My Views on AI Generated Content

[grotlover2]

I had a bit of time this morning so wanted to do a few more responses quick here.

@kestrel

I’m guessing you’re referring to Section 230 protections here

No actually, I dont want to go to far into it here so I would encourage you to bring it back up in the 5th post or feel free to DM me if you want to chat about it more, but my larger concerns is the EU’s copyright directive (mainly how this effects the one mulligan we get) and general civil liability if we let something like a malicious exe slip through the cracks as an example.

These are more just questions I need to look into and tbh with how I am planning it it may not matter anyway. But there is a difference between moderation and curation and generally speaking the more curation that is done the more responsibility you have to take for what you are curating.

@Chubberdy

A fetish game forum probably isn’t going to have a big influence over whether the world accepts shady practices, but we can certainly set the standard of whether we accept those shady practices on this site. Gotta start somewhere.

Fair enough. While I may not agree with your premise, I cant really argue with that. I think it does highlight or differing viewpoints very well though. Your arguments feel very deontological in nature where I am looking more from a utilitarian perspective. Neither is right or wrong per se, but due to their differing viewpoints lead to different perspectives on how to approach the problem.

@Chubberdy

“I have to use it or I lose my job” and “I want to use it for my hobby” are two very different situations.

Sorry, I think my example muddied the waters of what my intended point was. I was more meaning to draw your attention to the Overton Window and how forced adoption within the work place could lead to further normalization of AIGC over time which would make it harder for you fight back against it becoming a standard in the broader sense. If your intent was focusing more on just this specific community that is fair but I thought you where talking in the more broader sense so if I misread that sorry about that.

More or less though my intent was to bring that up as a factor for you to add to your consideration.

@someoneoutthere

Another thing that’s occurred to me, at least regarding AI use for personal, non-monetized purposes: I admit I’ve only done a little bit of reading on the subject, but my understanding is that the AI companies are currently LOSING money. They might make their money back if they can get people to actually sign up for paid plans, but if I use a free image generator and make a bunch of images that are of no interest or value to anyone but myself (as @RadicalSquidward alluded to people doing), how is that anything but a drain on the resources of the company hosting that image generator?

Quick warning, going to be showing my train nerd side here a bit.

Generally speaking there a 3 reasons these companies make the tools freely available and available to consumers in general.

1. Training - When some one uses an AI tool you always see that little thumbs up or down. That is used to communicate back to the company what is considered good or bad output. This raw data is then used both directly in another training pass and indirectly to create another LLM that is specialized to only judge the quality of the output which can be used for synthetic training. Supervised learning models are very data hungry so data is always a massive motivating issue.
2. Advertising - Its kind of like how freight rail in the US used to use their passenger rail service to advertise how quick and reliable their freight service was even though passenger rail usually lost them money. These tools are made available like that to more try to show perspective clients how much more advance their models are compared to their competitors as well as to drum up more investor hype by making it a public display.
3. Supplemental Revenue - Since they are burning cash anything to help stem the flow does help even if its not by much. Its kind of like how I am with ads right now with Weight Gaming. They are making so little I kind of want to remove them, but since we run at a loss anyway $100 is still better then no dollars even if I dont feel like its worth it.

@Chubberdy

The issue with saying “individual contribution to the problem is negligable” is that there are millions of individuals. One person throwing a piece of trash on the ground isn’t a problem. 100 people throwing trash on the ground turns the place into a dump.

I dont think this was what @someoneoutthere was arguing. I could be wrong, but I think they where making a similar point to what I was saying that if we do want to affect any actual change it would have to be done collectively, not on an individual scale. Also, its not an unfair assertion that framing its use as a moral failing could make any collective action more difficult as it could accidentally alienate possible supporters (especially those more on the edge) by making them feel like they are “the bad guys” even if that is not the intent.