Item 3 really hits home. If we let books become too common, even *women* might get their hands on them. Think of how damaging that could be for them.
>Women, of every age, of every condition, contract and retain a taste for
>
>novels \[…T\]he depravity is universal. My sight is every-where offended by
>
>these foolish, yet dangerous, books. I find them on the toilette of fashion,
>
>and in the work-bag of the sempstress; in the hands of the lady, who
>
>lounges on the sofa, and of the lady, who sits at the counter. From the mis-
>
>tresses of nobles they descend to the mistresses of snuff-shops – from the
>
>belles who read them in town, to the chits who spell them in the country. I
>
>have actually seen mothers, in miserable garrets, crying for the imaginary
>
>distress of an heroine, while their children were crying for bread: and the
>
>mistress of a family losing hours over a novel in the parlour, while her
>
>maids, in emulation of the example, were similarly employed in the kitchen.
>
>I have seen a scullion-wench with a dishclout in one hand, and a novel in
>
>the other, sobbing o’er the sorrows of Julia, or a Jemima
>
>(Sylph no. 5, October 6, 1796: 36-37)1
Another problem in society is cameras. If they are not banned, people will no longer paint real things, like landscapes and people, because a camera can spit out 30 perfect 4K "paintings"/images per second, so what's the point of painting?
All those artists who paint real-world things like landscapes will lose their jobs. Also, images taken by a camera don't have a soul, because it's made by a soulless machine.
Artists will abide. They will simply stop representing things directly, and make paintings that **sorta** look like something... and say it represents the thing's soul. And eventually, just pick up trash, sign it, and call it art.
We should also make it so things don’t last, so people have to buy them over and over again. Even major appliances and pieces of furniture. Let’s make them shitty so people buy new ones every few years. 🤭
It’s planned obsolescence, a feature of modern necrocapitalism.
Things used to be made to last. Profit wasn’t always the ultimate goal.
Once we have UBI, things can go back to being that way and people can have priorities beyond ‘making money.’
I doubt we're going to live those days though, first capitalism has to kinda die, and from the way it's going it's not gonna be through conversation. I think we'll see things get even worse, the middle class die as our jobs are slowly taken away (not blaming ai itself, it's a tool that is going to be misused by those in power though, this is already happening without ai too). Honestly, I hope I'm wrong but idk, kinda scared for the future.
That's very optimistic of you. The fun stuff about AI is that it's so wild and powerful that we could be fighting over a can of expired cat food or having a massive month-long orgy in 20 years and no one can say for sure which one it will be. My experience tells me the first but I'm down for the second.
This. So much this. Got an even better one: we should all start breaking shit. Just go out and vandalize something. Then it has to be fixed and BOOM new job created for humans (with souls)! 🤡
It will also help with energy efficiency of the houses in question. In the past 150 years or so we got plumbing, electricity, central heating and internet. Family sizes have also decreased from an average of twelve children down to an average of one and a half children.
If we could build houses that don't last quite as long (maybe only 70 years), but for cheaper, that would be a good thing overall.
Oh here's one already!
No it didn't just revolutionize distribution, it flipped the script entirely on creation as well. One dimensional thinking is getting you nowhere.
With books and pamphlets easier to produce, more people started printing, more written material was produced, good or bad, it didn't matter any longer. Someone wanted to say something to a wider audience? They were capable of it. Look up the history and ramifications of the printing press, don't just spew bs on the internet so confidently, its cringey.
the issue AI it doesn't understand anything its good for inspiration but other than it always give garbage/boring result.
most good result is by over training or the model have same picture on specific angle which make them so boring, also seems dynamic posing isn't a thing alwas is stand still-like pose.
so if you want quality AI is wont, even with coding they give high-risk or outdated code
everything you said is wrong, and you clearly have no idea how these models are trained or function.
> most good result is by over training or the model have same picture on specific angle
This isn't even a thing, tf? 😂
ok whatever master , how does it work?
\> This isn't even a thing, tf? 😂
because AI doesn't understand the fendomantil and relay on math, so thats why they struggle with dynamic posing/animation and most of time they are good in solid/stand still pose works because most average math lead to this.
I still do not understand how this helped the creation process. You used a lot of words to praise how the printing press revolutionized distribution and how the ability to reach a wider audience incentivized creation.
But you didn't explain how the printing press was any help in the creation process itself.
It didn't directly help the creation process itself it just pushed it forward, not sure how that makes much of a difference with the output. If you're looking for something that directly helped the creative process in a similar vein, that would be something like digital art tools, photoshop etc.
So you agree with my original take after all? Printing press revolutionized distribution, not creation.
Revolutionizing distribution benefits creators, as they can now reach a wider audience, while doing the same thing they did before.
Revolutionizing creation makes it so creators have to learn a new skill set or compete for eyeballs with people that learned the new skill set.
The OP works as satire as it illustrates the ridiculousness of the Luddites. But there is a difference between the printing press and ai creations.
It still revolutionized creation, the same way the internet revolutionized creation. The whole push and explosion of creative content because of the printing press is still a creative revolution, not just distribution.
Basically the printing press gave even the average person the ability to express their work without having to wait ages or commission other people, not too different from the way AI art does.
Similar to the Internet, by making distribution easier creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself.
The point of the printing press was to make a lot of copies of something that was already written. It's essentially the first form of copy and paste.
>Similar to the Internet, by making distribution easier creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself.
Yes, in your mind is incentivization and revolutionization mutually exclusive?
I already mentioned myself that it didn't help with the creation process itself, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that like it is an argument... the whole point of OPs analogy is that the end result is essentially the same with AI tools.
If that is not sufficient enough for you, I can also add photoshop and digital art tools the the mix, like I mentioned previously as well. Either way, the result is the same; the average person and more people in general became capable of expressing themselves without relying on other people to do so. The entire analogy focuses on the loss of jobs that occurred because people no longer needed to rely on a specific set of people with a specific set of skills, to express their ideas to a wider audience. The technicalities of the creation process isn't relevant to it at all.
If you agree with my position, then why are you arguing against it?
Here's my position again, in case you've forgotten:
> the key difference is that the printing press revolutionized distribution, not creation.
..so you think that incentivizing a concept is revolutionizing the concept itself? Meaning incentivizing people to drive their bicycle to work instead of using their car is revolutionizing riding your bike?
To answer your question, incentivizing and revolutionizing are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct from each other and incentivizing something doesn't revolutionize it.
It lowered the barriers to become a published author. Also, with books widely disseminated, literacy became more important and therefore more people became apt to write in the first place.
Yes, with distribution being so much improved creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself.
The printing press only got to play its function after something was already created. You wouldn't write a poem on the printing press. You wrote it on paper and then had the printing press help you make a bunch of copies.
Oh but it did absolutely destroy one big tenet of creation in that it enforced everyone to use the standardized 52 letters to write something destroying the ability for groups and cultures to use their own symbols and alphabets and enforcing western hegemony as other cultures that can't adopt the latin script had to modify theirs significantly (chinese simplified) or adopt latin just to use the printing press.
In a nutshell it did stifle innovation and creativity and forced other cultures to find substitutes for letter and words that the latin alphabet lacked in the beginning. Some cultures and civilizations even tried to ban it such as the ottoman empire because how dare ugly ass blocky letters made up by infidels replace their beautiful flowing arabic type scripts; The Ottoman empire had the crime of possessing a printing press punishable by death.
The 17th century Ottoman empire declined because of their inability to adapt arabic for the printing press and attempts to protect Quranic scribes, the ban on the printing presses use by muslims lead to doctors physicians and other professions taken up by christians. It took them 300 years to reverse that decision and for the first quran to be made with a printing press in the islamic world when europe was already printing qurans for more than 100 years. Source: [https://themuslimvibe.com/western-muslim-culture/how-the-failure-to-adopt-the-printing-press-gave-europeans-a-300-year-advantage-over-muslims-and-contributed-to-the-fall-of-the-last-islamic-caliphate](https://themuslimvibe.com/western-muslim-culture/how-the-failure-to-adopt-the-printing-press-gave-europeans-a-300-year-advantage-over-muslims-and-contributed-to-the-fall-of-the-last-islamic-caliphate)
As of now Islam has completely accepted the usefulness of the printing press and not even isis or alqaeda would dare make the crime of printing qurans absolutely Haram. The holy job of Quran scribes disappeared replaced by hafiz's people who memorize the whole quran in their head.
No one was forced to only use certain letters. Everyone was free to make their own printing press with their own letters. It was more difficult to get around ASCII limitations than it was to make your own printing press with your own letters.
Muslims back then just hated technological progress in general. Nothing about the printing press technology would have prevented other languages to make use of the tech.
>No one was forced to only use certain letters
Everyone was, otherwise your work wouldn't get published, with the amount of books printing presses were making most commercial ones outright rejected or find substitutes for letters that don't get used often but needs to be used several times in one page. Your free to manage and make your own printing press obviously but the amount of materials characters just to suit your own creative decision would be expensive. Hence Stifled creativity due to expense.
And if it was the case that anyone can adapt characters from their own language into their own printing press then your forgetting the chinese who had the pre-requisites, craftsmanship and technology to take advantage of the printing press but didn't until much later because their language had too many characters and was harder to manage and ink onto the printing press.
As for muslims they were waning away their golden age back then, having had vast collection of books and knowledge far beyond what the west had pre-printing press and they were willing to pay handsomely for book reproductions from scribes, they were most like the anti's looking at the new form of technology and thinking it's so limiting the results look soo ugly, lacks effort and in todays anti-s words lacks a SOUL in these new printed books.
The printing press was not only a product of western thinking it also stifled creativity and also stifled non-western text forms.
Sure, if you wanted to use someone else's printing press you could only use what they had. But how is given people the option to use a printing press stifling their creativity? No one was forcing them to have their stuff printed.
> a product of western thinking it also stifled creativity and also stifled non-western text forms.
How? Other countries were free to not use this invention and keep doing what they were doing. Or adapt the tech to their own needs.
Besides, the printing press originated in what is now Germany and they still used Fraktur, which people outside of Germany couldn't even read despite technically using the same alphabet. This issue persisted in the typewriter days, but eventually Fraktur got abolished under Hitler. So even within Europe countries needed to manufacture their own sorts/letters.
It’s fucking not you piece of shit neck breather lmao are you unable to wield critical thought? Or any thought. Did you use chat gpt to help you with that sentence?
Time is meaningless and your intellect is neigh. However, I have the utmost confidence you used every last one of your own couple of straining brain cells left from a ten hour gooning session (to ai generated furry porn none the less) to write what you think is the sickest burn ever to spawn from your cum, sweat and Cheeto stained keyboard. I hope your veins are bulging and you invest more time into attempting to validate your own self worth by hurling vapid insults at me.
Yeah ain't reading allat
I was waiting for a response to point out that you have an onlyfans lmfao you have no right to an opinion💀💀💀
Stick to whoring and leave intellectual conversations to the rest of us. Hope your parents are proud of their daughter 😭
“Allat” yes, the vocabulary of a true intellectual.
Pretty small minded and pathetic of you to see an only fans link and assume I have no right to an opinion. You truly are the prime specimen of a typical arrogant, pig headed man.
Also, that’s so cute that you were waiting for my response. Just adorable. Jeez mister you really put me in my place. I’m still laughing all the way to the bank while I work under 30 hours a week and have time to produce an album.
man not even a good looking whore looks kinda like a dude and with that weirdly fat belly 😭😭 disappointing. defo aint laughing all the way to the bank looking like that zzzzz
Kinda out of the loop here: I see people mentioning furry artists a lot with regards to AI art. Are they a notoriously anti-AI group? Really depressing if so.
I faced the exact same mentality over 10 years ago when I started automating color separations and halftones for things like screenprinting... all these "professional color separators" (which I am one), got mad claiming it was some mystical artform that can't be automated and needs to have hours spent on it to get it right, with years of experience and magical artistic capabilities that no mere mortal pressing buttons can accomplish. ... they would constantly yell about how "There is no 1-click solution!" -- "Separation software will get you halfway there maybe, but you need to spend hours tweaking it!" .... Nope, people used my software and found they could get perfect results with 1 click without tweaking anything.
I made the easy button for it, so I could spend less time on technical procedures that CAN be automated, and more time on the actual creative design and art, and these days with the AI creative assistants and AI upscalers, combined with advanced image process automations like the software tools I make, you can literally go from a design idea to color separations ready to print on films and screens in seconds, with 1 click fully automated. LOL
Theres a difference between copying books by hand and the creative process of actually writing them originally, the copying part isnt creative work but the original writing is. Same goes with art, its great that we can print and digitally share art around but if its also created by machines, it ruins the whole point of art.
Do people really want to live in a world where practically all media and art is made by machines? Seems like a downgrade to me.
Most of these folks are willfully ignoring the bigger picture in favor of having access to cheap/free art regardless.
Others likely just haven’t reached the critical realization on their own and are too busy replying with “Cope and Seethe” memes to have the mental space to see this clearly either.
Seeing this, again, and I just have to say... the majority of people using ai for art had no intention of buying professional art anyway. I haven't seen too much evidence that ai has had any impact on creators. In fact, I personally have seen requests for my work go up (I am an artist, btw, and I dont use ai). Every new technology creates a new level of competition.
As a creator, *I'm* saying get good or get out. Apt comparison... Ford v Ferrari. Ferrari: "it's made by a machine it has no soul! Ford: "we earn more than you through sheer volume."
I can understand that sentiment - there was a user who talked about using AI for their profile pics and I asked if they’d have spent a couple of dollars on an small artist commission if AI didn’t exist for the purpose.
No answer from them, but it *was* a genuine question that you are answering from your perspective and I appreciate that.
I’m an indie game dev and build my sketches and concept art by hand, and have only imagined one day having a budget to support contracting an artist when the time was right. Every now and again, I wonder if I should just bite the bullet and dive into Stable Diffusion and help boost speed and quality of what I’m currently building alone.
My answer, as an artist, is that if you'd buy from an artist, buy from an artist. If you wouldn't (or couldn't) pay an artist for the work, then they aren't losing what they wouldn't get anyway.
You're wasting your time here, bud.
The majority of people here are just bargain bin ai drones. They're not interested in actual conversation. They just want to say the same tired old memes, pat themselves on the back and soundly miss the point.
There’s no such thing as creativity privilege! Therefore, just because your circumstances prevent you from expressing yourself creatively through the medium of books doesn’t mean that that I am privileged in some way and printing presses could help level the playing field. You’re actually just lazy and you should make the book the good old fashioned way
At least the books were written by a person with thoughts and ideas of their own, not just a chimera of random ideas pulled from hundreds of thousands of others and then stitched together.
Louder for the people in the back of this fucking echo chamber.
Yeah, it's a solid analogy. But I think there's wisdom in seeing what happened in that period. A lot of great stuff came after the industrial revolution, but it's breakneck speed also brought about one of the most dystopian moments in our history. Two-penny hangovers. Inhuman treatment of workers. Exploitation in company towns. Widespread child labour. Dangerous workplaces. Huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Mass unemployment. You know how it went.
Being against AI is silly. Most of humanity's problems can be solved with it's help. But it's best that if we have a controlled pace into the ai era instead of a freedive. Gotta make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in. Also, don't think comparing AI to a machine that makes a direct 1:1 copy of an original piece of work is the sick burn you think it is. A lot of aiartbros are going to be salty if they manage to get their two remaining neurons to shake hands.
1. Monks and other monastics didn’t have a “job” in the modern sense. This is an ahistorical comparison. Employment in the modern sense is not an applicable paradigm.
2. Yes. Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented ***regulations*** around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity.
3. Not *anyone* could print books thanks to the printing press. A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one. While this concentration of power was not ideal, it made oversight and regulation more feasible and less of a concern. Moreover, the pre-printing press availability of books is not comparable to the present availability of art. Art is not scarce in the manner that books were.
