Generative AI is Worthless

[@ZStorm]

I can’t believe antoguino ai generated Drew Gooden's video smh my head

[@ShockedTaiLung]

I thought the robot uprising was gonna be a lot cooler then this 😔

[@rellloom]

i absolutely hate that people swallowed the 'ai learns just like a human would' claim - hook, line, and sinker. It takes 6 seconds of thinking to figure out why it's not the same, and even if it were - why *who* does it makes a difference. Like, those same people probably would mald over a white lady telling them why racism against black people is bad, which is a _far less egregious example._ But I get it, AI corps are really pooling lots of money to convincing people that their product thinks just like a human and is not a stochastic series of algorithms invented in 1950's that are just as un-testable now as they were then, only difference that they are brute-fed unfathomable amounts of unlicensed data. How many times did an OpenAI ad specifically take the time to mention 'just as a human would'. I think some tech people just think they are immune to propaganda and believe the dumbest shit in the same breath, same demithought.

[@Souleater7777]

@@rellloom what dumb is thinking the human mind , or any mind has some kind of magical / esoteric spark that can’t be explained in a nuts and bolts fashion .

[@rellloom]

@@Souleater7777 do not be fooled by this false dichotomy. First of all; whether or not there is anything metaphysical about the human mind is actually a serious philosophical problem which you can explore non-esoterically with pure deductive logic dilemmas that offer a critique of materialism that you have to take seriously and generally cannot simply dismiss (unless, of course, you know nothing about ontology, but that comes from ignorance and is not valid). That's beside the point. To equivocate what the technology is doing and what the human mind is doing is to misunderstand both what the technology does (much of which we don't actually know), and everything we know about the human mind (ditto). Perhaps it is possible to recreate human-esque intelligence in digital form, however this is firmly not it, and it is not even remotely close to it. I'm afraid you swallowed the marketing more than most. No serious 'AI' researcher believes these two things are even close, and neither does any serious neuroscientist. This is wording employed by finance bros who need investment capital, and you ate it up. In fact, even the term 'AI' is marketing. The real term is LLM, the intelligence part is added in post because it fools some naïve people into overestimating its capacity. Anyway, the ethical critiques of LLMs+generative models and their discernment from human creativity do not in the slightest come from the point of disbelief in materialism, just rationality. How they work, who should be doing what work. Simple. It is ridiculous to believe, for instance, that AI should be doing the art, and humans should be doing whatever else for a living. In an ideally automated world there would be few humans who would be doing anything other than art, and if AI were employed at all, it'd be at the things humans don't want to do. Please do not argue on topics you clearly do not understand. LLM models are stochastic parrots, humans are observably not. LLMs are good at one thing, and one thing only, and that's regurgitating existing knowledge in some fields such as programming or mathematics. You will only ever have a point if they do something of the magnitude of solving the Riemann hypothesis, not automating mundane writing tasks.

[@niicespiice]

no, i had a like 10-minute conversation with my dad, who is generally a tech-aware person, and while he doesn't like ai art, he doesn't know how that could be argued against in court as being similar to how humans learn

[@rellloom]

@@niicespiice I don't disagree with that, I think if this argument was made in court, it would convince a judge. But I think the concept of a judge itself fails here. To make the argument to begin with is to misunderstand both how humans learn, and how models are trained, AND what learning really is, and completely aim to avoid the question of responsibility for learning outcomes, and to refuse the importance of scale at which something happens (by the same line of logic, you would have to argue for the same legal process happening to grocery store thieves as bank robbers. The scale at which something happens HAS to be taken into account by a judge). But, I would be in favour of that kind of ruling if the company distributing the model is held accountable for copyright infringement, plagiarism, and other things the same way an artist would. Anyway, the only rational choice a judge can make is to say that we need to update our copyright system to account for this, and a new copyright act has to be written with the input of NOT AI EXECS and NOT SHAREHOLDERS but only experts in the field of machine learning and artists, who are of course the ones affected by 'alleged' copyright infringements. A judge, who is likely not an expert in the field, WOULD fall for this false equivocation line of reasoning because it strikes a convenient balance between seeming plausible at first, and not being nuanced thus being understandable. Also, whether or not something holds up in court is not indicative of a truth claim. There are plenty of lines of argumentation that hold up in court, but completely false. I think that's mostly the US courts in the developed world, which seem very partial to the letter of the law rather than its spirit. We'll see where this goes in the coming future in the EU where judges don't make clowns of themselves.

