I believe that each one of us can make a difference.
We choose which websites we visit, no?
So, I ask everyone that wants to support artists to put their mouse cursor and keyboard keystrokes where their mouth is and stay away from websites that are stealing from artists.
Imho, this controversy is a temporary melodrama that is a function of the newness of AI, and our very human love of melodrama. It will pass. Here’s the proof…
1) Around the turn of the 20th century agriculture was mechanized, resulting in much more efficient food production. Many farm workers lost their jobs to tractors. Do you care? Are you willing to pay a lot more for your food to restore those lost jobs.
2) In the middle of the 20th century the factories began to be automated, resulting in much more efficient production of many different goods. Many factory workers lost their jobs to this automation process. Do you care? Are you willing to pay a lot more for your car to restore those lost jobs?
3) This automation process is now coming to the white collar world. White collar workers such as Substackers are the last people who can be objective about this transition.
4) It doesn’t matter what you and I think about the automation of the white collar world. Whether we agree, or disagree, it’s going to happen anyway. Thus, complaining and applauding is pointless. The only rational act is for each of us to try to understand how we will adapt to this new environment.
5) We’re like the wildlife on a savannah which is being transformed by climate change. Some of the animals will adapt and live. Others will fail to adapt and die. Which one do you want to be?
Phil, these are the arguments that continue to be trotted out all over social media and in numerous debates, but they miss the point that we creators keep making but somehow keeps falling on deaf ears: we are not against the technology as a tool. What we do not accept are the scraping and usage of our work without our knowledge and consent.
So it's not about adaptation to a new tech or a new way of creating art. It's about how the generative AI tools were trained, built, developed, and how they're being monetized.
As for the automation point, there are things we humans do that you simply cannot automate—art is one of them.
Do you have any plan for changing the way gen AI tools are built? What about those that are already built? I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but isn't some plan necessary to make a rejection meaningful?
Maybe the New York Times suit will be successful? That might be a turning point?
I'm not an engineer so I couldn't speak to the development of gen AI tools from a technical perspective, but from an ethical/labor/IP perspective, I sure have plenty of recommendations, the likes of which have been put forth by plenty of my colleagues as well as lawmakers and ethicists. But those are recommendations and requests; a "plan" would require the active participation of the AI companies. In fact, there are some smaller organizations that do see eye to AI, if you pardon the pun, with us creators, and they are working on LLMs that do take those recommendations into consideration.
Not sure what you mean by making a rejection meaningful.
To the point of the lawsuits, yes, it would be nice to have the laws catch up to this new reality that the AI companies have wrought, and stay ahead of technology when it comes to people's lives and livelihoods.
Let's say the U.S. Congress passes a law which meets your concerns. The U.S. Congress has jurisdiction over about 5% of the world's population. Roughly the same for the EU. And...
We live in a globalized world where everything is connected to everything else. There is no effective law which governs the entire planet. And...
Vast swaths of the planet are ruled by ruthless psychopaths who could care less about anybody's property rights, given that they are already deeply engaged in stealing vast sums from their own fellow citizens. Putin is reported to be either the richest man in the world, or close to it, on a president's salary.
Point being, I'm not sure anybody is really in a position to deliver the AI future you reasonably prefer. You know, we can't stop the spread of nuclear weapons either, a FAR bigger threat.
Imho, what we're witnessing is a sweeping historical change that is beyond anyone's power to control. If true, then the question perhaps becomes, what is our relationship with factors beyond our control?
The irony is that the art business became possible due to the earlier automation transitions.
It used to take roughly half the population to produce the food needed. Example: In 1900 about 40% of the population lived on farms, whereas today it's only 1%. When agriculture was automated vast numbers of people were then available to provide other services to society. The same thing happened again in the factories. It was this automation process which made us rich enough that we could afford to spend money on art.
It's not possible for any of us to hit the pause button on the unfolding development of advanced societies.
Fatalism is foolish, every system has evolved with input from all involved. As COVID showed, shutting down the world doesnt even take that much and the demon machine of AI may very well be slayable by poison.
I believe that each one of us can make a difference.
We choose which websites we visit, no?