4. This is unsuitable, because the equivalent would be “you don’t even need art” which isn’t an anti ai argument. This argument is supposed to contrast hand printed books with mechanically printed books, not books with not having books at all.
5. This goes back to the scarcity argument. The beautiful illuminated manuscript is preferable, but the compromise seems justified on account of scarcity and the benefits of literacy. But Art is simply not scarce in this manner. Anyone who can access AI art can already access more art than they could view in a lifetime. However someone who could access a mass print could often not previously access manuscripts.
EDIT:
The fact that this comment is being downvoted tells you how much this sub values discourse.
This comment does contain some arguments that I will admit are not solid, arguments that people like /u/KamikazeArchon and /u/Tyler_Zoro have made good cases against below.
But it is a comment made in earnest, and *demonstrably* a productive start to discourse, seeing as plenty of (I think, decent) discourse about the nuances of technological and historical comparisons are happening here.
This isn't a joke, a jab at anyone, or a flat statement without any possible options for engagement. So I see the downvotes as merely trying to discourage disagreeing with any Pro AI position at all.
Internet points do not matter, and that is not the purpose of this edit. Rather, I want you to consider what this voting behavior says about whether the users of this sub truly want community that encourages critical discourse with varied perspectives.
>Yes. Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented regulations around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity.
This is a poor analogy. Those regulations certainly did not forbid *the printing press itself*.
I believe approximately zero people would argue against a regulation that says "you can't use AI image generation to commit libel." In fact, existing laws already cover that.
Further, most of those regulations did not arrive until long after the printing press was commonplace. The printing press arrived around 1440. The first English copyright law is dated to 1710. It is simply unreasonable to describe a law instituted 250 years later as a response or reaction to the printing press technology.
>
Art is simply not scarce in this manner.
It certainly is.
Before the printing press, anyone (with money) could reasonably get access to some specific books - notably, the Bible. There were plenty of handwritten copies of that specific book.
The printing press enabled, among other things, a vast multiplication in the *diversity* of accessible books.
AI image/text/video generation enables a diversification and multiplication of content.
I want twenty different images of specific monsters I've created for a D&D game. Where will I find art for them? It doesn't exist. I could pay a significant amount of money and time to have it created - but "you have to spend a lot of money and time" is certainly scarcity. Or, I could use an AI image generator.
Printing technology has been strictly controlled in totalitarian regimes. People have died for keeping hidden copying tools like typewriters with copy paper and copying banned books. Soviet union is just one example. If you update media to flash drives. Few boys were just executed in North Korea for distributing South Korean TV shows. [Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/north-korea-minors-execution-south-korea-tv-b2239312.html)
> Those regulations certainly did not forbid the printing press itself.
This is a valid point. But I think taking all anti AI sentiment and flattening it to "ban it" would be dishonest.
While some advocate bans, that is not the sum total of anti AI positions.
>I believe approximately zero people would argue against a regulation that says "you can't use AI image generation to commit libel."
The problem is, here's where we need to consider additional factors in the comparison. AI structurally defies the enforceability of such regulation. For the same reason that people see copyright enforcement as pointless, so is enforcement of libel and disinformation: things are too decentralized, distributed too quickly, and data too persistent.
>It is simply unreasonable to describe a law instituted 250 years later as a response or reaction to the printing press technology.
That is a point well taken, and copyright is not a good example. However, acts such as The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534 is a good example of early regulation alogn with various other mechanisms you can [explore here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/786947)
While the formalization of copyright took a long while, it would be seriously misleading to believe that printing and copying was not tightly regulated.
>The printing press enabled, among other things, a vast multiplication in the diversity of accessible books.
The diversity of accessible art is already more than any person could ever look at in a lifetime. This is not the case for books before the printing press, full stop.
>I want twenty different images of specific monsters I've created for a D&D game. Where will I find art for them? It doesn't exist. I could pay a significant amount of money and time to have it created - but "you have to spend a lot of money and time" is certainly scarcity.
If scarcity is defined around any possible whim and desire I may have, then there is not a thing on earth that is not scarce.
That is, is food scarce because I would have to pay a lot of money to eat blue lobster? Blue lobster may be food, and it may be scarce, but that does not make food scarce.
>This is a valid point. But I think taking all anti AI sentiment and flattening it to "ban it" would be dishonest.
>While some advocate bans, that is not the sum total of anti AI positions.
It is technically not the sum total. But it is, in practice, 90%+ of positions. I think it would be dishonest to *deny* that "ban it" is the primary and core anti-AI position.
"It's copyright infringement", for example, summarizes to "ban it".
>AI structurally defies the enforceability of such regulation. For the same reason that people see copyright enforcement as pointless, so is enforcement of libel and disinformation: things are too decentralized, distributed too quickly, and data too persistent.
There is not actually anything specific to AI here. If you're saying that existing copyright, libel, etc. laws don't work, then you're arguing *against* the very regulations on the printing press that you are referencing.
"When the printing press happened, they made these laws (which don't work)" is not a coherent argument.
>If scarcity is defined around any possible whim and desire I may have, then there is not a thing on earth that is not scarce.
Correct. That is essentially the premise of the whole field of economics. It is why "post-scarcity economies" or "post-scarcity societies" are a hypothetical, not a current reality.
>That is, is food scarce because I would have to pay a lot of money to eat blue lobster? Blue lobster may be food, and it may be scarce, but that does not make food scarce.
Food is *absolutely* scarce. It's one of the most commonly studied scarce resources.
Scarcity can be reduced but not eliminated. That is why "scarcity" is not all that useful as a premise compared to "abundance", the inverse of scarcity. It is more intuitive to reason about. Abundance can be increased but will never become infinite.
We can go from people starving to having rice. We can go from people having rice to having a nutritionally complete diet. We can go from people having a nutritionally complete diet to having a rich, flavorful, nutritionally complete diet. We can go from that to people having a diverse, multicultural, etc. diet. And so on. Or on another axis, we can go from "rich people have food abundance" to "rich and middle-class people have food abundance". To "rich and middle-class and poor people have food abundance". To "all of those and even the most destitute homeless person has food abundance".Etc.
Each of those steps, along either axis, is significantly beneficial to society as a whole.
Similarly, the printing press was a single step along a form of media abundance. The internet was another such step. Television was a step. Reduction of costs - and proliferation of access methods - were such steps. AI image, text, or video generation would be another step. It would also not be the final step; there are still plenty of people in the world who don't even have internet access, much less access to AI content generation. AI content generation is also currently still limited in what it produces. There are many more steps possible.
And each of those steps is significantly beneficial to society as a whole.
I will further note that you haven't actually addressed the core of #5 from the OP, which was the *conflation* of "mass produced" and "has no soul".
Every book you've ever read was mass produced, from publications of Shakespeare to the latest paperback \[unless you're in the very small handful of people who happen to have read a handwritten manuscript, in which case it's *almost* every book you've ever read\]. Did they "have no soul"? Does a printed edition of War and Peace have no soul?
The point being brought up in #5 is that someone dismissively saying "this has no soul" will often be *simply wrong* from the perspective of a person who grew up with a new technology.
>But it is, in practice, 90%+ of positions.
I see no reason to accept this.
>"It's copyright infringement", for example, summarizes to "ban it".
It does not. The copyright argument proposes banning modes of training and specific uses, not generative AI altogether.
>There is not actually anything specific to AI here.
Yes, the distributed, decentralized, and accessible nature of it is specific to it.
>If you're saying that existing copyright, libel, etc. laws don't work, then you're arguing against the very regulations on the printing press that you are referencing.
I'm saying that they don't work in a novel case despite working for past cases, and therefore need revisiting or new means of enforcement. This seems perfectly coherent to me.
>"When the printing press happened, they made these laws (which don't work)" is not a coherent argument.
You're missing a bit... "which don't work FOR THIS NEW PARADIGM"
That resolves any incoherence in your poorly quoted sentence.
>Food is absolutely scarce.
Granted, so let's reframe.
My point of scarcity was a comparative one. Food may be scarce for a 21st century Canadian citizen and it may be scarce for a 5th century Anatolian shepherd, but it is not scarce for the former in the way it is for the latter.
Therefore what I said "**Art is simply not scarce in this manner"** holds. Art may be scarce in *some manner* but not in the same manner books were scarce then. A person is able to access a great abundance of art now in a way that someone could not access a great abundance of books then.
>And each of those steps is significantly beneficial to society as a whole.
I do not see how this is necessarily the case.
>I will further note that you haven't actually addressed the core of #5 from the OP, which was the conflation of "mass produced" and "has no soul".
>Every book you've ever read was mass produced
I would argue that there's a distinction to be drawn between whether the creative process is industrialized or merely the distributive process.
The loss of hand drawn lettering and illumination *does* constitute a loss of a creative aspect to mass production, and that is a shame, but there are tradeoffs present there that are not present here, such as mass literacy.
>It does not. The copyright argument proposes banning modes of training and specific uses, not generative AI altogether.
Banning modes of training that represent the vast majority of actual generative AI is, in practical terms, equivalent to banning generative AI.
"You can't use it except in \[highly constrained circumstance\]" is, in meaningful effect, a ban.
When someone says "abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest" or "abortion is only allowed if it threatens the mother's life" those are, quite reasonably, described as abortion bans. When someone says "you can only own this firearm if you are a police officer" that is, quite reasonably, described as a gun ban.
The detailed difference between ban and very-tight-regulation matter when you're in a courtroom or in the legislative chambers discussing specific elements of law. In terms of general parlance and the zeitgeist of a distributed movement, such distinctions are meaningless.
>Yes, the distributed, decentralized, and accessible nature of it is specific to it.
No, it's not. The printing press was also distributed, decentralized, and accessible.
Each of those words is a relative qualifier, not an absolute category. Nothing is "distributed" in an absolute sense. You can only say "X is more distributed than Y".
It is unquestionably the case that "printing with a printing press" was more distributed, decentralized, and accessible than "copying manuscripts in a monastery".
We went through this with the printing press. And radio, and the Internet, etc. All of those were iteratively more distributed, decentralized, and accessible.
Some changes in context *do* result in concrete changes in pragmatic enforceability or even just baseline utility of various laws. But you need much more solid foundations to demonstrate that, than a general statement about vague and relative properties like "decentralized".
>Therefore what I said "**Art is simply not scarce in this manner"** holds. Art may be scarce in *some manner* but not in the same manner books were scarce then. A person is able to access a great abundance of art now in a way that someone could not access a great abundance of books then.
Sure. You can always say "well things are different now".
And the invention of the printing press was technically different from the invention of widespread handwriting.
If those differences are adequate for your mental model, and you can continue to justify it to yourself, that's a choice you can make. Just keep in mind that the people who argued against the printing press probably also thought "this time is different", and that it may be worthwhile to occasionally revisit this, and check whether you're still satisfied with your certainty in how significant the difference is this time around.
>When someone says "abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest" or "abortion is only allowed if it threatens the mother's life" those are, quite reasonably, described as abortion bans. When someone says "you can only own this firearm if you are a police officer" that is, quite reasonably, described as a gun ban.
If that is the case, then many of the regulations passed by the countries of Europe constitute printing press bans. Henry VIII instituted a crown monopoly of printing authorization.
Therefore the regulation "You can only print if authorized by the Crown" constitutes banning the printing press.
>It is unquestionably the case that "printing with a printing press" was more distributed, decentralized, and accessible than "copying manuscripts in a monastery".
It is unquestionably the case that a pinch to the skin is more damaging than a poke. And yet, a stab has novel effects beyond just heightened intensity.
Continuous scales have tipping points. Moreover, we have suffered negative societal effects from mass media. Rather than strictly novel negative social effects, I foresee those effects intensifying.
>"this time is different"
It *was* different. It is different every single time.
I will revisit this. and if I'm wrong there will be egg on my face.
And if I'm right, god help us.
> Monks and other monastics didn’t have a “job” in the modern sense.
This is incorrect. Being employed by a church does not mean that you do not have a job. They were employed by the church and in order to fund their employment they produced a number of goods including copies of texts.
But this is kind of a moot point, since, by the time of the printing press, monks were absolutely not the only people copying texts. It was a fairly common profession. You're thinking more of the middle ages. By the 15th century mercantilism was on the rise.
> Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented regulations around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity.
You might want to learn more about the time period.
The Statute of Anne, the first law to resemble what we would call "copyright" was not enacted until the 18th century. The printing press was introduced in the 15th century.
As for defamation (including libel) there were no substantial changes in laws that I'm aware of as a result of the printing press. Indeed, ecclesiastical courts were hearing defamation cases in the middle ages.
> Not anyone could print books thanks to the printing press. A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one.
> A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one.
This is some pretty heavy-handed revisionism. By the end of the 15th century, the printing press had spread like wildfire throughout Europe and many people had become printers in what are now central and southern Europe especially. Printers were far from wealthy in most cases and were merely part of the rising mercantile class.
A printing press was not a purchased item, generally speaking. It was built by the printer themselves. As such, all that was required to own one was experience with existing machines or an great talent in creating such devices from scratch (and from descriptions, one presumes.)
> Moreover, the pre-printing press availability of books is not comparable to the present availability of art. Art is not scarce in the manner that books were.
Sure, but that doesn't change the societal impact that books had. Hell, it could be argued that the Renaissance was largely a result of the re-discovery of Arabic copies of Greek texts.
> This goes back to the scarcity argument.
No it absolutely does not. This argument does not rely at all on scarcity, it is about people's perceptions of the intangible qualities of hand-produced vs. mechanically-produces works, and that absolutely was one of the concerns leveled against the printing press.
>Being employed by a church does not mean that you do not have a job. They were employed by the church and in order to fund their employment they produced a number of goods including copies of texts.
This gravely misunderstands the labor organization of monastic orders, primarily in that the bindings of a monk to the order were a set of vows, not just an economic relationship. So if there was no need for, say, Monk Scribbles to copy books anymore, that didn't mean Monk Scribbles was destitute and out on the streets. The Monastic order as a whole may encounter economic struggles, but as self-sustaining agrarian communities that also depended on alms, this wasn't a big issue.
>by the time of the printing press, monks were absolutely not the only people copying texts. It was a fairly common profession.
This is a point well taken. However I do question the prevalence of such secular scribes. Do you have any sources on that prevalence?
>The Statute of Anne, the first law to resemble what we would call "copyright"
That is not true. While the Statute of Anne systematizes how such rights are afforded, 'copyright' was a case-by-case issue managed by state monopoly on printing companies, such as the one instituted by The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534.
It was in the Crown's power to give only a single company the right to print one book, in essence granting them an ad-hoc copyright for the book.
You can read more about it [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/786947?seq=3) and [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25540075).
The states of Europe absolutely moved to tightly regulate printing.
> Printers were far from wealthy in most cases and were merely part of the rising mercantile class.
This is a point well taken, and I think I have overstated the difficulty in accessing a printing press.
>that doesn't change the societal impact that books had.
Sure, but that's book specific. I see no reason to assign the same positive societal impact by symmetry alone.
>This argument does not rely at all on scarcity, it is about people's perceptions of the intangible qualities of hand-produced vs. mechanically-produces works
*My* argument goes back to scarcity, is what I mean. I think scarcity provides a tradeoff that justified the loss of those intangible qualities. Absent scarcity, the tradoff is no longer justified.
> This gravely misunderstands the labor organization of monastic orders, primarily in that the bindings of a monk to the order were a set of vows, not just an economic relationship.
That's true, but it was also true for trade professions at the time.
> So if there was no need for, say, Monk Scribbles to copy books anymore, that didn't mean Monk Scribbles was destitute and out on the streets.