[@antoguino]

Music Used: Route 228 (Night) - Brilliant Diamond Detective Pennington - Paper Mario TTYD (2024) GM02 Chapter Complete - Bayonetta 3 2 Mello Mirror Temple (Mirror Magic Mix) - Celeste B Sides Lonely Rolling No More - Katamari Forever

[@angryduckart]

Why are we giving computers the art? Wasn’t the entire point of better technology to get work done faster and more efficiently so we could have more time to be created and create art,music,writing,and other creative endeavors? Why did we decide to keep the mindless, soulless busy work and give the computers the things that make us human?

[@Souleater7777]

This is part of getting work done faster / being more convenient. Artist just don’t like it because they no longer have a monopoly on the industry and can’t charge ridiculous amounts for commissions anymore . For everyone else it’s awesome . For the folk who charges hundreds of dollars for scribbles on paper. Not so much

[@angryduckart]

@@Souleater7777 artists don’t like it because they literally need those commissions to live and those “ridiculous prices” are they can put food on the table. Also, artists never had a monopoly on the industry because that’s not how monopolies work. To have a monopoly on something it should be one person or group that has excessive control on an industry. Not one person or group has control over the freelance art industry because there are literally thousands of artists that will make art for you (some for very cheap if you actually care about money that much.) I also resent your framing of freelance art being a couple scribbles on paper because if that’s truly all the art is then why can’t you just do it yourself? Are you so uncomfortable in your own skills that you depend on a machine to “make a few scribbles for you” or do you really just not respect art and see it as nothing more than a mindless distraction to look at for a few seconds and then forget about because if that’s the case than I feel bad for you more than anything.

[@wortletalks]

​​​​​@@Souleater7777you're either a bait account or just plain stupid. There was never an 'artists monopoly', the ones who had a monopoly were the people who made the financial decision, shareholders, ceo's. If anything developments like these make artists even more powerless. Companies choosing generative AI over artists is saying their work is not worth having studied for, worked their ass off for. Art can be expensive because artists also have to pay bills, dumbass. Just like every other job. So get real and touch some grass blades. Come back to me when you did your research. Because you clearly haven't.

[@wortletalks]

​@@Souleater7777you're insane if you genuinely hold this belief. And for your info, art can have any value, as long as people are willing to pay for it, who cares? Though I believe I'm wasting my time when arguing with people like you, because you're clearly not informed and/or just ignorant.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

​@@Souleater7777You're crazy. Art is hard, that's why artists deserve good money for it. AI companies are literally stealing the work of millions of artists tonmake their generation models. This whole thing is only good for those gigantic corporations. Otherwise it is directly incentivizing people to not seek out creative jobs. Your understanding of systems is very poor.

[@carultch]

6:26 - Jesus fucking Christ, how does it produce the right formula, but fail to apply it? I could solve that one correctly, without even using pencil and paper.

[@friskdreemurr2663]

Generative AI is legitimately less than nothing.

[@masterplusmargarita]

My hatred of AI got to the point that I found myself defending yo my tech bro friend the concept of writing your own work emails. It's like my least favourite part of my job behind pointless meetings, but the idea of delegating it to a machine feels so damn wrong. Ultimately you're still communicating with a colleague and peer, you're still meant to be connecting with them at some level. Even the annoying ones deserve better than to have you effectively robocall them by email.

[@BulbaWhat98]

I mainly find Generative AI lazy. It takes away any creative and human input into an art piece just to create an easy, honestly terribly looking thing regardless of how close to matches to human art. Companies are all for it because it doesn't involve as much work and the higher ups can get even more profits while the employees get less or are even layed off because of it. We've already seen a lot of slop in entertainment with video games, movies, shows and music that are made solely for a quick buck and not because of artistic expression or to make something people will enjoy, and now Generative AI will further add into that

[@jakezoet-jd1wk]

Dude, it’s not all lazy, you can just put the image into Photoshop and edit it

[@chuzzbot]

They already HAVE replaced many art jobs, F Ai

[@jolanxblca]

If you are replaceable, then perhaps you're not being creative or independent enough. My job of live customer service and physical labor will never be replaced as I'm also a computer user and can adapt to anything they give me.

