u/Questioner8297

It's one thing to be against AI simply because you're against AI. But you can't say that hiring a human to do part of the work isn't outsourcing creativity, and since games, films, and other things are teamwork, then by your logic, which you use for the ai, each team member outsources their creativity?

You can't simultaneously praise human teamwork and say that AI outsourcing of creativity is a problem.

Pro-AI believes AI will bring many benefits and is worth the price, while anti-AI believes there are few advantages. Average (middle bettwen them) : everything is terrible, but AI will continue. It's hard to imagine anything more grim.

My contribution to the final AI film cannot be less than what I would have had I written the script for a human film crew. Perhaps even more, since I select the best shots with the AI, but with a human crew, that's no longer my job. Why should I suddenly have my name in the credits of a film made with humans, but no longer have the same credits of an AI film?

This is all important because it greatly increases the amount of information you can give the AI. A simple promt is often insufficient. Ready-made images contain a huge amount of useful information. You can even simply draw words on paper in the right position, give them to the AI, and the AI will replace the words with an image of those words. This isn't about requiring effort; on the contrary, current AI is much, much more controllable than even a year ago, let alone the SD 1.6 era with small effort.

Image 2 image, that is, image transformation, has been around for a long time, but two years ago you could barely control it. Now you can only take a single image, only part of the concepts per image, and generally adjust the image much more precisely. AI as a tool has grown tremendously. From being almost uncontrollable, it has evolved into a fairly controllable process on many levels if you used an image as the intput data.

I mean, the automation of a scientist is considered a good thing because the scientist produces benefits for society beyond their own existence, through the results of their labor, which objectively help. The position that art cannot be automated essentially rests on the idea that art has no meaning other than being art - that is, people express themselves, and images are ultimately simply a means of expression, meaningless actually without that.

However, at its core, this essentially says that artists are useless labor for society, and why should the rest of society pay for nothing? If we accept this, then artists' pay is essentially based on a good word - a pure waste of important resources that could be spent elsewhere.

I'm not saying cheating is good or that it's a good process for students to do it, but it's also a test of AI capabilities. You must have a certain level of knowledge to answer such questions on a test or essay at this level. The same applies to propaganda: a useless tool for general information processing can't be used to create propaganda, or it will be very low-quality propaganda. But then shouldn't you be in favor of it? If you say that AI can create a fictitious image of tanks in Washington and that people will believe it, that means AI can create plausible fictitious content that can be used in a huge number of tasks: educational material (we already said that it must be plausible; if AI can't create educational material due to hallucinations, then it also can't create propaganda for the same reason, since it's the same information presented differently), illustrations, inspiration material, etc.

Tl;dr: You can't say that AI can help students cheat and create propaganda without having any other uses, since these two mentioned uses automatically mean that it can be used for a huge number of other tasks, since the creation method is the same.

AI can be both a tool for a company to reduce production costs and a personal tool for an individual or content creator. Renting tools opens up new opportunities for ordinary people willing to pay for it, as it's still cheaper than a commission. This content may also be of interest to others. Whether a video will appeal to a small number of people, since it was initially obtained almost for free, doesn't matter. The ease of content creation with AI gives you the opportunity to create content without quitting your main job, so it's simply a bonus. Comparing only with professional content creators misses out on huge advantages for amateurs, who see it as an advantage because they don't intend to create detailed content; they have general ideas that they primarily implement for themselves, and others can also benefit from it (again, given the price, it doesn't matter that there are only a small number of people involved).

Small creators can also make more content for those who want content, not what you, critics of AI art, consider art.

That is, the price reduction does not depend at all on the company that wants to create films cheaper, but only on the ability of an individual to rent these tools.

Is this the peak of consumerism? In a way, yes. But we initially make technological progress to get what we want. If consumerism is what we want, then how are you going against the voices of ordinary people for the sake of some lofty moral values of yours? Which, by the way, isn't a bad position, but it is a weak one.

Do you really think people will go for this?

I don't want to say that there are no reasons to be afraid, but these are all distant reasons when people see the benefits of AI here and now, and we know very well how terrible people are with long-term goals. People often choose what they have now over an unpleasant future.

The bursting of the AI bubble and the collapse of chat gpt are two completely different things. Not to mention companies like Google, which didn't spend anyone else's money at all.