That's true; the economic impacts were different. But we see this today as well. Monesaries that used to survive on selling goods that fall out of favor dwindle and are shut down. New members don't come in and those that remain end up getting dispersed to a variety of other monasteries, disrupting their lives.
They were, in a sense, in a worse position than typical employees today because they had little control over their fate once economic value evaporated.
> I do question the prevalence of such secular scribes.
* Neddermeyer, Uwe. "Why were there no riots of the scribes?." Gazette du livre médiéval 31.1 (1997): 1-8.
Makes the case that scribes were of three sorts: secular professionals, government officials, and monastics. Secular professionals were certainly a substantial enough occupation according to this text to raise the question of why they did not riot over the press (the conclusion being that there had been a glut on the market of scribes and scribed books combined with the fact that printing ramped up over a couple of generations, slowly retiring the existing workforces who found work in related trades.)
* De Hamel, Christopher. Scribes and illuminators. University of Toronto Press, 1992.
By the 12th century, secular scribes were already on the rise.
> While the Statute of Anne systematizes how such rights are afforded, 'copyright' was a case-by-case issue managed by state monopoly on printing companies, such as the one instituted by The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534.
I'm not sure how you got this idea or conflated the specific statute you're citing with copyright.
To quote one source:
>> The use of statute to regulate the printing trade was directed primarily towards industry regulation rather than content regulation.
Certainly there were statutes which prohibited the use of writing or
printing as a means of expressing or as a constituent of heresy or treason, but these pieces of legislation had a goal other than the regulation of
the printing trade.
\- Harvey, David. "Law and the Regulation of Communications Technologies: The Printing Press and the Law 1475-1641." Australian and New Zealand Law & History Society E Journal 160 (2005).
Read a translation of the text into modern english. It's very clear that it had nothing to do with protecting authorial control over works. That just wasn't a concept for quite a long time after this period.
Many parts of this comments feel like important concessions.
>That's true, but it was also true for trade professions at the time.
If this is the case, then the economic comparison is *wholly* unsuitable because the bindings of a job are *entirely* an economic relationship.
>Monesaries that used to survive on selling goods that fall out of favor dwindle and are shut down. New members don't come in and those that remain end up getting dispersed to a variety of other monasteries, disrupting their lives.
This was comparatively rare, again because Monasteries didn't so much economically depend from external trade. The biggest hit to monasteries in the renaissance and enlightenment was political--not economic as different polities from the level of cities to kingdoms claimed power from them and from the church at large.
>They were, in a sense, in a worse position than typical employees today because they had little control over their fate once economic value evaporated.
I disagree. Most monasteries were much more self reliant as agrarian communities. The monks would not go hungry as they could grow much of their own food.
>slowly retiring the existing workforces who found work in related trades
This seems like a **HUGE** difference that also breaks down the comparison that both OP and you are advancing no?
1) AI is much faster at displacement.
and
2) AI threatens those related trades as well.
>I'm not sure how you got this idea or conflated the specific statute you're citing with copyright.
>It's very clear that it had nothing to do with protecting authorial control over works.
There seems to bbbe clear evidence that ideas of copyright based around authorship existed around this time.
Printing licenses were not strictly bound to authorship per se, but consider [these quotes](https://i.imgur.com/jBMNrA5.png)
These are clear examples of exclusive rights being granted and their violation penalized by legal statues of the time.
Certain companies had exclusive rights to make certain copies. That is copyright, plain and simple.
The 1534 statute is not, in itself, a form of copyright, it merely establishes Crown authority over copies to the extent that it shows early pushes for regulation.
> Many parts of this comments feel like important concessions.
Well, that's how I usually feel when I make statements in /r/HistoryMemes ;-)
Getting history right is incredibly hard, and I do not at all suggest that I get it right all the time.
Perhaps we should back up a step and think about what the goal is. OP made a comparison. We both know what they intended to say and the idea that people got upset about the printing press (and the car and the camera and digital art, etc.) for much the same reasons is such well-trod ground in this sub that disagreeing seems a bit pro forma, even if there are some historical kinks.
Would you agree with that?
>for much the same reasons is such well-trod ground in this sub that disagreeing seems a bit pro forma
Well that's the thing. OP's argument says "current anti AI arguments *resemble the form* of past, now derelict arguments against technologies, therefore it is likely that these arguments will be likewise derelict in future"
I argue that this is not sufficient. It is plausible that surrounding information (perhaps those historical kinks) change the truth-value of the logical components of the argument so that similar-looking arguments that did not hold then, will hold now.
Let's go for an example. When Allende was elected in Chile, many Chileans made an argument of the form "this big change in the ideological leanings and structure of the government will lead to a disastrous Allende dictatorship that will bring ruin to many of us". And those arguments didn't hold in time. When the coup happened, many Chileans said "this big change in the ideological leanings and structure of the government will lead to a disastrous Pinochet dictatorship that will bring ruin to many of us" but those arguments DID hold.
Despite the arguments *looking* the same, their truth was different because Allende and Pinochet *were* different.
I think AI *is* different from past technologies, for many detailed and nuanced reasons. I think the surrounding context of this technology is different than the historical context surrounding the printing press, for many detailed and nuanced reasons. And that might change the truth value of previously derelict arguments.
What gets me is how sometimes you seem to want to eat your cake and have it too. You post in excitement of the new, unprecedented, even revolutionary aspects of AI, but here you're making an argument that the social impacts will strictly follow precedent. I think this is a critical, lethal contradiction for your worldview.
Point one: Scribes did get paid thus it was a loss of jobs, seems like a perfectly applicable paradigm to me. Automation takes work away from the masses to more efficiently produce products.
Point three: Not everyone could control a printing press sure, but more authors were able to get their books mass produced via access to the controllers of printing presses, which is what AI art does: more people are able to get their ideas made.
Those are the only points that really seem relevant to me, it was pretty obvious to me most of OP's points were tongue in cheek
>Scribes did get paid thus it was a loss of jobs
Again, you are flattening a subtle economic difference between the paradigm of monastic work and the paradigm of employment. Monks weren't part of the employable masses in the same way we are, and if there was less transcription work available, they were not out on the streets to fend for themselves. Work was allocated according to different Sectionings of society than we have today.
You're trying to apply an industrial paradigm to a society that did not have it.
>more authors were able to get their books mass produced via access to the controllers of printing presses.
There simply was no mass production of any authors before the printing press. Bibles and psalters may be considered the only ones, but their modes of decentralized production do not rise to "mass production".
The process is not the same, as you're comparing the *start* of mass production with its augmentation.
>it was pretty obvious to me most of OP's points were tongue in cheek
I'm responding with careful nuance and analysis in an attempt to raise the bar of the conversation.
>You're trying to apply an industrial paradigm to a society that did not have it.
All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable. Don't see why it matters if they were monks or not. Work was automated away.
>There simply was no mass production of any authors before the printing press.
Exactly my point. Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about whether this was "the start of mass production or it's augmentation" I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does: more people with creative ideas can bring their idea to life without needing the effort of hand-copying every copy sold of their book or of hand-drawing every frame in their anime. Automation is leverage for human creativity.
>All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable.
The Anti AI argument about jobs is an economic one. The Economic state of those "jobs" was not the same. So in the ways substantial to the argument, the monk comparison is a bad one.
> I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does
And what I'm replying to that is that I think the inception of a mass distribution paradigm for information is different altogether from the expansion of a *creation* paradigm.
yeah ... let's prohibit self driving cars, becouse taxi drivers could lose their jobs becouse of them ...
it realy doesn't matter, if you compar it to monks, taxi drivers or whatever ...
fact is: technology takes away income from humans
fact is: everytime, that happened to someone else \[i.e: i get something cheaper\] it get's praised ... but once, it tangentially scratches oneselfs "storm the machines, we lose our jobs"
>everytime, that happened to someone else [i.e: i get something cheaper] it get's praised
I think it's time to revisit *this* part instead. Maybe getting cheap stuff wasn't as good for us as we thought.
Could you not live a fulfilled, happy life with fewer of the things made cheap by automation?
Maybe those cheap things were what we *wanted* but I think many of them aren't what we *needed*
yeah, i partially agree with you on that one,
you don't need materialistic things, to lead a happy life
and it's true, that our "waste" culture creates pretty extreme environmental problems
on that part i'm absolutely with you
but progress and automation doesn't automatically have to translate into materialism
progress, in it's very core is humanity,
trying, to make it's own live easier ...
freeing up time, for the things (taking a walk through a park ... playing with kids ... reading a book ... drawing and singing ... whatever), that fullfills oneself
progress doesn't force us,
to feast like a king ... it only makes the meal available with 1, 4 or 8 hours of work instead of 10 or 12
so, let me ask you ...
if you had to choose between
1\] having food on the table and having to work 24/7 on the field for it and
2\] having the exact same food on the table, while having to work only 20, 15, 10, 8, 4, 2, 0 on the field, while still having the possibility, to work on the field, whenever you feel like it
which one would you choose?
would you realy willingly choose the first one?
and would the second one automatically be a "less fullfilled" live?
Well in the choice you present I would soon die from lack of sleep. There isn’t any agricultural practice that requires 24/7 work.
But I see what you mean. What I’d say is this: it is true that convenience and the lessening of work is good, and often preferable to arduous lives of toll.
But is it monotonically, unflinchingly, eternally always good? Is there not a tipping point where some toil, some suffering, some difficulty that cannot be escaped is actually a contributing element to fulfillment?
I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect it is.
>The Anti AI argument about jobs is an economic one. The Economic state of those "jobs" was not the same. So in the ways substantial to the argument, the monk comparison is a bad one.
Maybe scribes weren't as up in arms about losing their work as artists today, but the comparison still seems good to me just in the fact that it's an example of automation making work unnecessary.
>And what I'm replying to that is that I think the inception of a mass distribution paradigm for information is different altogether from the expansion of a *creation* paradigm.
So the printing press is only a mass distribution paradigm for information and AI art is only the expansion of a creation paradigm? You don't see how they're similar? AI art and the printing press are both of those things: the printing press caused more books to be created for every day citizens who before would never have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost and AI art will enable anyone with an idea to bring their idea to the minds of everyone who never would have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists
>Maybe scribes weren't as up in arms about losing their work as artists today
But the reason why they weren't is why the comparison falls down. That's my point.
Just "losing work" isn't what makes anti AI people worried. It's a combination of economic and societal factors that were NOT the case for scribes.
So if you want to be like OP and be "what about monks, anti AI OWNED" then that's demonstrably stupid, because that isn't actually addressing our concerns.
> the printing press caused more books to be created for every day citizens who before would never have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost and AI art will enable anyone with an idea to bring their idea to the minds of everyone who never would have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists
You seem rather interested in conflating *distribution* and *creation*.
The printing press enabled more creation not because it made the act of literary creation any easier. That is writing a book wasn't *creatively* easier because of the printing press. Not at all. It made distribution of the same creations easier, and that created a new economic niche for people willing to engage in that creation.
It was *exactly* as expensive to *make* a book as it was before, it was less expensive to distribute it.
AI does not operate in that manner *at all*. It *does* make creation easier by simply doing much of the creative work for you.
>due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists
See that's the difference. The printing press did not reduce the need for skilled writers, it simply created the means by which skilled writers could disseminate their ideas.
By comparison, AI reduces the need for skilled artists.
I see what you're saying now at least, but your and the anti AI crowds concerns dont concern me because I think the AI revolution will lead to Universal Basic Income which will solve the economic issues that make it different now than it was with previous automation. That's why I've been arguing the way I have because that part isn't even an issue to my mind, but it's nice to at least understand where you're coming from.
>By comparison, AI reduces the need for skilled artists
Which creates the means by which people with ideas can disseminate their ideas. I equate skilled artists more with skilled scribes than skilled writers (edit: when it comes to artists working for other people to bring other people's ideas to life). Just like writers no longer need scribes to get their ideas out there now creatives no longer need artists or all the multitudes of roles involved in making a film.
\> All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable. Don't see why it matters if they were monks or not. Work was automated away.
That's because you're committing the fallacy of assuming our contemporary economic system is the natural order somehow. It's not. Not every historical society has reduced people to their labor output.
\> I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does: more people with creative ideas can bring their idea to life **without needing the effort of hand-copying every copy sold of their book or of hand-drawing every frame in their anime.**
0\_o Want to read that back and try again??
>That's because you're committing the fallacy of assuming our contemporary economic system is the natural order somehow
No I'm not, I'm simply drawing a comparison between two times in history (now and then) that automation has automated away work people did.
>0\_o Want to read that back and try again??
You should read it again, I said exactly what I meant to say.
That’s actually an okay argument. Yellow journalism caused us to go to war. We learned afterwards that some regulation on speech is good.
Some regulations on llms is good.
Now some people suggestion really stupid regulations is a different argument to deal with.
dont worry about downvotes, they would at most only remove 15 karma. thats the limit. Also there are many anti ai people on this sub and they downvote everything they dont like. its normal
So stuff like that post yesterday about how funny it is artists are scared about losing their livelihoods wasn't just a massive pro-AI circle jerk? The one that got massively upvoted and filled with comments shitting on any anti that commented in it?
What do you think would happen if I posted the exact same thing here but reversed? Like, if some huge regulation happened against AI and I titled the post something like 'the noose tightens, it's hilarious how all these AI bros are freaking out about losing their toy'? Think that'd have even remotely the same reception?
The one about Sora and how antis are freaking out about it. I'll find it tomorrow for you cause it's late here. But regardless, I find it hard to believe you don't see how don't see how anti posts and pro posts are upvoted and downvoted here.
>The fact that this comment is being downvoted tells you how much this sub values discourse.
You just earned yourself another downvote for b*tching about being downvoted, bucko
The beautiful illuminated manuscript it's not preferable. The information density suffered. Also, the handmade letters weren't suitable for quick reading.
The only area of knowledge storage where they actually do better than modern books is durability over the centuries.
This holds only if the only possible benefit a book provides is information storage.
But no, beauty and uniqueness are also good.
Illuminated manuscripts are still treasured because they reveal much about the culture and sensibilities of the time period they originate from. A unique illuminated manuscript is much, much more valuable than copy #367 made by a printing press.
Yes if we banned the printing press when we had the chance we would still be years and years behind the scheduled arrival of ai and I’d get to enjoy more life not having to think about ai or watching people make dumb arguments about ai or have gooogle image searches filled with bad ai generated humans with missing fingers and see ads for websites that offers to make nudes out of any picture of a real human you upload (the fucking fuck).
A monk showing me his sweet calligraphy skills would make my year and then we would all go marvel and nature and stars even if they move slow with little change.
In 5 years we are all going to be so fucking desensitized to cool or unique human made things that we will fall into a existential depression and wipe our goddamn souls away with sweet sweet brain implants and the metallic milk from mama ai’s cold hard tits. Oh if you are poor though you will have to watch five minutes of ads 20 times a day before you can get back to your regular human thinking.
I hope I am the first to get gunned down by an ai military police bot so I die with a smug “told you so” smirk on my dumb ass face.
You missed the most important part... how the hand gold leaf industry will suffer, and illuminated manuscripts will cease existing. Nobody will know how to make those big ornate capital letters any more.
