Of course.

I've been studying AI and its underlying technology for over 20 years. I don't think it's only a matter of me using it.

I'm particularly interested in Sociotechincal systems. The cybernetic relationship between technology and social and cognitive function.

So, yes. Definitely it has downsides. I think all technology does. I think there are lots of cognitive downsides regardless of controller. There are sociological downsides which are caused by the way billionaires are controlling the technology.,

At this point if you are this insistent on using AI there is nothing I can do to stop you, but have you tried using a "rubber duck" at least to test phrasing by saying it?

AI can be good, but you have to realize it has it's downsides you very much need to be aware of too, so it's a dangerous tool that at least IMO it's best to avoid for art. Needing continuous feedback puts a hamper on things though like personally I am bad at visualizing which makes things harder.

I think it can. It's not that it writes, it's that it provides immediate and continuous feedback which is what my brain needs to keep writing.

The other thing is that it's been invaluable for helping with my ADHD. I wrote my first novel (a bad novel, mind you) with the help of AI.

I want to be clear I wrote 80% of it, and after editing there was likely less than 3% of AI generated words.

What it _did_ do was create a continuous feedback loop that allowed me to keep going.

Which of course, also meant I was spending more time writing. So I'm not a significantly better (creative) writer than I was before I started using the tool.

I use LogSeq which is FOSS to make digital pinboards myself to use.

Trace the AI image. Of course. I know how to draw and how to trace.

I think you might be missing what I'm saying. An AI replacing a pinboard is both more hands on and less theft than Pinterest.

I do think that anyone wishing to program, write, or make art should learn to do things the hard way before they start relying on any advanced tools to do it.

Everyone in any visual medium whatsoever needs to learn how to draw freehand both from a model and from their mind.

" I can see actually working well with AI though you need to try to do your research at the same time to make sure it doesn't hallucinate."

Yes. Everything needed to be validated, and even than I ran into a snag because of something it missed.

I'm currently working to coauthor a paper on LLM hallucination.

"it's better to not support the slop than to automate it"

Sure, but as I've mentioned before 100% of problems with AI are preexisting problems with capitalism that AI has intensified because it's in the hands of sociopaths: trust erosion, work alienation, slop, corporations stealing from artists (eg Temu), etc...

As someone who has traced drawings before I would not say AI is a good tool for that. There is an element of analyzing what is going on, so that you can do it yourself when you trace.
The problem with using AI for all the things you mentioned is as I say in my bio. You are SKIPPING a part of the drawing process which is making you less skilled.
Now that isn't the same as saying "ChatGPT make me a PFP" I will give you that at least, but I think you learn more with NoAI.

I will give you the lawyer use. That is something more objective I can see actually working well with AI though you need to try to do your research at the same time to make sure it doesn't hallucinate.

As for people being paid to make slop it's better to not support the slop than to automate it. People make slop because they don't care about quality and people eat it up.

I believe in quality which is why I won't ever use GenAI for what I make.

Of course they can. And artists use inspiration boards, tracing, idea clipping, and an enormous amount of otherwise borrowing work from other creators.

AI is a better tool for all of that.

AI is fundamentally _incapable_ of either making art or writing. It has no ability to do it. It just doesn't.

Anyone making a significant body of work, that is of any value, that is using AI, is _not_ having AI do it.

It is _the only reason_ I was able to move to France. Otherwise I would have had to spend about $10k on an immigration lawyer. The combination of my skills and AI's ability to look things up, make text official sounding, translate, and project manage through my crippling ADHD was enormously invaluable.

Beyond that, humans used to be paid to make slop. It is soul crushing work and deserves to be automated.

One thing I could be missing to be honest is WHAT are we calling GenAI. If Text to Speech and Speech to Text count then yeah that has a ton of non-art uses.

For anything creative though GenAI has no place IMO because there is emotion and human expression in art which is something hard enough to put into words, but there is no way for an AI to understand that. I firmly believe if anyone is dedicated enough they can learn how to express themselves with art without "AI".

I believe people can learn to do what they want and have a lot if passion for TRUE art.

Maybe it's because AI is practically sold as Snake Oil right now, but I can't imagine many good uses. If I am missing a good use I would be willing to bet you would need to watch for hallucinations.

And he's on the Fedi! @scalzi

There _is_ an organized arson ring, but everyone is like "We need to ban fire. Fire burns down X homes per year. Breathing in smoke is toxic and causes cancer. Fire burns flesh, etc..."

There is no such thing as there being a moral valence with #technology. Actors make evil and non-evil decisions.

A ton of the anti #AI rhetoric is actually talking points from the #billionaires committing the arson. They are the source of the, incorrect, claim that it's causing job losses.

The push to completely eschew the #tech is an abdication of responsibility that ensured the most evil people are the ones controlling it.

@thirstybear fyi
@luciedigitalni

To paraphrase Dickens, then general usage is an ass. The general public believe a *lot* of things that aren’t true. Misidentification of key words binds us, as Brian Eno would put it, with chains of iron. Most of us, for example, believe we are “free”, and that our “liberty” is a “God” given “right.” And so forth. If we don’t know what the words mean, the concepts are beyond our understanding. Of course the map is not the territory, but without the map, we are lost.

If there is anything in the world today that humanity needs to know what it is, it’s AI. Let’s inform them by employing the correct names for the things that enslave us, all of them, not just “AI” an “LLM”. They “freedom” will mean something real. As things stand today, to paraphrase Kris Kistofferson, “freedom’s just another word."

and yet people prefer to rant for hours against fire, instead of trying to understand the social mechanisms behind the arson attacks.

mechanisms that, incidentally, have been plaguing society long before the current AI wave.

but you'd perhaps have to the criticize the mechanisms behind government and why it produces monopolies (like copyright), and incentivizes centralisation of control and overcapitalized industry. how about instead you'd just be really mad at 8 CEOs and vague concepts?

One persons speaks of a technology when saying "AI".

Another person speaks of a socioeconomic model when saying "AI".

As long as both persons use the same word for completely different things, they are unable to discuss properly.

My suggestion: Refer to the technology as "AI" and to the socioeconomic model as "Capitalism" .

P.S. I also really hate that everyone equates AI with LLMs.

The systems are largely sold on false positive rate - false positives are expensive, because they piss off your customers and you need to pay humans to man a call centre to deal with the complaints.