[@jonahsteel]

dude i have been having an existential and nihilistic crisis for like 3 months now and this video effectively cured me. thank you so much. everything you said here is very true and your insight is really profound. thanks man your work is amazing

[@antoguino]

thank you so much, it means a lot to know that my video helped you in that way

[@Gr95dc]

This is such a good video, you were truly eloquent and explained really well why generative Ai is not something we need. You gained my subscription, not that it matters, but I want to see what else you have to say in the future, tho I'm not all that interested in gaming 😅

[@realfamimation]

This can pass off as a motivational video

[@AkiDave]

AI bros are CRINGE

[@jakezoet-jd1wk]

Ur cringe Y’all need to learn not to always think AI is negative and see the good of it too

[@TheTriple2000]

​@@jakezoet-jd1wk Naw

[@RJS2003]

_"No matter how tender, how exquisite... A lie will remain a lie."_ -Aldia, Scholar of the First Sin, Dark Souls 2

[@britishraccoon72]

happy that i started my day on something positive

[@SGTIvan921]

A simply splendid video! I love the message of hope this video brings, and I hope more people see it too. The quote about "I want AI to do my dishes so I may do art, not AI to do my art so I may do dishes" was very apt. And likewise with your experience in your Mechanics degree. One day I was curious about ChatGPT a few years back due to the hype and decided to dabble a little - since it allegedly helped people even in programming. Tried a few prompts, and it confirmed my suspicions - all rubbish. Code that didn't work out of the box or even code that was straight up rubbish or in a wrong language.

[@pizzabella3924]

i respect you opinion and i’m proud you were able to voice it

[@niicespiice]

i think the "target demographic" for ai-generated art is people who don't know better and can't tell the difference. which is crazy to me, because most ai stuff looks REALLY off to me, but there are a large portion of people who just... can't see it? A.K.A my family members, probably some of my friends too. and i can't put it in words, and they seem to dismiss what i'm saying like they can't see it (Don't get me wrong, these are still people who dislike AI art, but they could easily be tricked by it). These are the people I think AI art appeals to. People who think it looks good, and either 1. don't know it's AI, or 2. don't care about the ethical implications because they haven't thought about it.

[@PixelSubstream]

We have to blame the consumers as well, if humans placed more value behind artists and not just individual works of art maybe the ai stuff would have less value to the general public

[@PixelSubstream]

We "need" them because society's need to generate and be fed endless content has gotten so bad. It doesn't help that content can make people money. Its like everyone complains about drugs are bad but everyone addicted or selling

[@JamesCharIes]

as an artist, i hate hate hateee when ppl use the excuse for ai art that « well i wanna draw but idk how 🥺 » like you wont learn if you dont try, like i didnt pick up a pen an immediately get to the level where i am now, it takes time to develop your style, for me it took 6 years but it could takes others more or less time, and if you reallyyy want to design characters so badly but dont want to put in the time to learn how to draw, there are so many apps and websites where all you do is dress up & customize characters for completely free & is made by real artists

[@masterplusmargarita]

Nothing gets my goat more than when they use the term "democratizing art". A pencil and paper is less than a dollar, nothing is stopping you, go learn. Art is one of the most democratic things that exist. I can't draw any better than a fifth grader because I never put in any effort, but I'm a fairly good writer because I've spent a lot of my free time writing for 15 years now. I started by writing short stories on the last pages of my school notebooks. Literally just get good.

[@JamesCharIes]

@@masterplusmargarita Exactly. I started drawing later than most kids (4th grade) but i was able to get way better to the point of realism in 4-6 years because I actually put effort into it, if i had just sat around and complained about wanting to draw but not knowing how i would’ve never gotten to where i am now

[@mamba101]

And what about someone with a physical disability that prevents them from drawing? Or someone with an intellectual disability that hampers their learning? Is art about creativity and imagination or your ability to put pencil to paper?