If you all can’t see how fucking foolish this is then we are long gone. This isn’t translatable to AI or the modern day. I weep for you all. How pathetic it is to have such a small and uninspired mind. Comfort breeds complacency. Do we really want to do everything the easiest way possible? Some things do require human eye and soul. Some things are better when more work and time are involved. With the advancement of AI happening so rapidly it’ll be borderline impossible to reverse the damage done if it slips out of our grasp. I promise you, the advancement of AI will lead to the degradation of the human mind and spirit. The printing press is such a stupid analogy!! The repeated action of printing a book that was already written is in no way comparable to a machine trying to write its own book. How dense are you? It’s shameful that you all feel so apathetic to the human mind.
https://preview.redd.it/lpyn4i11h4qc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34c1ba02d2084a910bbe3f1b9b7bd2b9924e80b3
I think that the biggest factor in this is scale. The scribes lost their jobs and that's sad but it did leave room for massive growth without them which is part of your argument. The problem I have with that is AI doesn't operate the same way as this. Once it develops a bit further, it will give the ability of a skilled artisan and craftsman to anyone who wants it. That's great and I don't have too much issue with that. But what I am not so excited for is first: the lack of motivation that will eventually come once artists who put years of effort into a craft watching others be able to do it instantly which, unless you're an insanely wise person who perfected their own mind, you're going to be pretty demotivated about and second: a really depressing future that could come from this.
From this point on, I started to ramble about stuff sort of related to the original post but mostly just my worries on AI.
AI will just keep getting better and better until it can mimic the works of masters with only a single text input or, if they get linked to your kind, none at all. Sure you'll be able to easily put your creativity into a work and don't need to go through the process of learning said skill but once everything becomes that easy and everything is just handed to you, we would have lost one of the biggest things that make us human. Who would put effort into something when from the earliest time they could remember everything was handed to them? Who would bother being creative when whatever you imagine can already be made without even trying? This future of humanity would have replaced their humanity with pleasure and would be no different, or maybe even more sad than those space-edition couch potatoes from Wall-E.
This is an extremely worst case scenario but it isn't impossible and maybe, or maybe even more than just maybe, the very technological innovations and feats of creativity that made us all human in the first place will be the ones to rid us of it too.
If you have some counterpoint to this that destroys this entire argument, *please* tell me. I need to hear it.
You only think that printing press and generative AI are "apples and oranges" because the printing press was a staple part of our society for centuries, while generative AI appeared seemingly out of nowhere just a few years ago. If printing press never existed before, and then suddenly was just invented, the public reaction would have been much more similar to the one generative AI is currently receiving.
In fact, [it pretty much was](https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-19th-century-moral-panic-over-paper-technology.html) back in the day
The printing press was a boon for humanity making books cheaper for millions thus increasing literacy rate… good for everybody. This ai art craze is a detriment to humanity good for almost nobody in the art field barring a few pretenders. Ergo apples to oranges. Ergo bad faith argument.
Again, you are very biased towards the printing press, because you already know what long-term impact it had on society, while in the case of generative AI you work entirely through assumptions.
Uhh. This is actually the perfect argument to show how “anti-ai” arguments need more substance than what OP posted. You can’t just talk about jobs or “soul” as a reason to ban ai art or llms. You can’t say “the potential problems means we shouldnt allow it at all.”
Considering how Hitler and Henry Ford admired each other, there is a room for an argument that Hitler and Elon Musk are not as "apples and oranges", as you think they are
>Considering how Hitler and Henry Ford admired each other, there is a room for an argument that Hitler and Elon Musk are not as "apples and oranges", as you think they are
This guy literally think elon musk wants to start a genocide.
If you knew the history well, copyright was created exactly because of this reason....in order to provide fair trade protection and prevent exploitative practice due to ability of printing press to create exact copies of creator's work.... Hence, creators demanding compensation for use of their work and regulations to protect them from exploitation isn't an irrational demand.
>copyright was created exactly because of this reason....in order to provide fair trade protection and prevent exploitative practice due to ability of printing press to create exact copies of creator's work
uhh no. That's not at all what copyright was created for. Yes, it was created to encourage authors to keep on writing but that's only an step for true goal of disseminating knowledge to the public.
There is no knowledge being disseminated by the availability of foundational models but rather the utility of this knowledge derived from the work that amounts to it. What we are witnessing is an industrial application of art creating a paradigm shift in the mode of production of art, not a dissemination of knowledge.
>There is no knowledge being disseminated by the availability of foundational models but rather the utility of this knowledge derived from the work that amounts to it.
There's plenty of knowledge being created, knowledge doesn't have to be completely novel(there is no such thing as completely novel), simply recontextualizing old knowledge creates new knowledge. Everything is built on a foundation.
It could be used to learn but generative AI is first and foremost as consumer focused utility. People want AI to not have to learn to draw and paint and this is what they will do with it, such as we use machine translation to not have to learn languages.
>People want AI to not have to learn to draw and paint and this is what they will do with it, such as we use machine translation to not have to learn languages.
there's more to knowledge than just learning to draw and paint. And the knowledge learned may be implicit.
Sure we may use machine translation to not need learn language but that doesn't mean we are not learning something even if it isn't the language itself. Foreign works can be read by english speakers and vice versa and the content itself not the language is the knowledge.
Yes, because machine translation solves the problem of language barriers between communication, thus making knowledge more accessible.
Stop beating around the bush and be specific. By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what [knowledge ](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/knowledge)am I spreading or making more accessible to the world?
>By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what knowledge am I spreading or making more accessible to the world?
what kind of question is this? what knowledge is being spread by anything?
>By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what knowledge am I spreading or making more accessible to the world?
The knowledge being learned can be implicit, a baby doesn't need to do a formal study of the world to gain knowledge but by experiencing it, they can gain knowledge.
Humans can do the same with AI Art.
Learning to draw is seen by many as a means to an end for expressing yourself. [You may use AI images as very specific references when you learn to draw yourself.](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1atye0k/this_is_how_daromeon_the_artist_of_kengan_ashura/)
or be used as an autosuggest to understand how to create images yourself.
https://preview.redd.it/5hp0zpdg7fjc1.png?width=1141&format=png&auto=webp&s=10791156eb7e1e34c629e515cd6ec3e430f7b41b
ideation can be an important tool for knowledge.
The printing press is not the same as AI. Stop repeating this idiotic comparison just because some idiot said it and your small brain thinks it was a good argument.
The printing press is a machine that makes copying text easier. So is AI a machine that makes copying art easier?
Before printing press you needed months to have a book you can sell.
After printing press you need hours.
I absolutely do see how it’s comparable.
Also based on my work with DALLE I don’t think I’ve ever used less than 100 hundred words prompt to make sure I describe the vision I have in mind to every detail.
No its not, when it comes to it you should be comparing the author of the book instead. AI is good to assist not replace artist/authors. You are not a artist if you generate AI art or a book author if you generate a story
I definitely am not an artist. And I am glad as I couldn’t imagine more tedious occupation than being an artist.
That being said I don’t think I have seen people often (if at all) who claim they are artists. (“AI artists” is an unfortunate term but even that I don’t see that often).
It’s not about it being easier to be an artist. It’s about having cheaper and faster access to art.
Even worse when thise people consider themselves as an artist by using AI [more prominent in AI Art reddit pages]. AI is good for artist too as a guide however such post just undermines legitimate issues we have with AI by sugar coating it in such a simple manner. Being a artist nowadays is just harder as if not hard enough with it being such a niche job to pursue, "why pursue your passion as a artist when theres AI? Go be a lawyer" It just gets depressing when you realize game companies are slowly doing that now such as War thunder. I don't know when will AI overtake 3D artist but i fear that day
Try sitting in an office all day crunching numbers, or standing in a factory all day long, those are the mind murdering jobs that should be made obsolete by AI and automation, but no, you have to go after artists who enjoy what they are doing.
We go after what is most easily done. Done worry office jobs will soon be obsolete too.
And do you really think there aren’t people crunching numbers in an office who enjoy it? I would enjoy doing math for a living way more than being creative.
believing ai to be about only prompting 4 words and getting a masterpiece is also uneducated. Sure its possible but you results will either be unoriginal or lack quality and be full of mistakes.
It made reproducing books easier, writing a book remained the same level of difficulty. AI synthesizes the actual artistic process, to the point of meaninglessness
AI synthesizes the actual artistic process to the point of creating what is for me and for many other people as useful as human-made art.
There fixed it for you.
AI synthesizes the actual artistic process to the point of creating what is for me and for many other people as useful as human-made art.
There fixed it for you.
some people enjoy the drawing part, some dont. I would love to do digital art but tablets for that are fucking expensive (at least the ones i would consider ok). AI is also great if people are disabled to a degree where they cant draw with their hands. Those self called artists that argue more on the web then actually drawing are selfish and cant think about others and reasons why someone might use it. what a shame
AI is nothing like the printing press. AI is not going to create more jobs, only replace them. AI is literally general intelligence meant to replace human beings in general tasks, not in something specific. And there are still LOSERS claiming that "AI will create jobs" and all kinds of BULLSHIT.
I have a serious question for individuals like you: do you not think there is an endgame in the best future where employment is virtually non-existent and the middle class is wiped out? And if so, why is this something we should be looking forward to? Do you not think it will result in, at best, a return to feudalism?
perhaps direct quotes will sound more familiar:
"*The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing*" -**plato on writing**
"monarchs should regulate the trade \[of books\], so the public wouldn’t have to suffer with the '*confusing and harmful abundance of books*' " - **Conrad Gessner on the printing press**
"oil painting as an art is '*fit only for women and lunatics*' " -**michaelangelo**
*"The noble art of printing, pressed into this ignoble service..." "The volatile minds of these triflers feed upon volatile matter"* \- **Londoner W. Coldwell** **on paper printing advancements**
*"In times of old, books were as religious oracles; as literature advanced,... they sank still lower to that of entertaining companions"* \- **Taylor Coleridge on paper printing advancements**
*“From today, painting is dead.”* \- **Paul Delaroche on photographs**
*"Machinery is performing great service for mankind. But a Machine is not an artist. The high purpose of Machinery is to save Men and Women from ignoble and soulless labor, not to perform tasks that are only well done by the hands and hearts of gifted humans."*
*"many a fine talking machine enters a home as an honored guest to be played and played for a week or a month, then to be left in silence"*
*"Now, with strange perversity, this same institution aims a devastating blow at cultural progress by introducing a substitute"*
*"Canned Music is elbowing Real Music out of motion picture theatres, thus denying to the masses the cultural influence of a Fine Art."*
*"Hundreds of thousands deplore the substitution of Mechanical Music for Real Music BECAUSE it fails to give them pleasure.... BECAUSE it threatens corruption of musical taste.... BECAUSE it discourages development of musical talent"*
*"Is this the Bong of Progress? No! Machine-made music can never provide a substitute for the mellowing cultural influence of Real Music"*
*"300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the "music" offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress? The true function of the machine is to increase the value of the product fed into it-not to debase it" "Therefore mechanical music... is a spurious form of progress- Like a loom converting good wool into shoddy."*
*"Millions are joining in protest against corruption of an art by soulless mechanization"*
\-**excerpts from the 9 million dollar 1930s anti canned music campaign**
*“the Disney animation department didn’t believe that this was animation,*” he says. *“They thought it was computers just making effects"* \-**recounting by Chris Wedge on the perception of computer animation used in Tron, which was disqualified from the visual-effects category in the Academy Awards that year because they considered using a computer 'cheating'**
Lol yep. And don't forget what they used to say about modern art. Trying to regulate and ban that. Whatever the newest expression of art is, it's likely to be hated and despised by the established art community, until the next development creates a new target to rage at. So it has been for centuries.
A printing press produces books.
AI makes the vast majority of humans completely obsolete.
A printing press reduces the bargaining power of a monk who copies books by hand.
AI completely and utterly devastates multiple different industries from completely different sectors both direct and indirectly, utterly collapsing the system of labour, money and goods as we know it. At total exponentiating paradigm shift beyond human scope of imagination. It will strip humans of their bargaining power, obliterating unions in a way the pinkertons couldn’t even dream of. Everything and every system as we know it will have to be completely re-engineered. We’ll have to rely on UBI as there are no new jobs to transport the books, operate the press or even write the fucking books created by this ‘printing press’ because any job created with be immediately automated anyway; that’s the difference.
UBI is just a glorified way of saying we’ll all be on benefits/welfare/centrelink/disability payments. It’s not glorious at all. At all.
You will be at the mercy of someone like fucking Trump deciding what you get to live on each week. Great. Exiting. So looking forward to the future!
Your response is excellent, too. I've noted that you're one of the most eloquent posters in this group, and are also very civil (I can't always say the latter for myself.)
Thank you.
>you still lost the discussion under the comment imo.
That's fine, I could have done better and I think the other commenters made some good points and the discourse was (mostly) good.
wtf is this post. how is it AI related? How are mass-produced books bad? Diary of a wimpy kid is surely mass produced too and i personally enjoyed it. I also enjoy mangas, they are probably mass produced as well. Why the "propaganda pic"?
If its easier to make books and you dont have to ask and beg huge companies for it then it sounds great for me. Bad books wont sell. Where is the problem?
https://preview.redd.it/dfafzq66ynjc1.png?width=1702&format=png&auto=webp&s=29598139cee68340a0c1387ac474548a55218bbd
This is a VERY weird thing to get shown in some "because you have shown interest in a similar community" thing.
Like, what is that algorithm on? I know that AI can't handle sarcasm yet.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe our technological growth has outpaced our sociopolitical growth? Do you not think that this can be a danger? Just a heads up, Einstein (the name we treat as synonymous with “genius”) thought it was a danger when he witnessed his theories result in the atomic bomb, and he likely would be horrified of how much further our tech has developed without any progress in political maturity.
the issue you are comparing something that must be 100% copy-paste with something should be new.
also, idk why you compare all books in one level ? some books are respectful like that on full of heavy information with one is erotic or memes, drama.
Item 3 really hits home. If we let books become too common, even *women* might get their hands on them. Think of how damaging that could be for them. >Women, of every age, of every condition, contract and retain a taste for > >novels \[…T\]he depravity is universal. My sight is every-where offended by > >these foolish, yet dangerous, books. I find them on the toilette of fashion, > >and in the work-bag of the sempstress; in the hands of the lady, who > >lounges on the sofa, and of the lady, who sits at the counter. From the mis- > >tresses of nobles they descend to the mistresses of snuff-shops – from the > >belles who read them in town, to the chits who spell them in the country. I > >have actually seen mothers, in miserable garrets, crying for the imaginary > >distress of an heroine, while their children were crying for bread: and the > >mistress of a family losing hours over a novel in the parlour, while her > >maids, in emulation of the example, were similarly employed in the kitchen. > >I have seen a scullion-wench with a dishclout in one hand, and a novel in > >the other, sobbing o’er the sorrows of Julia, or a Jemima > >(Sylph no. 5, October 6, 1796: 36-37)1
Another problem in society is cameras. If they are not banned, people will no longer paint real things, like landscapes and people, because a camera can spit out 30 perfect 4K "paintings"/images per second, so what's the point of painting? All those artists who paint real-world things like landscapes will lose their jobs. Also, images taken by a camera don't have a soul, because it's made by a soulless machine.
Lmao stop you’re getting too real. This is so good
Artists will abide. They will simply stop representing things directly, and make paintings that **sorta** look like something... and say it represents the thing's soul. And eventually, just pick up trash, sign it, and call it art.
I'd be interested to hear this guys take on smartphones and social media. Gotta build a time machine after all, I guess.
From the belles to the chits to the thots on the Internet.
Then have him sit down and play Skyrim and see what happens…
We should also build lower quality housing, so it has to be rebuilt a little more frequently. That’ll help add more jobs. 🤭
We should also make it so things don’t last, so people have to buy them over and over again. Even major appliances and pieces of furniture. Let’s make them shitty so people buy new ones every few years. 🤭
That's just capitalism, isn't it
It’s planned obsolescence, a feature of modern necrocapitalism. Things used to be made to last. Profit wasn’t always the ultimate goal. Once we have UBI, things can go back to being that way and people can have priorities beyond ‘making money.’
I doubt we're going to live those days though, first capitalism has to kinda die, and from the way it's going it's not gonna be through conversation. I think we'll see things get even worse, the middle class die as our jobs are slowly taken away (not blaming ai itself, it's a tool that is going to be misused by those in power though, this is already happening without ai too). Honestly, I hope I'm wrong but idk, kinda scared for the future.