So, I ask everyone that wants to support artists to put their mouse cursor and keyboard keystrokes where their mouth is and stay away from websites that are stealing from artists.
🙏
May the anti-life equation of AI die to poison.
Imho, this controversy is a temporary melodrama that is a function of the newness of AI, and our very human love of melodrama. It will pass. Here’s the proof…
1) Around the turn of the 20th century agriculture was mechanized, resulting in much more efficient food production. Many farm workers lost their jobs to tractors. Do you care? Are you willing to pay a lot more for your food to restore those lost jobs.
2) In the middle of the 20th century the factories began to be automated, resulting in much more efficient production of many different goods. Many factory workers lost their jobs to this automation process. Do you care? Are you willing to pay a lot more for your car to restore those lost jobs?
3) This automation process is now coming to the white collar world. White collar workers such as Substackers are the last people who can be objective about this transition.
4) It doesn’t matter what you and I think about the automation of the white collar world. Whether we agree, or disagree, it’s going to happen anyway. Thus, complaining and applauding is pointless. The only rational act is for each of us to try to understand how we will adapt to this new environment.
5) We’re like the wildlife on a savannah which is being transformed by climate change. Some of the animals will adapt and live. Others will fail to adapt and die. Which one do you want to be?
Phil, these are the arguments that continue to be trotted out all over social media and in numerous debates, but they miss the point that we creators keep making but somehow keeps falling on deaf ears: we are not against the technology as a tool. What we do not accept are the scraping and usage of our work without our knowledge and consent.
So it's not about adaptation to a new tech or a new way of creating art. It's about how the generative AI tools were trained, built, developed, and how they're being monetized.
As for the automation point, there are things we humans do that you simply cannot automate—art is one of them.
Life should not be automated. It is worth questioning earlier automations, too.
And active poisoning of the demon machines may yet save us.
Do you have any plan for changing the way gen AI tools are built? What about those that are already built? I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but isn't some plan necessary to make a rejection meaningful?
Maybe the New York Times suit will be successful? That might be a turning point?
I'm not an engineer so I couldn't speak to the development of gen AI tools from a technical perspective, but from an ethical/labor/IP perspective, I sure have plenty of recommendations, the likes of which have been put forth by plenty of my colleagues as well as lawmakers and ethicists. But those are recommendations and requests; a "plan" would require the active participation of the AI companies. In fact, there are some smaller organizations that do see eye to AI, if you pardon the pun, with us creators, and they are working on LLMs that do take those recommendations into consideration.
Not sure what you mean by making a rejection meaningful.
To the point of the lawsuits, yes, it would be nice to have the laws catch up to this new reality that the AI companies have wrought, and stay ahead of technology when it comes to people's lives and livelihoods.
Let's say the U.S. Congress passes a law which meets your concerns. The U.S. Congress has jurisdiction over about 5% of the world's population. Roughly the same for the EU. And...
We live in a globalized world where everything is connected to everything else. There is no effective law which governs the entire planet. And...
Vast swaths of the planet are ruled by ruthless psychopaths who could care less about anybody's property rights, given that they are already deeply engaged in stealing vast sums from their own fellow citizens. Putin is reported to be either the richest man in the world, or close to it, on a president's salary.
Point being, I'm not sure anybody is really in a position to deliver the AI future you reasonably prefer. You know, we can't stop the spread of nuclear weapons either, a FAR bigger threat.
Imho, what we're witnessing is a sweeping historical change that is beyond anyone's power to control. If true, then the question perhaps becomes, what is our relationship with factors beyond our control?
Big issues and questions indeed. To your question I would say, we first need to change our relationship with said factors. :)
The irony is that the art business became possible due to the earlier automation transitions.
It used to take roughly half the population to produce the food needed. Example: In 1900 about 40% of the population lived on farms, whereas today it's only 1%. When agriculture was automated vast numbers of people were then available to provide other services to society. The same thing happened again in the factories. It was this automation process which made us rich enough that we could afford to spend money on art.
It's not possible for any of us to hit the pause button on the unfolding development of advanced societies.
Fatalism is foolish, every system has evolved with input from all involved. As COVID showed, shutting down the world doesnt even take that much and the demon machine of AI may very well be slayable by poison.