puts them in competition with people who actually were seeking those jobs to begin with. How is this any different than any other profession or career? How are other people all over the world able to accomplish changing careers? People all over the world are doing this every day, but artists can't? 1 hour ago, battlewraith said: A more reasonable plan is to simply resist AI bullshit. Form communities that don't allow it. Support businesses that don't use it. Educate the general public about what it entails. AI models require an enormous amount of data to train. Good artists will strive to prevent theirs from being used. Without their input, companies will have to rely on inputing AI generated data which leads to model collapse. You're more than welcome to resist using AI and not support it. Feel free to do so. I have a suspicion that should you run into a situation where you're needing to take full advantage of some medical or other benefit that was derived through the use of AI, you'll gladly do it without hesitation and won't be asking if some artist lost their job or not. Anyway, this is really diverging from the topic at hand. I did want to comment, I don't like the idea of using AI voiceover for NPCs in the game here. It's still clunky and doesn't sound right to me. If it ever were developed, it should be totally optional. Edited 18 hours ago by ZacKing
City Council Widower Posted 16 hours ago City Council Posted 16 hours ago Right, this thread seems to have been quite thoroughly derailed, so I'll just answer the question and then lock it. On 7/12/2025 at 10:46 AM, dgoold7601 said: Has anyone at Homecoming talked about incorporating AI voices into the game? No. 1 3 2 Community Manager, Homecoming City Council "We need Widower. He's a drop of sanity in a bowl of chaos - very important." - Cipher Are you also a drop of sanity in a bowl of chaos? Consider applying to be a Game Master!
Recommended Posts