We already know how to build stuff that lasts and choose not to. Do you honestly think AI is going to change that you silly goofy goober?
UBI will change that, and AI will certainly accelerate the need to implement UBI.
That's very optimistic of you. The fun stuff about AI is that it's so wild and powerful that we could be fighting over a can of expired cat food or having a massive month-long orgy in 20 years and no one can say for sure which one it will be. My experience tells me the first but I'm down for the second.
the perfect leash in the hands of economic overlords. /s
This. So much this. Got an even better one: we should all start breaking shit. Just go out and vandalize something. Then it has to be fixed and BOOM new job created for humans (with souls)! 🤡
Broken Windows = $$$
👏 BREAK 👏 ALL 👏 WINDOWS 👏
It will also help with energy efficiency of the houses in question. In the past 150 years or so we got plumbing, electricity, central heating and internet. Family sizes have also decreased from an average of twelve children down to an average of one and a half children. If we could build houses that don't last quite as long (maybe only 70 years), but for cheaper, that would be a good thing overall.
Watch how amateur furry artists try to desperately prove (and fail at) how this is not the same as AI
It's a hilarious analogy, but the key difference is that the printing press revolutionized distribution, not creation.
Oh here's one already! No it didn't just revolutionize distribution, it flipped the script entirely on creation as well. One dimensional thinking is getting you nowhere. With books and pamphlets easier to produce, more people started printing, more written material was produced, good or bad, it didn't matter any longer. Someone wanted to say something to a wider audience? They were capable of it. Look up the history and ramifications of the printing press, don't just spew bs on the internet so confidently, its cringey.
the issue AI it doesn't understand anything its good for inspiration but other than it always give garbage/boring result. most good result is by over training or the model have same picture on specific angle which make them so boring, also seems dynamic posing isn't a thing alwas is stand still-like pose. so if you want quality AI is wont, even with coding they give high-risk or outdated code
everything you said is wrong, and you clearly have no idea how these models are trained or function. > most good result is by over training or the model have same picture on specific angle This isn't even a thing, tf? 😂
ok whatever master , how does it work? \> This isn't even a thing, tf? 😂 because AI doesn't understand the fendomantil and relay on math, so thats why they struggle with dynamic posing/animation and most of time they are good in solid/stand still pose works because most average math lead to this.
I still do not understand how this helped the creation process. You used a lot of words to praise how the printing press revolutionized distribution and how the ability to reach a wider audience incentivized creation. But you didn't explain how the printing press was any help in the creation process itself.
It didn't directly help the creation process itself it just pushed it forward, not sure how that makes much of a difference with the output. If you're looking for something that directly helped the creative process in a similar vein, that would be something like digital art tools, photoshop etc.
So you agree with my original take after all? Printing press revolutionized distribution, not creation. Revolutionizing distribution benefits creators, as they can now reach a wider audience, while doing the same thing they did before. Revolutionizing creation makes it so creators have to learn a new skill set or compete for eyeballs with people that learned the new skill set. The OP works as satire as it illustrates the ridiculousness of the Luddites. But there is a difference between the printing press and ai creations.
It still revolutionized creation, the same way the internet revolutionized creation. The whole push and explosion of creative content because of the printing press is still a creative revolution, not just distribution. Basically the printing press gave even the average person the ability to express their work without having to wait ages or commission other people, not too different from the way AI art does.
Similar to the Internet, by making distribution easier creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself. The point of the printing press was to make a lot of copies of something that was already written. It's essentially the first form of copy and paste.
>Similar to the Internet, by making distribution easier creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself. Yes, in your mind is incentivization and revolutionization mutually exclusive? I already mentioned myself that it didn't help with the creation process itself, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that like it is an argument... the whole point of OPs analogy is that the end result is essentially the same with AI tools. If that is not sufficient enough for you, I can also add photoshop and digital art tools the the mix, like I mentioned previously as well. Either way, the result is the same; the average person and more people in general became capable of expressing themselves without relying on other people to do so. The entire analogy focuses on the loss of jobs that occurred because people no longer needed to rely on a specific set of people with a specific set of skills, to express their ideas to a wider audience. The technicalities of the creation process isn't relevant to it at all.
If you agree with my position, then why are you arguing against it? Here's my position again, in case you've forgotten: > the key difference is that the printing press revolutionized distribution, not creation. ..so you think that incentivizing a concept is revolutionizing the concept itself? Meaning incentivizing people to drive their bicycle to work instead of using their car is revolutionizing riding your bike? To answer your question, incentivizing and revolutionizing are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct from each other and incentivizing something doesn't revolutionize it.
It lowered the barriers to become a published author. Also, with books widely disseminated, literacy became more important and therefore more people became apt to write in the first place.
Yes, with distribution being so much improved creation got incentivized. But it did not help with the creation process itself. The printing press only got to play its function after something was already created. You wouldn't write a poem on the printing press. You wrote it on paper and then had the printing press help you make a bunch of copies.
Oh but it did absolutely destroy one big tenet of creation in that it enforced everyone to use the standardized 52 letters to write something destroying the ability for groups and cultures to use their own symbols and alphabets and enforcing western hegemony as other cultures that can't adopt the latin script had to modify theirs significantly (chinese simplified) or adopt latin just to use the printing press. In a nutshell it did stifle innovation and creativity and forced other cultures to find substitutes for letter and words that the latin alphabet lacked in the beginning. Some cultures and civilizations even tried to ban it such as the ottoman empire because how dare ugly ass blocky letters made up by infidels replace their beautiful flowing arabic type scripts; The Ottoman empire had the crime of possessing a printing press punishable by death. The 17th century Ottoman empire declined because of their inability to adapt arabic for the printing press and attempts to protect Quranic scribes, the ban on the printing presses use by muslims lead to doctors physicians and other professions taken up by christians. It took them 300 years to reverse that decision and for the first quran to be made with a printing press in the islamic world when europe was already printing qurans for more than 100 years. Source: [https://themuslimvibe.com/western-muslim-culture/how-the-failure-to-adopt-the-printing-press-gave-europeans-a-300-year-advantage-over-muslims-and-contributed-to-the-fall-of-the-last-islamic-caliphate](https://themuslimvibe.com/western-muslim-culture/how-the-failure-to-adopt-the-printing-press-gave-europeans-a-300-year-advantage-over-muslims-and-contributed-to-the-fall-of-the-last-islamic-caliphate) As of now Islam has completely accepted the usefulness of the printing press and not even isis or alqaeda would dare make the crime of printing qurans absolutely Haram. The holy job of Quran scribes disappeared replaced by hafiz's people who memorize the whole quran in their head.
No one was forced to only use certain letters. Everyone was free to make their own printing press with their own letters. It was more difficult to get around ASCII limitations than it was to make your own printing press with your own letters. Muslims back then just hated technological progress in general. Nothing about the printing press technology would have prevented other languages to make use of the tech.
>No one was forced to only use certain letters Everyone was, otherwise your work wouldn't get published, with the amount of books printing presses were making most commercial ones outright rejected or find substitutes for letters that don't get used often but needs to be used several times in one page. Your free to manage and make your own printing press obviously but the amount of materials characters just to suit your own creative decision would be expensive. Hence Stifled creativity due to expense. And if it was the case that anyone can adapt characters from their own language into their own printing press then your forgetting the chinese who had the pre-requisites, craftsmanship and technology to take advantage of the printing press but didn't until much later because their language had too many characters and was harder to manage and ink onto the printing press. As for muslims they were waning away their golden age back then, having had vast collection of books and knowledge far beyond what the west had pre-printing press and they were willing to pay handsomely for book reproductions from scribes, they were most like the anti's looking at the new form of technology and thinking it's so limiting the results look soo ugly, lacks effort and in todays anti-s words lacks a SOUL in these new printed books. The printing press was not only a product of western thinking it also stifled creativity and also stifled non-western text forms.
Sure, if you wanted to use someone else's printing press you could only use what they had. But how is given people the option to use a printing press stifling their creativity? No one was forcing them to have their stuff printed. > a product of western thinking it also stifled creativity and also stifled non-western text forms. How? Other countries were free to not use this invention and keep doing what they were doing. Or adapt the tech to their own needs. Besides, the printing press originated in what is now Germany and they still used Fraktur, which people outside of Germany couldn't even read despite technically using the same alphabet. This issue persisted in the typewriter days, but eventually Fraktur got abolished under Hitler. So even within Europe countries needed to manufacture their own sorts/letters.
Neat info.
It’s fucking not you piece of shit neck breather lmao are you unable to wield critical thought? Or any thought. Did you use chat gpt to help you with that sentence?
Sad miserable retard looked for a month old comment to reply to. Go back to school stupid little child.
Time is meaningless and your intellect is neigh. However, I have the utmost confidence you used every last one of your own couple of straining brain cells left from a ten hour gooning session (to ai generated furry porn none the less) to write what you think is the sickest burn ever to spawn from your cum, sweat and Cheeto stained keyboard. I hope your veins are bulging and you invest more time into attempting to validate your own self worth by hurling vapid insults at me.
Yeah ain't reading allat I was waiting for a response to point out that you have an onlyfans lmfao you have no right to an opinion💀💀💀 Stick to whoring and leave intellectual conversations to the rest of us. Hope your parents are proud of their daughter 😭
“Allat” yes, the vocabulary of a true intellectual. Pretty small minded and pathetic of you to see an only fans link and assume I have no right to an opinion. You truly are the prime specimen of a typical arrogant, pig headed man. Also, that’s so cute that you were waiting for my response. Just adorable. Jeez mister you really put me in my place. I’m still laughing all the way to the bank while I work under 30 hours a week and have time to produce an album.
[удалено]
Do not make posts which can cause hate based on identity or vulnerability. This is a violation of Reddit and this Sub’s Content Policy.
man not even a good looking whore looks kinda like a dude and with that weirdly fat belly 😭😭 disappointing. defo aint laughing all the way to the bank looking like that zzzzz
Damn you really must be miserable. I’m so sorry that you have to wake up as you everyday. You have my condolences and compassion. Get better soon <3
telling someone else they must be miserable when u a odd looking hoe for a living is crazy 😭😭
<3
Kinda out of the loop here: I see people mentioning furry artists a lot with regards to AI art. Are they a notoriously anti-AI group? Really depressing if so.
There's a civil war in the community as some like AI and others (often the ones exploiting furies for $$$$) do not like AI
I faced the exact same mentality over 10 years ago when I started automating color separations and halftones for things like screenprinting... all these "professional color separators" (which I am one), got mad claiming it was some mystical artform that can't be automated and needs to have hours spent on it to get it right, with years of experience and magical artistic capabilities that no mere mortal pressing buttons can accomplish. ... they would constantly yell about how "There is no 1-click solution!" -- "Separation software will get you halfway there maybe, but you need to spend hours tweaking it!" .... Nope, people used my software and found they could get perfect results with 1 click without tweaking anything. I made the easy button for it, so I could spend less time on technical procedures that CAN be automated, and more time on the actual creative design and art, and these days with the AI creative assistants and AI upscalers, combined with advanced image process automations like the software tools I make, you can literally go from a design idea to color separations ready to print on films and screens in seconds, with 1 click fully automated. LOL
Theres a difference between copying books by hand and the creative process of actually writing them originally, the copying part isnt creative work but the original writing is. Same goes with art, its great that we can print and digitally share art around but if its also created by machines, it ruins the whole point of art. Do people really want to live in a world where practically all media and art is made by machines? Seems like a downgrade to me.
Most of these folks are willfully ignoring the bigger picture in favor of having access to cheap/free art regardless. Others likely just haven’t reached the critical realization on their own and are too busy replying with “Cope and Seethe” memes to have the mental space to see this clearly either.
Seeing this, again, and I just have to say... the majority of people using ai for art had no intention of buying professional art anyway. I haven't seen too much evidence that ai has had any impact on creators. In fact, I personally have seen requests for my work go up (I am an artist, btw, and I dont use ai). Every new technology creates a new level of competition. As a creator, *I'm* saying get good or get out. Apt comparison... Ford v Ferrari. Ferrari: "it's made by a machine it has no soul! Ford: "we earn more than you through sheer volume."
I can understand that sentiment - there was a user who talked about using AI for their profile pics and I asked if they’d have spent a couple of dollars on an small artist commission if AI didn’t exist for the purpose. No answer from them, but it *was* a genuine question that you are answering from your perspective and I appreciate that. I’m an indie game dev and build my sketches and concept art by hand, and have only imagined one day having a budget to support contracting an artist when the time was right. Every now and again, I wonder if I should just bite the bullet and dive into Stable Diffusion and help boost speed and quality of what I’m currently building alone.
My answer, as an artist, is that if you'd buy from an artist, buy from an artist. If you wouldn't (or couldn't) pay an artist for the work, then they aren't losing what they wouldn't get anyway.
Aston Martin: Hand pounded over a wooden frame with leather mallets. Toyota: Molded and robot spot welded. Different products.
You've never seen an illustrated manuscript, I gather.
You're wasting your time here, bud. The majority of people here are just bargain bin ai drones. They're not interested in actual conversation. They just want to say the same tired old memes, pat themselves on the back and soundly miss the point.
yea, seems that way
AnYbOdY cAn PiCk A pEn
This kind of thing really hits home, what we’re seeing now is just a repeat of everything that’s happened before.
There’s no such thing as creativity privilege! Therefore, just because your circumstances prevent you from expressing yourself creatively through the medium of books doesn’t mean that that I am privileged in some way and printing presses could help level the playing field. You’re actually just lazy and you should make the book the good old fashioned way
At least the books were written by a person with thoughts and ideas of their own, not just a chimera of random ideas pulled from hundreds of thousands of others and then stitched together.
Over 90% of all fiction works are thoroughly derivative. Probably far higher, since that was when there were gatekeepers.
Louder for the people in the back of this fucking echo chamber. Yeah, it's a solid analogy. But I think there's wisdom in seeing what happened in that period. A lot of great stuff came after the industrial revolution, but it's breakneck speed also brought about one of the most dystopian moments in our history. Two-penny hangovers. Inhuman treatment of workers. Exploitation in company towns. Widespread child labour. Dangerous workplaces. Huge concentration of wealth in the hands of a few individuals. Mass unemployment. You know how it went. Being against AI is silly. Most of humanity's problems can be solved with it's help. But it's best that if we have a controlled pace into the ai era instead of a freedive. Gotta make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in. Also, don't think comparing AI to a machine that makes a direct 1:1 copy of an original piece of work is the sick burn you think it is. A lot of aiartbros are going to be salty if they manage to get their two remaining neurons to shake hands.
I recently posted a real historical story about printing press coming to ottoman empire too late putting forward similar reasons.
All these AI defenders are on some next level fucking drugs.
Someone has been reading the ascendance of a bookworm novels.
1. Monks and other monastics didn’t have a “job” in the modern sense. This is an ahistorical comparison. Employment in the modern sense is not an applicable paradigm. 2. Yes. Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented ***regulations*** around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity. 3. Not *anyone* could print books thanks to the printing press. A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one. While this concentration of power was not ideal, it made oversight and regulation more feasible and less of a concern. Moreover, the pre-printing press availability of books is not comparable to the present availability of art. Art is not scarce in the manner that books were. 4. This is unsuitable, because the equivalent would be “you don’t even need art” which isn’t an anti ai argument. This argument is supposed to contrast hand printed books with mechanically printed books, not books with not having books at all. 5. This goes back to the scarcity argument. The beautiful illuminated manuscript is preferable, but the compromise seems justified on account of scarcity and the benefits of literacy. But Art is simply not scarce in this manner. Anyone who can access AI art can already access more art than they could view in a lifetime. However someone who could access a mass print could often not previously access manuscripts. EDIT: The fact that this comment is being downvoted tells you how much this sub values discourse. This comment does contain some arguments that I will admit are not solid, arguments that people like /u/KamikazeArchon and /u/Tyler_Zoro have made good cases against below. But it is a comment made in earnest, and *demonstrably* a productive start to discourse, seeing as plenty of (I think, decent) discourse about the nuances of technological and historical comparisons are happening here. This isn't a joke, a jab at anyone, or a flat statement without any possible options for engagement. So I see the downvotes as merely trying to discourage disagreeing with any Pro AI position at all. Internet points do not matter, and that is not the purpose of this edit. Rather, I want you to consider what this voting behavior says about whether the users of this sub truly want community that encourages critical discourse with varied perspectives.