[@JamesCharIes]

@@mamba101 strawman strawman strawman, and like i said there are non-ai alternatives, like dress up doll games. Also bitch, please do not try to ableism card with me, i am disabled myself, my disabilities range from neurological to physical, but i do have other types. And if someone is so physically or intellectually disabled that they cant draw, digitally or traditionally (because digital does exist and it is valid, i am a digital artist myself) then i highly doubt the first thought that comes to mind is « how am i going to draw my big titty anime girlfriend if i cant draw because of my disabilities?!?!? », like bitch pls stfu you dont know shit about what you’re talking about. Thank u, next!

[@Kai-Is-Pie]

​@mamba101 If you can't physically draw, there are other things you can do to express yourself artistically. I'm not sure how telling an AI to draw something for them is going to give someone the same satisfaction as drawing it themselves, when they are physically unable to. But maybe it does. I don't know. Not going to get into your second point because... it feels like you're using disabled people to make a point about something that is mostly not being used by them. Just throwing the intellectual disability blanket onto a discussion like this seems questionable for a lot of reasons.

[@DerAnanasKing]

I have been a bit on an AI doomer trip and while it is concerning and I do aboslutely despise generative algorythms and what they have done to the internet... this here gave me a bit of a nice feeling.

[@vsmumu]

CAME FROM UR TWITTER THREAD I LOVE DUNKING ON AI LESGOOOO 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 BEST CONTENT CREATOR THIS SIDE OF THE MISSISSIPPI YEEHAW

[@lonick1692]

I know a guy in my uni (im doing videogame art) and his girlfriend does 2d art, and he was making a ficitonal car, what did he do? HE USED AI AS THE REFERENCE IMAGES TO MAKE THE CAR

[@MAGAMAN]

AI is completely useless when trying to do anything specific. For example, try to get AI to put a specific picture on a specific background. It's absolutely useless for that. I tried using photoshop AI to insert a human into a picture and what I got was 100% nightmare fuel, every single time.

[@bracken8782]

I don't remember where I heard this, but I remember hearing this perfect description of how AI works. "AI doesn't know facts, it just knows what facts look like."

[@groovyburger8306]

Never miss an upload.

[@Shabazza84]

I'm with you with the unethical sourcing of data for training, but not worth everything else. There are good uses for AI even today. If companies use it in a useful way or not is not AI's fault. It's like calling a hammer bad because some use it to hammer in screws. Except from the ethical problem, you are just bashing without thinking of good uses. GPT can teach you, make you reflect, help with coding, help with problem solving, iterating on your own novel drafts, improve image recognition for safety applications, ect. It's usable, even when every other company squeezes it into a damn chat not on their support page. But I give you some slack, as you may not even know where AI is already deployed right now. (And AI you don't see is actually the best of the bunch.)

[@toasterenthusiast6188]

Soullessness in art has and will always be a thing, I'd argue that most people become artists for selfish means to and end reason, that being attention and ego, which I do not want to paint as bad things because in many ways we need ego to keep us confident in ourselves. But a lot of the times, I'd say most of the times, ego is the only driver of their art and has caused a lot of soullessness in online art, the furry fandom is a very notable example, it's cute without a point most of the time and it's hard to really stand out. Humans have been drawing AI-like generated soulless slop for decades, AI only makes it more blatant. Before AI we had clip art, and it was criticized for almost all of the exact same reasons; I also want to argue that there is nothing inherently wrong or immoral about "stealing" other people's artworks to produce model data--look into latent space and understand how these models "think", it will give you a new found appreciation for how the brain works and how humans learn skills. This "input/output machine" is really just an abstraction of how the brain handles memory, so in a sense the AI does know what art is, just the way it makes art is very very alien to the way we do.

[@jippalippa]

Good channel, brother! Hope you'll get some subs soon!

[@Darkvalentine333]

You hurt the ai bros, must be doing it right.

[@VariantNode]

AI drift effect.

[@pando4379]

my degenerative AI will destroy the world muahwhaha

[@mavrikthescaler5983]

I mean generative AI is actually pretty useful just not in the field of fine arts I think you’re just looking at it from too narrow an angle. Anybody who does the most surface level research or is a programmer knows that it’s not 100% accurate. For example it’s great at checking your code for simple logic or syntax errors

[@mamba101]

That’s what people do these days - extrapolate their narrow view onto a topic. It’s always all or nothing.

