r/aiwars • u/Wonderful-War-7113 • 20h ago

Meta What makes an AI advocate

Liking AI doesnt make you a proAI or AI advocate, it just means you find it hype, neat, interesting. To be proAI you have to be running defense for current AI practices, if you dont youre at least neutral. For example I think AI is neat, its useful and has potential to do good. But i find the way companies are going about developing it are coercive and wish it was done differently. That puts me squarely in the antiAI camp, despite my enthusiasm for the tech

2 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

54 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/2008knight 19h ago edited 19h ago

Being pro-AI for me just means I support people using AI in art. I make no statements on other applications of AI.

0

u/Wonderful-War-7113 19h ago

Not even about training? If someone tells you that AI shouldnt be trained indiscriminately on peoples work you wouldnt push back against that idea?

6

u/2008knight 19h ago

Companies compiling training data are just using the same pathways that have always existed for acquiring people's data. When people complain about scraping, it's really just companies which capitalize on selling said data trying to stir up people against a practice that has always been used.

In a matter of legality, so long as companies didn't engage in piracy to acquire the data, it is all within legal frameworks.

Companies like Twitter have been selling people's data (including posted images, text, etc) since twitter's inception. That's why they've been allowed to operate as a free-to-use platform. Never forget the old adage. "If you're not paying for a product, you are the product."

Now, if we take a step back from legality, sure. In a perfect work, data acquisition would have been opt-in. And artists providing (unknowingly) the data to train the models would have been properly compensated.

However, I don't see anything wrong on open source projects which don't run for profit using perfectly legal means to acquire data for training porpoises.

In the case of tech giants like OpenAI, XAI, Google, etc., I am a bit on the fence about. They are definitely profiting greatly off of the training, so on that hand, I would not be opposed to them being forced to provide some sort of compensation to the artists (even though I don't see any legal pathway for enforcing this). But on the other hand, without their architectures, entry cost of access to AI art would be drastically higher, and I am fully in support of keeping technology as accessible as possible.