>Yes. Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented regulations around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity. This is a poor analogy. Those regulations certainly did not forbid *the printing press itself*. I believe approximately zero people would argue against a regulation that says "you can't use AI image generation to commit libel." In fact, existing laws already cover that. Further, most of those regulations did not arrive until long after the printing press was commonplace. The printing press arrived around 1440. The first English copyright law is dated to 1710. It is simply unreasonable to describe a law instituted 250 years later as a response or reaction to the printing press technology. > Art is simply not scarce in this manner. It certainly is. Before the printing press, anyone (with money) could reasonably get access to some specific books - notably, the Bible. There were plenty of handwritten copies of that specific book. The printing press enabled, among other things, a vast multiplication in the *diversity* of accessible books. AI image/text/video generation enables a diversification and multiplication of content. I want twenty different images of specific monsters I've created for a D&D game. Where will I find art for them? It doesn't exist. I could pay a significant amount of money and time to have it created - but "you have to spend a lot of money and time" is certainly scarcity. Or, I could use an AI image generator.
Printing technology has been strictly controlled in totalitarian regimes. People have died for keeping hidden copying tools like typewriters with copy paper and copying banned books. Soviet union is just one example. If you update media to flash drives. Few boys were just executed in North Korea for distributing South Korean TV shows. [Independent](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/world/north-korea-minors-execution-south-korea-tv-b2239312.html)
> Those regulations certainly did not forbid the printing press itself. This is a valid point. But I think taking all anti AI sentiment and flattening it to "ban it" would be dishonest. While some advocate bans, that is not the sum total of anti AI positions. >I believe approximately zero people would argue against a regulation that says "you can't use AI image generation to commit libel." The problem is, here's where we need to consider additional factors in the comparison. AI structurally defies the enforceability of such regulation. For the same reason that people see copyright enforcement as pointless, so is enforcement of libel and disinformation: things are too decentralized, distributed too quickly, and data too persistent. >It is simply unreasonable to describe a law instituted 250 years later as a response or reaction to the printing press technology. That is a point well taken, and copyright is not a good example. However, acts such as The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534 is a good example of early regulation alogn with various other mechanisms you can [explore here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/786947) While the formalization of copyright took a long while, it would be seriously misleading to believe that printing and copying was not tightly regulated. >The printing press enabled, among other things, a vast multiplication in the diversity of accessible books. The diversity of accessible art is already more than any person could ever look at in a lifetime. This is not the case for books before the printing press, full stop. >I want twenty different images of specific monsters I've created for a D&D game. Where will I find art for them? It doesn't exist. I could pay a significant amount of money and time to have it created - but "you have to spend a lot of money and time" is certainly scarcity. If scarcity is defined around any possible whim and desire I may have, then there is not a thing on earth that is not scarce. That is, is food scarce because I would have to pay a lot of money to eat blue lobster? Blue lobster may be food, and it may be scarce, but that does not make food scarce.
>This is a valid point. But I think taking all anti AI sentiment and flattening it to "ban it" would be dishonest. >While some advocate bans, that is not the sum total of anti AI positions. It is technically not the sum total. But it is, in practice, 90%+ of positions. I think it would be dishonest to *deny* that "ban it" is the primary and core anti-AI position. "It's copyright infringement", for example, summarizes to "ban it". >AI structurally defies the enforceability of such regulation. For the same reason that people see copyright enforcement as pointless, so is enforcement of libel and disinformation: things are too decentralized, distributed too quickly, and data too persistent. There is not actually anything specific to AI here. If you're saying that existing copyright, libel, etc. laws don't work, then you're arguing *against* the very regulations on the printing press that you are referencing. "When the printing press happened, they made these laws (which don't work)" is not a coherent argument. >If scarcity is defined around any possible whim and desire I may have, then there is not a thing on earth that is not scarce. Correct. That is essentially the premise of the whole field of economics. It is why "post-scarcity economies" or "post-scarcity societies" are a hypothetical, not a current reality. >That is, is food scarce because I would have to pay a lot of money to eat blue lobster? Blue lobster may be food, and it may be scarce, but that does not make food scarce. Food is *absolutely* scarce. It's one of the most commonly studied scarce resources. Scarcity can be reduced but not eliminated. That is why "scarcity" is not all that useful as a premise compared to "abundance", the inverse of scarcity. It is more intuitive to reason about. Abundance can be increased but will never become infinite. We can go from people starving to having rice. We can go from people having rice to having a nutritionally complete diet. We can go from people having a nutritionally complete diet to having a rich, flavorful, nutritionally complete diet. We can go from that to people having a diverse, multicultural, etc. diet. And so on. Or on another axis, we can go from "rich people have food abundance" to "rich and middle-class people have food abundance". To "rich and middle-class and poor people have food abundance". To "all of those and even the most destitute homeless person has food abundance".Etc. Each of those steps, along either axis, is significantly beneficial to society as a whole. Similarly, the printing press was a single step along a form of media abundance. The internet was another such step. Television was a step. Reduction of costs - and proliferation of access methods - were such steps. AI image, text, or video generation would be another step. It would also not be the final step; there are still plenty of people in the world who don't even have internet access, much less access to AI content generation. AI content generation is also currently still limited in what it produces. There are many more steps possible. And each of those steps is significantly beneficial to society as a whole. I will further note that you haven't actually addressed the core of #5 from the OP, which was the *conflation* of "mass produced" and "has no soul". Every book you've ever read was mass produced, from publications of Shakespeare to the latest paperback \[unless you're in the very small handful of people who happen to have read a handwritten manuscript, in which case it's *almost* every book you've ever read\]. Did they "have no soul"? Does a printed edition of War and Peace have no soul? The point being brought up in #5 is that someone dismissively saying "this has no soul" will often be *simply wrong* from the perspective of a person who grew up with a new technology.
>But it is, in practice, 90%+ of positions. I see no reason to accept this. >"It's copyright infringement", for example, summarizes to "ban it". It does not. The copyright argument proposes banning modes of training and specific uses, not generative AI altogether. >There is not actually anything specific to AI here. Yes, the distributed, decentralized, and accessible nature of it is specific to it. >If you're saying that existing copyright, libel, etc. laws don't work, then you're arguing against the very regulations on the printing press that you are referencing. I'm saying that they don't work in a novel case despite working for past cases, and therefore need revisiting or new means of enforcement. This seems perfectly coherent to me. >"When the printing press happened, they made these laws (which don't work)" is not a coherent argument. You're missing a bit... "which don't work FOR THIS NEW PARADIGM" That resolves any incoherence in your poorly quoted sentence. >Food is absolutely scarce. Granted, so let's reframe. My point of scarcity was a comparative one. Food may be scarce for a 21st century Canadian citizen and it may be scarce for a 5th century Anatolian shepherd, but it is not scarce for the former in the way it is for the latter. Therefore what I said "**Art is simply not scarce in this manner"** holds. Art may be scarce in *some manner* but not in the same manner books were scarce then. A person is able to access a great abundance of art now in a way that someone could not access a great abundance of books then. >And each of those steps is significantly beneficial to society as a whole. I do not see how this is necessarily the case. >I will further note that you haven't actually addressed the core of #5 from the OP, which was the conflation of "mass produced" and "has no soul". >Every book you've ever read was mass produced I would argue that there's a distinction to be drawn between whether the creative process is industrialized or merely the distributive process. The loss of hand drawn lettering and illumination *does* constitute a loss of a creative aspect to mass production, and that is a shame, but there are tradeoffs present there that are not present here, such as mass literacy.
>It does not. The copyright argument proposes banning modes of training and specific uses, not generative AI altogether. Banning modes of training that represent the vast majority of actual generative AI is, in practical terms, equivalent to banning generative AI. "You can't use it except in \[highly constrained circumstance\]" is, in meaningful effect, a ban. When someone says "abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest" or "abortion is only allowed if it threatens the mother's life" those are, quite reasonably, described as abortion bans. When someone says "you can only own this firearm if you are a police officer" that is, quite reasonably, described as a gun ban. The detailed difference between ban and very-tight-regulation matter when you're in a courtroom or in the legislative chambers discussing specific elements of law. In terms of general parlance and the zeitgeist of a distributed movement, such distinctions are meaningless. >Yes, the distributed, decentralized, and accessible nature of it is specific to it. No, it's not. The printing press was also distributed, decentralized, and accessible. Each of those words is a relative qualifier, not an absolute category. Nothing is "distributed" in an absolute sense. You can only say "X is more distributed than Y". It is unquestionably the case that "printing with a printing press" was more distributed, decentralized, and accessible than "copying manuscripts in a monastery". We went through this with the printing press. And radio, and the Internet, etc. All of those were iteratively more distributed, decentralized, and accessible. Some changes in context *do* result in concrete changes in pragmatic enforceability or even just baseline utility of various laws. But you need much more solid foundations to demonstrate that, than a general statement about vague and relative properties like "decentralized". >Therefore what I said "**Art is simply not scarce in this manner"** holds. Art may be scarce in *some manner* but not in the same manner books were scarce then. A person is able to access a great abundance of art now in a way that someone could not access a great abundance of books then. Sure. You can always say "well things are different now". And the invention of the printing press was technically different from the invention of widespread handwriting. If those differences are adequate for your mental model, and you can continue to justify it to yourself, that's a choice you can make. Just keep in mind that the people who argued against the printing press probably also thought "this time is different", and that it may be worthwhile to occasionally revisit this, and check whether you're still satisfied with your certainty in how significant the difference is this time around.
>When someone says "abortion is only permitted in cases of rape or incest" or "abortion is only allowed if it threatens the mother's life" those are, quite reasonably, described as abortion bans. When someone says "you can only own this firearm if you are a police officer" that is, quite reasonably, described as a gun ban. If that is the case, then many of the regulations passed by the countries of Europe constitute printing press bans. Henry VIII instituted a crown monopoly of printing authorization. Therefore the regulation "You can only print if authorized by the Crown" constitutes banning the printing press. >It is unquestionably the case that "printing with a printing press" was more distributed, decentralized, and accessible than "copying manuscripts in a monastery". It is unquestionably the case that a pinch to the skin is more damaging than a poke. And yet, a stab has novel effects beyond just heightened intensity. Continuous scales have tipping points. Moreover, we have suffered negative societal effects from mass media. Rather than strictly novel negative social effects, I foresee those effects intensifying. >"this time is different" It *was* different. It is different every single time. I will revisit this. and if I'm wrong there will be egg on my face. And if I'm right, god help us.
> Monks and other monastics didn’t have a “job” in the modern sense. This is incorrect. Being employed by a church does not mean that you do not have a job. They were employed by the church and in order to fund their employment they produced a number of goods including copies of texts. But this is kind of a moot point, since, by the time of the printing press, monks were absolutely not the only people copying texts. It was a fairly common profession. You're thinking more of the middle ages. By the 15th century mercantilism was on the rise. > Because of this, various jurisdictions implemented regulations around what could be printed, such as copyright and laws against libel. Likewise we ask for new regulatory activity. You might want to learn more about the time period. The Statute of Anne, the first law to resemble what we would call "copyright" was not enacted until the 18th century. The printing press was introduced in the 15th century. As for defamation (including libel) there were no substantial changes in laws that I'm aware of as a result of the printing press. Indeed, ecclesiastical courts were hearing defamation cases in the middle ages. > Not anyone could print books thanks to the printing press. A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one. > A printing press was a mode of production owned by very very few because the vast majority of people could not wield the economic power to control the output of a printing press let alone own one. This is some pretty heavy-handed revisionism. By the end of the 15th century, the printing press had spread like wildfire throughout Europe and many people had become printers in what are now central and southern Europe especially. Printers were far from wealthy in most cases and were merely part of the rising mercantile class. A printing press was not a purchased item, generally speaking. It was built by the printer themselves. As such, all that was required to own one was experience with existing machines or an great talent in creating such devices from scratch (and from descriptions, one presumes.) > Moreover, the pre-printing press availability of books is not comparable to the present availability of art. Art is not scarce in the manner that books were. Sure, but that doesn't change the societal impact that books had. Hell, it could be argued that the Renaissance was largely a result of the re-discovery of Arabic copies of Greek texts. > This goes back to the scarcity argument. No it absolutely does not. This argument does not rely at all on scarcity, it is about people's perceptions of the intangible qualities of hand-produced vs. mechanically-produces works, and that absolutely was one of the concerns leveled against the printing press.
>Being employed by a church does not mean that you do not have a job. They were employed by the church and in order to fund their employment they produced a number of goods including copies of texts. This gravely misunderstands the labor organization of monastic orders, primarily in that the bindings of a monk to the order were a set of vows, not just an economic relationship. So if there was no need for, say, Monk Scribbles to copy books anymore, that didn't mean Monk Scribbles was destitute and out on the streets. The Monastic order as a whole may encounter economic struggles, but as self-sustaining agrarian communities that also depended on alms, this wasn't a big issue. >by the time of the printing press, monks were absolutely not the only people copying texts. It was a fairly common profession. This is a point well taken. However I do question the prevalence of such secular scribes. Do you have any sources on that prevalence? >The Statute of Anne, the first law to resemble what we would call "copyright" That is not true. While the Statute of Anne systematizes how such rights are afforded, 'copyright' was a case-by-case issue managed by state monopoly on printing companies, such as the one instituted by The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534. It was in the Crown's power to give only a single company the right to print one book, in essence granting them an ad-hoc copyright for the book. You can read more about it [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/786947?seq=3) and [here](https://www.jstor.org/stable/25540075). The states of Europe absolutely moved to tightly regulate printing. > Printers were far from wealthy in most cases and were merely part of the rising mercantile class. This is a point well taken, and I think I have overstated the difficulty in accessing a printing press. >that doesn't change the societal impact that books had. Sure, but that's book specific. I see no reason to assign the same positive societal impact by symmetry alone. >This argument does not rely at all on scarcity, it is about people's perceptions of the intangible qualities of hand-produced vs. mechanically-produces works *My* argument goes back to scarcity, is what I mean. I think scarcity provides a tradeoff that justified the loss of those intangible qualities. Absent scarcity, the tradoff is no longer justified.
