I don’t really what problem this solves other than the ability to sell you more slop and create the advertisements more slop. From what I have seen, there is no guarantee for correctness on technical matters. It’s doesn’t feed or clothes people. So I kind of always feel odd when people say it’s un Marxist to be against AI Art or Chat GPT.
Chat GPT can write code. It can debug code. It can design websites. It can translate language better than any automated language translation services. I fail to see how this doesn’t automate socially necessary work and solve problems
AI has improved exponentially in just the last year. You are completely blind if you do not see the potential this has to basically eliminate nearly all white collar work as it becomes even more sophisticated
Let’s be honest. ChatGPT is copying code snippets from StackOverflow with varying levels of correctness. I guess that is what people were doing anyways though.
What does “being against it” do, though? What specific actions would you take in opposition to deep learning tech?
I’m strict on calling it un-Marxist because carrying out an anti-AI programme would rely on either an unsustainable unending struggle against everyone trying to recreate it, or going full :a-guy: and bringing us so far back into the Stone Age that we can never reindustrialize again.
Most of the problems that people describe with deep learning tech, including what you’re describing, are problems with the system that it exists within, not problems with the tech itself. The abolition of capitalism is the only sustainable and permanent solution to the problem, and would be one that allows humanity to fully realize its benefits with few adverse consequences.
As of right now, I do not think any opposition to AI will actually benefit workers in any way – the most likely outcome would be that huge media companies end up being the only people able to effectively use the technology, which will result in most of the job eliminations we would hope to prevent happening anyways. It’s a fight between media companies wanting stronger copyright (look up the Mickey Mouse curve – we’re due for another expansion of copyright) and tech companies wanting to sell ridiculously overpriced cloud services, and regular artists don’t get a seat at this table under our current system.
I don’t really what problem this solves other than the ability to sell you more slop and create the advertisements more slop. From what I have seen, there is no guarantee for correctness on technical matters. It’s doesn’t feed or clothes people. So I kind of always feel odd when people say it’s un Marxist to be against AI Art or Chat GPT.
Chat GPT can write code. It can debug code. It can design websites. It can translate language better than any automated language translation services. I fail to see how this doesn’t automate socially necessary work and solve problems
The legacy code creator. Debugging from scratch every time. Everyone’s favorite activity.
AI has improved exponentially in just the last year. You are completely blind if you do not see the potential this has to basically eliminate nearly all white collar work as it becomes even more sophisticated
Let’s be honest. ChatGPT is copying code snippets from StackOverflow with varying levels of correctness. I guess that is what people were doing anyways though.
No it isn’t connected to the internet any longer and it creates novel code for requests in plain English that are extremely specific and niche
What does “being against it” do, though? What specific actions would you take in opposition to deep learning tech?
I’m strict on calling it un-Marxist because carrying out an anti-AI programme would rely on either an unsustainable unending struggle against everyone trying to recreate it, or going full :a-guy: and bringing us so far back into the Stone Age that we can never reindustrialize again.
Most of the problems that people describe with deep learning tech, including what you’re describing, are problems with the system that it exists within, not problems with the tech itself. The abolition of capitalism is the only sustainable and permanent solution to the problem, and would be one that allows humanity to fully realize its benefits with few adverse consequences.
As of right now, I do not think any opposition to AI will actually benefit workers in any way – the most likely outcome would be that huge media companies end up being the only people able to effectively use the technology, which will result in most of the job eliminations we would hope to prevent happening anyways. It’s a fight between media companies wanting stronger copyright (look up the Mickey Mouse curve – we’re due for another expansion of copyright) and tech companies wanting to sell ridiculously overpriced cloud services, and regular artists don’t get a seat at this table under our current system.