[@dangdarn4720]

Quantum computing technology i think will really be what starts the ai doomsday “quantum supremacy” by michio kaku is a great read

[@edgarliberado857]

Great vídeo

[@KypHeM]

If you learned to read you stole that from the alphabet writers

[@carultch]

That's a strawman.

[@izzymosley1970]

Ai art is not stealing because the AI is simply learning how to copy a specific artist style by looking at their work just like humans do. Human artists do not have to ask for permission to Paint in that specific style so why should ai?

[@antoguino]

Well, the big difference is that a human has artistic intent and an AI does not. It spits out soulless recreations of someone else’s art with no passion, reason, or purpose. And this is completely ignoring the ethical concerns of AI generated content, which is that they are created by companies for profit and are trained off of copyrighted material, so those copyright holders should be credited and compensated. AI is not truly “learning” the style anyways, it’s just recognizing that it has a valid output or an invalid output based on how it smashed something together

[@hetsu_]

that's pretty common defense against ai but human artist develop their own style after some time just becuz of their own experiences and preferences on art and anatomy. Also i don't think i have seen copying another artist except for practice. Also artists are not big company trying to sell a service just copying other people's art. Edit: I am open to discuss too becuz i think this is interesting and i have also thought about it and i still have no answer.

[@depouille]

You are literally just wrong, it is stealing, that's why legally ai aren't can't be copyrighted because it is legally not original

[@depouille]

​@@hetsu_also, so can't think, there's no agency, no consciousness. It can't learn. You're looking at a blender and thinking it's a chef.

[@Souleater7777]

@@depouilleyou know nothing about llms and how they learn . That’s why you’d say something like that , but these bots and how they respond are done in a similar way to how you think as a person .

[@randomdude9630]

I understand the point of the video but the title and the last bit are just wrong, generative Ai isnt worthless its just it should only be used for a laugh or party games [there is a party game called imposter where it generates art so its endlessly replayable] and Ai covers arent really to replace the song its just a haha isnt it funny to hear this character to sing this song

[@UTTPOfficerBennie]

Look, man. I just use AI for fun. I don't want to have to commission an artist or a songwriter or an author any time I randomly think "Wouldn't it be cool if?" So quit raining on my parade.

[@antoguino]

so why not try to do it yourself? that’s how everyone starts drawing or writing, you’re depriving yourself of experience and fun.

[@UTTPOfficerBennie]

@@antoguinono nigga I don’t have time for that shit

[@UTTPOfficerBennie]

@@antoguino The thing is, I have. My right (dominant) hand is permanently disabled. I cannot hold a pen, pencil, stylus or anything of that sort. Have you ever stopped to consider how AI art can benefit people with disabilities.

[@antoguino]

@@UTTPOfficerBennie i actually know a guy with the same issue, he was my lab partner over the summer, he still found a way to write, and i’ve seen others draw in that same way. art is one of the most accessible things that human beings can do, and AI just strips away everything fun about it. i don’t see how that’s a benefit at all, that only able bodied people are allowed to enjoy the artistic process, and that disabled people have to use the instant gratification machine instead.

[@UTTPOfficerBennie]

@@antoguino Things can't be made any easier for us, can they? You radical anti-AI folks annoy me to no end.

[@officialfumofeltingchannel1490]

Who cares? Stop making problems over nothing like a Twitter user would

[@Souleater7777]

Right. I’m so tired of the nagging

[@antoguino]

This isn’t nothing, companies stole people’s art and aim to use the machines they made from that stolen art to replace the artists they stole from. It’s immoral, unethical, and anti-human.

[@officialfumofeltingchannel1490]

@@antoguino You mean it looks at existing art and creates something new based off it? Like idk, nearly EVERY ARTIST EVER who is starting off? Let’s not forget how a majority of entertainment now is just taking something else and putting their own spin on it. I guess nearly everyone is “immoral and anti human” then, you can dislike ai without coming across as a moral guardian crying about anyone who uses it bro

[@antoguino]

@@officialfumofeltingchannel1490 AI doesn’t have a brain like we do, it fundamentally does not work the same. If you told a human about art and they had never seen it before, you could just give them the tools and they could create. A machine cannot, it has to be trained off of millions of pieces of artwork, all of which they had no permission to take. AI creates slop with no passion, purpose, or feeling, and if you can’t see how that’s a bad thing I just don’t know what to say, man.