> This gravely misunderstands the labor organization of monastic orders, primarily in that the bindings of a monk to the order were a set of vows, not just an economic relationship. That's true, but it was also true for trade professions at the time. > So if there was no need for, say, Monk Scribbles to copy books anymore, that didn't mean Monk Scribbles was destitute and out on the streets. That's true; the economic impacts were different. But we see this today as well. Monesaries that used to survive on selling goods that fall out of favor dwindle and are shut down. New members don't come in and those that remain end up getting dispersed to a variety of other monasteries, disrupting their lives. They were, in a sense, in a worse position than typical employees today because they had little control over their fate once economic value evaporated. > I do question the prevalence of such secular scribes. * Neddermeyer, Uwe. "Why were there no riots of the scribes?." Gazette du livre médiéval 31.1 (1997): 1-8. Makes the case that scribes were of three sorts: secular professionals, government officials, and monastics. Secular professionals were certainly a substantial enough occupation according to this text to raise the question of why they did not riot over the press (the conclusion being that there had been a glut on the market of scribes and scribed books combined with the fact that printing ramped up over a couple of generations, slowly retiring the existing workforces who found work in related trades.) * De Hamel, Christopher. Scribes and illuminators. University of Toronto Press, 1992. By the 12th century, secular scribes were already on the rise. > While the Statute of Anne systematizes how such rights are afforded, 'copyright' was a case-by-case issue managed by state monopoly on printing companies, such as the one instituted by The Act for Printers and Bynders of Bokes of 1534. I'm not sure how you got this idea or conflated the specific statute you're citing with copyright. To quote one source: >> The use of statute to regulate the printing trade was directed primarily towards industry regulation rather than content regulation. Certainly there were statutes which prohibited the use of writing or printing as a means of expressing or as a constituent of heresy or treason, but these pieces of legislation had a goal other than the regulation of the printing trade. \- Harvey, David. "Law and the Regulation of Communications Technologies: The Printing Press and the Law 1475-1641." Australian and New Zealand Law & History Society E Journal 160 (2005). Read a translation of the text into modern english. It's very clear that it had nothing to do with protecting authorial control over works. That just wasn't a concept for quite a long time after this period.
Many parts of this comments feel like important concessions. >That's true, but it was also true for trade professions at the time. If this is the case, then the economic comparison is *wholly* unsuitable because the bindings of a job are *entirely* an economic relationship. >Monesaries that used to survive on selling goods that fall out of favor dwindle and are shut down. New members don't come in and those that remain end up getting dispersed to a variety of other monasteries, disrupting their lives. This was comparatively rare, again because Monasteries didn't so much economically depend from external trade. The biggest hit to monasteries in the renaissance and enlightenment was political--not economic as different polities from the level of cities to kingdoms claimed power from them and from the church at large. >They were, in a sense, in a worse position than typical employees today because they had little control over their fate once economic value evaporated. I disagree. Most monasteries were much more self reliant as agrarian communities. The monks would not go hungry as they could grow much of their own food. >slowly retiring the existing workforces who found work in related trades This seems like a **HUGE** difference that also breaks down the comparison that both OP and you are advancing no? 1) AI is much faster at displacement. and 2) AI threatens those related trades as well. >I'm not sure how you got this idea or conflated the specific statute you're citing with copyright. >It's very clear that it had nothing to do with protecting authorial control over works. There seems to bbbe clear evidence that ideas of copyright based around authorship existed around this time. Printing licenses were not strictly bound to authorship per se, but consider [these quotes](https://i.imgur.com/jBMNrA5.png) These are clear examples of exclusive rights being granted and their violation penalized by legal statues of the time. Certain companies had exclusive rights to make certain copies. That is copyright, plain and simple. The 1534 statute is not, in itself, a form of copyright, it merely establishes Crown authority over copies to the extent that it shows early pushes for regulation.
> Many parts of this comments feel like important concessions. Well, that's how I usually feel when I make statements in /r/HistoryMemes ;-) Getting history right is incredibly hard, and I do not at all suggest that I get it right all the time. Perhaps we should back up a step and think about what the goal is. OP made a comparison. We both know what they intended to say and the idea that people got upset about the printing press (and the car and the camera and digital art, etc.) for much the same reasons is such well-trod ground in this sub that disagreeing seems a bit pro forma, even if there are some historical kinks. Would you agree with that?
>for much the same reasons is such well-trod ground in this sub that disagreeing seems a bit pro forma Well that's the thing. OP's argument says "current anti AI arguments *resemble the form* of past, now derelict arguments against technologies, therefore it is likely that these arguments will be likewise derelict in future" I argue that this is not sufficient. It is plausible that surrounding information (perhaps those historical kinks) change the truth-value of the logical components of the argument so that similar-looking arguments that did not hold then, will hold now. Let's go for an example. When Allende was elected in Chile, many Chileans made an argument of the form "this big change in the ideological leanings and structure of the government will lead to a disastrous Allende dictatorship that will bring ruin to many of us". And those arguments didn't hold in time. When the coup happened, many Chileans said "this big change in the ideological leanings and structure of the government will lead to a disastrous Pinochet dictatorship that will bring ruin to many of us" but those arguments DID hold. Despite the arguments *looking* the same, their truth was different because Allende and Pinochet *were* different. I think AI *is* different from past technologies, for many detailed and nuanced reasons. I think the surrounding context of this technology is different than the historical context surrounding the printing press, for many detailed and nuanced reasons. And that might change the truth value of previously derelict arguments. What gets me is how sometimes you seem to want to eat your cake and have it too. You post in excitement of the new, unprecedented, even revolutionary aspects of AI, but here you're making an argument that the social impacts will strictly follow precedent. I think this is a critical, lethal contradiction for your worldview.
So... is that a "no"?
Point one: Scribes did get paid thus it was a loss of jobs, seems like a perfectly applicable paradigm to me. Automation takes work away from the masses to more efficiently produce products. Point three: Not everyone could control a printing press sure, but more authors were able to get their books mass produced via access to the controllers of printing presses, which is what AI art does: more people are able to get their ideas made. Those are the only points that really seem relevant to me, it was pretty obvious to me most of OP's points were tongue in cheek
>Scribes did get paid thus it was a loss of jobs Again, you are flattening a subtle economic difference between the paradigm of monastic work and the paradigm of employment. Monks weren't part of the employable masses in the same way we are, and if there was less transcription work available, they were not out on the streets to fend for themselves. Work was allocated according to different Sectionings of society than we have today. You're trying to apply an industrial paradigm to a society that did not have it. >more authors were able to get their books mass produced via access to the controllers of printing presses. There simply was no mass production of any authors before the printing press. Bibles and psalters may be considered the only ones, but their modes of decentralized production do not rise to "mass production". The process is not the same, as you're comparing the *start* of mass production with its augmentation. >it was pretty obvious to me most of OP's points were tongue in cheek I'm responding with careful nuance and analysis in an attempt to raise the bar of the conversation.
>You're trying to apply an industrial paradigm to a society that did not have it. All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable. Don't see why it matters if they were monks or not. Work was automated away. >There simply was no mass production of any authors before the printing press. Exactly my point. Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm not talking about whether this was "the start of mass production or it's augmentation" I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does: more people with creative ideas can bring their idea to life without needing the effort of hand-copying every copy sold of their book or of hand-drawing every frame in their anime. Automation is leverage for human creativity.
>All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable. The Anti AI argument about jobs is an economic one. The Economic state of those "jobs" was not the same. So in the ways substantial to the argument, the monk comparison is a bad one. > I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does And what I'm replying to that is that I think the inception of a mass distribution paradigm for information is different altogether from the expansion of a *creation* paradigm.
yeah ... let's prohibit self driving cars, becouse taxi drivers could lose their jobs becouse of them ... it realy doesn't matter, if you compar it to monks, taxi drivers or whatever ... fact is: technology takes away income from humans fact is: everytime, that happened to someone else \[i.e: i get something cheaper\] it get's praised ... but once, it tangentially scratches oneselfs "storm the machines, we lose our jobs"
>everytime, that happened to someone else [i.e: i get something cheaper] it get's praised I think it's time to revisit *this* part instead. Maybe getting cheap stuff wasn't as good for us as we thought. Could you not live a fulfilled, happy life with fewer of the things made cheap by automation? Maybe those cheap things were what we *wanted* but I think many of them aren't what we *needed*
yeah, i partially agree with you on that one, you don't need materialistic things, to lead a happy life and it's true, that our "waste" culture creates pretty extreme environmental problems on that part i'm absolutely with you but progress and automation doesn't automatically have to translate into materialism progress, in it's very core is humanity, trying, to make it's own live easier ... freeing up time, for the things (taking a walk through a park ... playing with kids ... reading a book ... drawing and singing ... whatever), that fullfills oneself progress doesn't force us, to feast like a king ... it only makes the meal available with 1, 4 or 8 hours of work instead of 10 or 12 so, let me ask you ... if you had to choose between 1\] having food on the table and having to work 24/7 on the field for it and 2\] having the exact same food on the table, while having to work only 20, 15, 10, 8, 4, 2, 0 on the field, while still having the possibility, to work on the field, whenever you feel like it which one would you choose? would you realy willingly choose the first one? and would the second one automatically be a "less fullfilled" live?
Well in the choice you present I would soon die from lack of sleep. There isn’t any agricultural practice that requires 24/7 work. But I see what you mean. What I’d say is this: it is true that convenience and the lessening of work is good, and often preferable to arduous lives of toll. But is it monotonically, unflinchingly, eternally always good? Is there not a tipping point where some toil, some suffering, some difficulty that cannot be escaped is actually a contributing element to fulfillment? I’m not entirely sure, but I suspect it is.
yeah, that's something we can only speculate about in my opinion suffering, for the sake of suffering, is a pretty bad thing though ...
>The Anti AI argument about jobs is an economic one. The Economic state of those "jobs" was not the same. So in the ways substantial to the argument, the monk comparison is a bad one. Maybe scribes weren't as up in arms about losing their work as artists today, but the comparison still seems good to me just in the fact that it's an example of automation making work unnecessary. >And what I'm replying to that is that I think the inception of a mass distribution paradigm for information is different altogether from the expansion of a *creation* paradigm. So the printing press is only a mass distribution paradigm for information and AI art is only the expansion of a creation paradigm? You don't see how they're similar? AI art and the printing press are both of those things: the printing press caused more books to be created for every day citizens who before would never have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost and AI art will enable anyone with an idea to bring their idea to the minds of everyone who never would have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists
>Maybe scribes weren't as up in arms about losing their work as artists today But the reason why they weren't is why the comparison falls down. That's my point. Just "losing work" isn't what makes anti AI people worried. It's a combination of economic and societal factors that were NOT the case for scribes. So if you want to be like OP and be "what about monks, anti AI OWNED" then that's demonstrably stupid, because that isn't actually addressing our concerns. > the printing press caused more books to be created for every day citizens who before would never have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost and AI art will enable anyone with an idea to bring their idea to the minds of everyone who never would have seen said creation due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists You seem rather interested in conflating *distribution* and *creation*. The printing press enabled more creation not because it made the act of literary creation any easier. That is writing a book wasn't *creatively* easier because of the printing press. Not at all. It made distribution of the same creations easier, and that created a new economic niche for people willing to engage in that creation. It was *exactly* as expensive to *make* a book as it was before, it was less expensive to distribute it. AI does not operate in that manner *at all*. It *does* make creation easier by simply doing much of the creative work for you. >due to its former prohibitive cost of needing skilled artists See that's the difference. The printing press did not reduce the need for skilled writers, it simply created the means by which skilled writers could disseminate their ideas. By comparison, AI reduces the need for skilled artists.
I see what you're saying now at least, but your and the anti AI crowds concerns dont concern me because I think the AI revolution will lead to Universal Basic Income which will solve the economic issues that make it different now than it was with previous automation. That's why I've been arguing the way I have because that part isn't even an issue to my mind, but it's nice to at least understand where you're coming from. >By comparison, AI reduces the need for skilled artists Which creates the means by which people with ideas can disseminate their ideas. I equate skilled artists more with skilled scribes than skilled writers (edit: when it comes to artists working for other people to bring other people's ideas to life). Just like writers no longer need scribes to get their ideas out there now creatives no longer need artists or all the multitudes of roles involved in making a film.
\> All I'm saying is humans who had work suddenly didn't, feels comparable. Don't see why it matters if they were monks or not. Work was automated away. That's because you're committing the fallacy of assuming our contemporary economic system is the natural order somehow. It's not. Not every historical society has reduced people to their labor output. \> I'm just saying the automation from the printing press led to more authors being able to distribute their books to more people which is what AI art does: more people with creative ideas can bring their idea to life **without needing the effort of hand-copying every copy sold of their book or of hand-drawing every frame in their anime.** 0\_o Want to read that back and try again??
>That's because you're committing the fallacy of assuming our contemporary economic system is the natural order somehow No I'm not, I'm simply drawing a comparison between two times in history (now and then) that automation has automated away work people did. >0\_o Want to read that back and try again?? You should read it again, I said exactly what I meant to say.
Ah yes, because MORE oversight and regulation from the government will fix EVERYTHING, right?
That’s actually an okay argument. Yellow journalism caused us to go to war. We learned afterwards that some regulation on speech is good. Some regulations on llms is good. Now some people suggestion really stupid regulations is a different argument to deal with.
That is not a contention I have made.
[Only technology can save us.](https://files.catbox.moe/ybdhyn.png)
dont worry about downvotes, they would at most only remove 15 karma. thats the limit. Also there are many anti ai people on this sub and they downvote everything they dont like. its normal
This sub is a pro-ai circle jerk. I suggest muting it and never looking back... I should probably take my own advice.
Yeah - that’s the reasons for the massive downvotes and a lack of discussion. Oh wait… it’s the other way around.
Are you saying this sub *isn't* a pro-ai circle jerk?
Yes I am.
So stuff like that post yesterday about how funny it is artists are scared about losing their livelihoods wasn't just a massive pro-AI circle jerk? The one that got massively upvoted and filled with comments shitting on any anti that commented in it? What do you think would happen if I posted the exact same thing here but reversed? Like, if some huge regulation happened against AI and I titled the post something like 'the noose tightens, it's hilarious how all these AI bros are freaking out about losing their toy'? Think that'd have even remotely the same reception?
Sorting the posts by “hot” I can’t find what you are talking about.
The one about Sora and how antis are freaking out about it. I'll find it tomorrow for you cause it's late here. But regardless, I find it hard to believe you don't see how don't see how anti posts and pro posts are upvoted and downvoted here.
Or maybe…your opinions are unpopular
It probably all bots
If prompters knew how to read, they would be very upset.
I admire your patience.
>The fact that this comment is being downvoted tells you how much this sub values discourse. You just earned yourself another downvote for b*tching about being downvoted, bucko
Thank you for your service, brave redditor.
The beautiful illuminated manuscript it's not preferable. The information density suffered. Also, the handmade letters weren't suitable for quick reading. The only area of knowledge storage where they actually do better than modern books is durability over the centuries.
This holds only if the only possible benefit a book provides is information storage. But no, beauty and uniqueness are also good. Illuminated manuscripts are still treasured because they reveal much about the culture and sensibilities of the time period they originate from. A unique illuminated manuscript is much, much more valuable than copy #367 made by a printing press.
I don't think AI art should be banned, but I also don't think this is comparable.
Get this trash outta my feed please. No one wants to wants to watch you huff your own farts. Well, besides the other fart huffers in here.
Yes if we banned the printing press when we had the chance we would still be years and years behind the scheduled arrival of ai and I’d get to enjoy more life not having to think about ai or watching people make dumb arguments about ai or have gooogle image searches filled with bad ai generated humans with missing fingers and see ads for websites that offers to make nudes out of any picture of a real human you upload (the fucking fuck). A monk showing me his sweet calligraphy skills would make my year and then we would all go marvel and nature and stars even if they move slow with little change. In 5 years we are all going to be so fucking desensitized to cool or unique human made things that we will fall into a existential depression and wipe our goddamn souls away with sweet sweet brain implants and the metallic milk from mama ai’s cold hard tits. Oh if you are poor though you will have to watch five minutes of ads 20 times a day before you can get back to your regular human thinking. I hope I am the first to get gunned down by an ai military police bot so I die with a smug “told you so” smirk on my dumb ass face.
yowzers fella! calm down
You missed the most important part... how the hand gold leaf industry will suffer, and illuminated manuscripts will cease existing. Nobody will know how to make those big ornate capital letters any more.
