[ SECRET POST #5981 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5981 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



__________________________________________________



08.



__________________________________________________



09.























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 38 secrets from Secret Submission Post #855.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly the more I hear from from 'Replace Creativity With Ai' people, the more I'm convinced that they'd be satisfied with the equivalent of a shiny jangling set of keys before them over some genuine human imagination.

Bit sad to be so easily amused and settle for no quality tbh.

[(Anonymous)]

You know, I'm glad you put words to this. Because I've been thinking it and it's been bothering me.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I agree with this line of argument. It's clear that right now the technology isn't close to good enough to do what its boosters want it to do. And even if the technology is good enough, there are fundamental economic questions about protecting peoples' livelihoods and not exploiting people.

But there's also a way of thinking about it where it's like AI will *never* be able to successfully replaced human creativity because human creativity is Magic and I don't know if that's actually true. I think it's entirely possible that AI will get to a level where it can produce outputs that are as good as, and indistinguishable from, really good creative human output. I think that's probably still a long way out. But there's no reason it couldn't happen.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

But I don't find this convincing at all. I've heard people being obnoxious with their (lying) claims that the technology is already this good, and with a lot of specious arguments for why, if you disagree and point out the flaws, no one should listen to you ... and when we clear out that utter junk, someone comes along and sings the song of "BUT it could be that good, someday ..."

Which seems like a last-ditch attempt to get support for something that should not be supported.

IMO, human creativity serves a very practical function, on top of all its emotionally satisfying ones. It helps people figure out what resonates with their dreams and focus their individual efforts on a future they want to create together. "Let's set it up so machines that are utterly obedient to the dictates of the handful of people who can afford to fund them are the official sources for the stories that are supposed to give meaning and depth and transcendence to everyone else's lives" is not any part of any future I want.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not in any way an attempt to get support for AI. I don't think that support or opposition of AI should depend on how good the technology is.

In fact, that's basically my central point here: it is bad to make the flaws of AI as it currently exists a cornerstone of your anti-AI argument. Because then where does that leave you if the technology *does* get better? It leaves you up a creek without a paddle.

If you think it's an important point of principle that we defend human creativity and not set up a future where AI is the official source of creating all stories, I think we should make clear-headed arguments in opposition to that possibility. The reason to oppose that possibility is because it would be bad for human beings, not because it's fundamentally impossible for AI technology to ever reach that point. If it's fundamentally impossible for AI technology to ever reach that point, we don't even need to have this conversation in the first place. And more importantly, there's no fundamental justification for drawing a hard line about what AI development can or cannot achieve. And there's plenty of examples in the past of people saying that AI will never be able to achieve something that it later, in fact, achieved.

[(Anonymous)]

I hope that AI gets banned <3

[(Anonymous)]

OK!

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT

You're pretending I (and the anon you responded to first) were making an argument that we did not make. No one said the only or primary reason to oppose the current push for AI is because the quality it can produce is crap. What they said, and I agree, is that people championing "replace creativity with AI" arguments seem oblivious to the difference between telling a story and just moving something in front of the audience's face.

And "it can't be done now, but it could be done in the future" is currently the fashionable way to say "we're developing this desirable thing, fund us!" (Or at least don't say things that will make the people who are funding us get cold feet!!) So I'm rather skeptical of your assertion that you're not arguing on behalf of AI.

[(Anonymous)]

Couldn't care less. Unless the plan is to hide that its made by AI, I'm certainly not going to touch anything that admits to being made by AI when I could choose to support real artists instead.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

But I'd be surprised if that isn't the plan. In fact, I'd assume that's already happening.

They've had piss-poor luck getting people to keep funding the distribution mafias between creators and consumers, and the thread that "but you should BUY it" has been hanging on for years is people's sense of obligation to the artists. Given that, who's going to admit that what they're trying to sell you makes 100% profit for their stakeholders and was spit out by a machine from start to finish?

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, I'm already not seeing most of the 'big-blockbuster' movies and steaming services are a joke that I haven't really paid for since 2021 - so even with people creating it, my money isn't going towards it.
I assume if Big Corporation is just going to continue making everything - but with AI, the situation is still the same. It's never been easier to boycott shit since all I gotta do is not pay for it and just, go into old media or smaller indie stuff which is more likely to be created by people (ok, I suppose some one is going to be the one to use AI in indie spaces - but if they get discovered, they're probably not going to be popular for it lol).

AI can 'be the future' for all its parasitic existence can be, but I think people will probably see the different between the genuine and generated.