[@HoboGardenerBen]

You're clueless. Big corporations are literally hijacking the creativity of the planet and are removing incentives in the system for creative work to even exist. That isn't empty wingeing, it's actually important.

[@mamba101]

My 2c; Railing against AI is gatekeeping those whom can - people that can write, people that can create art - however, as you said, the unique thing about being human is our ability of imagination, creativity, love - where does an art degree fit in that equation? AI opens up a world of possibilities for those less fortunate, support them in allowing them to be able to express themselves.

[@carultch]

The irony is that these people aren't expressing themselves at all by using it. They are expressing the people, the machine copied.

[@mamba101]

@@carultch or it enables them to express themselves in a way that they otherwise couldn’t? Who are you to deny that? The vast majority of art is a derivative of some kind already - the argument that LLMs are copying is not really accurate, trained on yes but not copied - just like what you’d do in an art degree I suppose…

[@antoguino]

how is a computer program more accessible than a pen and paper? those less fortunate people you’re talking about would have a much easier time sketching something with those than they would paying some company for the ability to look at pictures they had no input in creating.

[@mamba101]

@@antoguino do you not see the contradiction in your statement? Assuming they’d have an easier time with pen and paper? Like what about someone that can’t hold a pen? I understand taking a position against generative AI in terms of it being used by corporations to subvert the need for artists - but to equivocate that to someone with a disability wanting to use it to express themselves is just not the same thing.

[@antoguino]

@@mamba101 people with disabilities do art all the time. i KNOW people with such disabilities who do art. they hate AI just as much as i do. nobody, including people with disabilities, can use AI images to express themselves, because they aren’t expressing themselves. they’re expressing what an algorithm’s pattern recognition decides is their idea. it’s meaningless. at that point, why not just give them google search, tell them they can “express” themselves with that. they have zero creative input either way.

[@BrianReplies]

You used "stealing" language. Stealing is a legal concept. Fair use is....by definition...legal...and thus it is NOT....stealing. Nobody needs to "ask permission" or pay someone in order to engage in that fair use. Do parody comic artists needs to ask permission from Disney or Marvel or whoever before they make a cartoon poking fun at their copyrighted IP characters? No. Of course not. Are they allowed to get paid by The Atlantic if their cartoon is included in the magazine? Yes. They can. Does the Atlantic have to pay Disney/Marvel to use the comic snip? No. Why? Because fair use is LEGAL. It is not stealing. And since making a mathematical "model" by having a computer "look at" a bunch of images is the most transformative thing humans have ever done (a math model has NOTHING in common with visual imagery or the written word)...and since transformative use is fair use...then the making of math models by AI training routines is fair use. Which means it is NOT stealing. But my guess is you'll pull the whole "it FEELS like stealing to me!" and keep using this incorrect and emotionally charged language. Even though you will from forever here on forward know you are using the "stealing" claims in bad faith. You'll do it anyway. Because you live life based on feelings and not logic. But the courts won't be doing that. Which is why it's almost inevitable that they will ultimately side with the AI model training companies. Because of the exact logic train I just shared.

[@antoguino]

okay, let’s say that it isn’t stealing and it’s completely protected under fair use, and AI companies are allowed to do what they’re doing now by law. I honestly don’t think it matters. Why would I ever want a machine that imitates the most emotionally charged and beautiful things a human can do? Honestly, tell me what good that does, because there isn’t any other than “company make more money now” or “now i don’t need to pay an artist” I genuinely see no upside to allowing these companies to continue to dilute and degrade artistic integrity by making it meaningless and directionless, by making it mean nothing. Yes, I’m emotionally charged on this topic, because it’s about emotions, it’s about feeling. Life is meant to be lived with feelings and with logic, and allowing these generative AI models to take over industries is ignoring the experience and knowledge and feelings that are integral to everything people do. So even if they do side with the AI companies, I could not care less, because everything produced that way will be without meaning, without intent, and without substance.

[@BudgiePanic]

6:43 The word you're looking for here is 'machine learning' it is a subset of the artificial intelligence field where this nonsense is emerging from.

[@Szgerle]

I love the AI just because it makes all those starving artists who thought themselves hot shit unemployed.