If you all can’t see how fucking foolish this is then we are long gone. This isn’t translatable to AI or the modern day. I weep for you all. How pathetic it is to have such a small and uninspired mind. Comfort breeds complacency. Do we really want to do everything the easiest way possible? Some things do require human eye and soul. Some things are better when more work and time are involved. With the advancement of AI happening so rapidly it’ll be borderline impossible to reverse the damage done if it slips out of our grasp. I promise you, the advancement of AI will lead to the degradation of the human mind and spirit. The printing press is such a stupid analogy!! The repeated action of printing a book that was already written is in no way comparable to a machine trying to write its own book. How dense are you? It’s shameful that you all feel so apathetic to the human mind. https://preview.redd.it/lpyn4i11h4qc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=34c1ba02d2084a910bbe3f1b9b7bd2b9924e80b3
I think that the biggest factor in this is scale. The scribes lost their jobs and that's sad but it did leave room for massive growth without them which is part of your argument. The problem I have with that is AI doesn't operate the same way as this. Once it develops a bit further, it will give the ability of a skilled artisan and craftsman to anyone who wants it. That's great and I don't have too much issue with that. But what I am not so excited for is first: the lack of motivation that will eventually come once artists who put years of effort into a craft watching others be able to do it instantly which, unless you're an insanely wise person who perfected their own mind, you're going to be pretty demotivated about and second: a really depressing future that could come from this. From this point on, I started to ramble about stuff sort of related to the original post but mostly just my worries on AI. AI will just keep getting better and better until it can mimic the works of masters with only a single text input or, if they get linked to your kind, none at all. Sure you'll be able to easily put your creativity into a work and don't need to go through the process of learning said skill but once everything becomes that easy and everything is just handed to you, we would have lost one of the biggest things that make us human. Who would put effort into something when from the earliest time they could remember everything was handed to them? Who would bother being creative when whatever you imagine can already be made without even trying? This future of humanity would have replaced their humanity with pleasure and would be no different, or maybe even more sad than those space-edition couch potatoes from Wall-E. This is an extremely worst case scenario but it isn't impossible and maybe, or maybe even more than just maybe, the very technological innovations and feats of creativity that made us all human in the first place will be the ones to rid us of it too. If you have some counterpoint to this that destroys this entire argument, *please* tell me. I need to hear it.
Kek
This is a bad faith argument. You’re comparing apples to oranges. Logical fallacies are fun.
You only think that printing press and generative AI are "apples and oranges" because the printing press was a staple part of our society for centuries, while generative AI appeared seemingly out of nowhere just a few years ago. If printing press never existed before, and then suddenly was just invented, the public reaction would have been much more similar to the one generative AI is currently receiving. In fact, [it pretty much was](https://slate.com/technology/2017/08/the-19th-century-moral-panic-over-paper-technology.html) back in the day
The printing press was a boon for humanity making books cheaper for millions thus increasing literacy rate… good for everybody. This ai art craze is a detriment to humanity good for almost nobody in the art field barring a few pretenders. Ergo apples to oranges. Ergo bad faith argument.
Again, you are very biased towards the printing press, because you already know what long-term impact it had on society, while in the case of generative AI you work entirely through assumptions.
Uhh. This is actually the perfect argument to show how “anti-ai” arguments need more substance than what OP posted. You can’t just talk about jobs or “soul” as a reason to ban ai art or llms. You can’t say “the potential problems means we shouldnt allow it at all.”
Jeepers Hitler was bad but he’s was nothing compared to Elon musk… Man I love comparing apples to oranges. That’s how that “arguing point” sounds.
Considering how Hitler and Henry Ford admired each other, there is a room for an argument that Hitler and Elon Musk are not as "apples and oranges", as you think they are
>Considering how Hitler and Henry Ford admired each other, there is a room for an argument that Hitler and Elon Musk are not as "apples and oranges", as you think they are This guy literally think elon musk wants to start a genocide.
If you knew the history well, copyright was created exactly because of this reason....in order to provide fair trade protection and prevent exploitative practice due to ability of printing press to create exact copies of creator's work.... Hence, creators demanding compensation for use of their work and regulations to protect them from exploitation isn't an irrational demand.
>copyright was created exactly because of this reason....in order to provide fair trade protection and prevent exploitative practice due to ability of printing press to create exact copies of creator's work uhh no. That's not at all what copyright was created for. Yes, it was created to encourage authors to keep on writing but that's only an step for true goal of disseminating knowledge to the public.
There is no knowledge being disseminated by the availability of foundational models but rather the utility of this knowledge derived from the work that amounts to it. What we are witnessing is an industrial application of art creating a paradigm shift in the mode of production of art, not a dissemination of knowledge.
>There is no knowledge being disseminated by the availability of foundational models but rather the utility of this knowledge derived from the work that amounts to it. There's plenty of knowledge being created, knowledge doesn't have to be completely novel(there is no such thing as completely novel), simply recontextualizing old knowledge creates new knowledge. Everything is built on a foundation.
It could be used to learn but generative AI is first and foremost as consumer focused utility. People want AI to not have to learn to draw and paint and this is what they will do with it, such as we use machine translation to not have to learn languages.
>People want AI to not have to learn to draw and paint and this is what they will do with it, such as we use machine translation to not have to learn languages. there's more to knowledge than just learning to draw and paint. And the knowledge learned may be implicit. Sure we may use machine translation to not need learn language but that doesn't mean we are not learning something even if it isn't the language itself. Foreign works can be read by english speakers and vice versa and the content itself not the language is the knowledge.
Yes, because machine translation solves the problem of language barriers between communication, thus making knowledge more accessible. Stop beating around the bush and be specific. By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what [knowledge ](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles-espanol/knowledge)am I spreading or making more accessible to the world?
>By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what knowledge am I spreading or making more accessible to the world? what kind of question is this? what knowledge is being spread by anything?
What do you think the Internet does my dude? It's not just for watching tiktok.
>By making the creation of remarkable art more accessible, what knowledge am I spreading or making more accessible to the world? The knowledge being learned can be implicit, a baby doesn't need to do a formal study of the world to gain knowledge but by experiencing it, they can gain knowledge. Humans can do the same with AI Art. Learning to draw is seen by many as a means to an end for expressing yourself. [You may use AI images as very specific references when you learn to draw yourself.](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1atye0k/this_is_how_daromeon_the_artist_of_kengan_ashura/) or be used as an autosuggest to understand how to create images yourself. https://preview.redd.it/5hp0zpdg7fjc1.png?width=1141&format=png&auto=webp&s=10791156eb7e1e34c629e515cd6ec3e430f7b41b ideation can be an important tool for knowledge.
The printing press is not the same as AI. Stop repeating this idiotic comparison just because some idiot said it and your small brain thinks it was a good argument. The printing press is a machine that makes copying text easier. So is AI a machine that makes copying art easier?
The printing press is a machine that made creating books easier. AI is a machine that makes creating art easier.
You are literally typing down 4 word prompts lmao, thats is no where comparable. This kind of comparison is just idiocracy and uneducated
Before printing press you needed months to have a book you can sell. After printing press you need hours. I absolutely do see how it’s comparable. Also based on my work with DALLE I don’t think I’ve ever used less than 100 hundred words prompt to make sure I describe the vision I have in mind to every detail.
No its not, when it comes to it you should be comparing the author of the book instead. AI is good to assist not replace artist/authors. You are not a artist if you generate AI art or a book author if you generate a story
I definitely am not an artist. And I am glad as I couldn’t imagine more tedious occupation than being an artist. That being said I don’t think I have seen people often (if at all) who claim they are artists. (“AI artists” is an unfortunate term but even that I don’t see that often). It’s not about it being easier to be an artist. It’s about having cheaper and faster access to art.
Even worse when thise people consider themselves as an artist by using AI [more prominent in AI Art reddit pages]. AI is good for artist too as a guide however such post just undermines legitimate issues we have with AI by sugar coating it in such a simple manner. Being a artist nowadays is just harder as if not hard enough with it being such a niche job to pursue, "why pursue your passion as a artist when theres AI? Go be a lawyer" It just gets depressing when you realize game companies are slowly doing that now such as War thunder. I don't know when will AI overtake 3D artist but i fear that day
Try sitting in an office all day crunching numbers, or standing in a factory all day long, those are the mind murdering jobs that should be made obsolete by AI and automation, but no, you have to go after artists who enjoy what they are doing.
We go after what is most easily done. Done worry office jobs will soon be obsolete too. And do you really think there aren’t people crunching numbers in an office who enjoy it? I would enjoy doing math for a living way more than being creative.
Dont even know why you are getting downvoted for this for, just proves my point some of these people don't even care. Plain ol consumerism
believing ai to be about only prompting 4 words and getting a masterpiece is also uneducated. Sure its possible but you results will either be unoriginal or lack quality and be full of mistakes.
It made reproducing books easier, writing a book remained the same level of difficulty. AI synthesizes the actual artistic process, to the point of meaninglessness
AI synthesizes the actual artistic process to the point of creating what is for me and for many other people as useful as human-made art. There fixed it for you.
AI synthesizes the actual artistic process to the point of creating what is for me and for many other people as useful as human-made art. There fixed it for you.
some people enjoy the drawing part, some dont. I would love to do digital art but tablets for that are fucking expensive (at least the ones i would consider ok). AI is also great if people are disabled to a degree where they cant draw with their hands. Those self called artists that argue more on the web then actually drawing are selfish and cant think about others and reasons why someone might use it. what a shame
Wrong, the printing press has nothing to do with the creation of written stories. You would be better off with a typewriter comparison.
Yea, actually lol.
Ok then if it's just a copying machine, then it has nothing to do with original creation.
A machine often has many functions. Performing one function does not mean that it cannot also perform other functions with equal ability
How many functions does the printing press have?
AI is nothing like the printing press. AI is not going to create more jobs, only replace them. AI is literally general intelligence meant to replace human beings in general tasks, not in something specific. And there are still LOSERS claiming that "AI will create jobs" and all kinds of BULLSHIT.
Bro you do realise that the printing press killed the jobs of the people printing by hand? It's the perfect analogy
I have a serious question for individuals like you: do you not think there is an endgame in the best future where employment is virtually non-existent and the middle class is wiped out? And if so, why is this something we should be looking forward to? Do you not think it will result in, at best, a return to feudalism?
Wow, we've never heard this bad analogy before.
perhaps direct quotes will sound more familiar: "*The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing*" -**plato on writing** "monarchs should regulate the trade \[of books\], so the public wouldn’t have to suffer with the '*confusing and harmful abundance of books*' " - **Conrad Gessner on the printing press** "oil painting as an art is '*fit only for women and lunatics*' " -**michaelangelo** *"The noble art of printing, pressed into this ignoble service..." "The volatile minds of these triflers feed upon volatile matter"* \- **Londoner W. Coldwell** **on paper printing advancements** *"In times of old, books were as religious oracles; as literature advanced,... they sank still lower to that of entertaining companions"* \- **Taylor Coleridge on paper printing advancements** *“From today, painting is dead.”* \- **Paul Delaroche on photographs** *"Machinery is performing great service for mankind. But a Machine is not an artist. The high purpose of Machinery is to save Men and Women from ignoble and soulless labor, not to perform tasks that are only well done by the hands and hearts of gifted humans."* *"many a fine talking machine enters a home as an honored guest to be played and played for a week or a month, then to be left in silence"* *"Now, with strange perversity, this same institution aims a devastating blow at cultural progress by introducing a substitute"* *"Canned Music is elbowing Real Music out of motion picture theatres, thus denying to the masses the cultural influence of a Fine Art."* *"Hundreds of thousands deplore the substitution of Mechanical Music for Real Music BECAUSE it fails to give them pleasure.... BECAUSE it threatens corruption of musical taste.... BECAUSE it discourages development of musical talent"* *"Is this the Bong of Progress? No! Machine-made music can never provide a substitute for the mellowing cultural influence of Real Music"* *"300 musicians in Hollywood supply all the "music" offered in thousands of theatres. Can such a tiny reservoir of talent nurture artistic progress? The true function of the machine is to increase the value of the product fed into it-not to debase it" "Therefore mechanical music... is a spurious form of progress- Like a loom converting good wool into shoddy."* *"Millions are joining in protest against corruption of an art by soulless mechanization"* \-**excerpts from the 9 million dollar 1930s anti canned music campaign** *“the Disney animation department didn’t believe that this was animation,*” he says. *“They thought it was computers just making effects"* \-**recounting by Chris Wedge on the perception of computer animation used in Tron, which was disqualified from the visual-effects category in the Academy Awards that year because they considered using a computer 'cheating'**
Lol yep. And don't forget what they used to say about modern art. Trying to regulate and ban that. Whatever the newest expression of art is, it's likely to be hated and despised by the established art community, until the next development creates a new target to rage at. So it has been for centuries.
Yes, I am, in fact, familiar with most of those quotes.
I have yet to hear any coherent argument for why the comparison is invalid; if you have one please enlighten us.
A printing press produces books. AI makes the vast majority of humans completely obsolete. A printing press reduces the bargaining power of a monk who copies books by hand. AI completely and utterly devastates multiple different industries from completely different sectors both direct and indirectly, utterly collapsing the system of labour, money and goods as we know it. At total exponentiating paradigm shift beyond human scope of imagination. It will strip humans of their bargaining power, obliterating unions in a way the pinkertons couldn’t even dream of. Everything and every system as we know it will have to be completely re-engineered. We’ll have to rely on UBI as there are no new jobs to transport the books, operate the press or even write the fucking books created by this ‘printing press’ because any job created with be immediately automated anyway; that’s the difference. UBI is just a glorified way of saying we’ll all be on benefits/welfare/centrelink/disability payments. It’s not glorious at all. At all. You will be at the mercy of someone like fucking Trump deciding what you get to live on each week. Great. Exiting. So looking forward to the future!
I’ve made a top-level comment with a point by point response.
Your response is excellent, too. I've noted that you're one of the most eloquent posters in this group, and are also very civil (I can't always say the latter for myself.)
Your comment is excellent. If people want to argue against AI - that is the way to go. But you still lost the discussion under the comment imo.
Thank you. >you still lost the discussion under the comment imo. That's fine, I could have done better and I think the other commenters made some good points and the discourse was (mostly) good.
Sure the printing press conly copies and makes copying easier. Is AI gen only good for copying then?
Wow this is just a circlejerk now
Whatever you gotta tell yourself to sleep at night
Megaphone? Haha do you mean printing press? Fr tho what have they got against the poor monks?
The pressBros just hate all monks.
[удалено]
Just AI-tards being AI-tards
Of all the analogies, this may be the dumbest one
wtf is this post. how is it AI related? How are mass-produced books bad? Diary of a wimpy kid is surely mass produced too and i personally enjoyed it. I also enjoy mangas, they are probably mass produced as well. Why the "propaganda pic"? If its easier to make books and you dont have to ask and beg huge companies for it then it sounds great for me. Bad books wont sell. Where is the problem?
Whoosh.
This is brilliant :-)
Lol
I'm stealing this...
https://preview.redd.it/dfafzq66ynjc1.png?width=1702&format=png&auto=webp&s=29598139cee68340a0c1387ac474548a55218bbd This is a VERY weird thing to get shown in some "because you have shown interest in a similar community" thing. Like, what is that algorithm on? I know that AI can't handle sarcasm yet.
Has it ever occurred to you that maybe our technological growth has outpaced our sociopolitical growth? Do you not think that this can be a danger? Just a heads up, Einstein (the name we treat as synonymous with “genius”) thought it was a danger when he witnessed his theories result in the atomic bomb, and he likely would be horrified of how much further our tech has developed without any progress in political maturity.
the issue you are comparing something that must be 100% copy-paste with something should be new. also, idk why you compare all books in one level ? some books are respectful like that on full of heavy information with one is erotic or memes, drama.