I'll add one other thing about war:
Humans are not exactly a peaceful bunch. A bunch of people with nothing to do start gang wars, often on a national scale, country versus country, or country-men versus counter-men. It's a hot-take for sure, but, we're trending towards war and that's especially true if AI can easily be used to rile each other up with ease.
I think that the calm, more disciplined take of “the sky is always falling, it’s never falling. There’s other, probably better ways to be creative” is the one.
Today my eight year old sat at the PC for hours using Scratch to make what was essentially a Flash animation. He had PS5 access, Switch access, iPad access. Nope. Wanted to bash his head against loops and timers for hours.
The craving to be creative is insatiable. It’ll continue to take on new forms.
With apologies to the farriers of today.
It feels like a big tech company can just ignore the law, unless another big company stands up against it (and hopefully helps the average Joe as a side-effect).
On the lower end it's not as much whether the assets are in part or fully stolen, but who does it.
If they're scraping data from everywhere to feed their beast, then their data must also be open and scrape-able.
This does not, however, help the current situation where they sit upon the shoulders of millions of creative folks and provide no credit whatsoever, whilst also (actively or passively - by their existence and capability) attempting to make those very same creative folks redundant.
Will there be such a thing as AI stagnation if and when creative works for "it" to digest either are no longer created or no longer accessible to 'the great crawlers'?
Maybe artists can sell their works for ingestion in this scenario? Maybe that should already be the case...
I think that was the idea behind the original name for ClosedAI.
One thing that I'm not seeing in this thread is the reputational risk of using AI, especially in artistic works like games. AI imagery is generic, lazy, and is seeing a backlash from the public. It's a negative quality marker even if it's trendy in tech spaces. There's definitely a lot of people in executive leadership and management who think they can replace all kinds of labor with AI right now, but from what I've seen, that has not played out as expected in the real workforce. The actual reason this guy is losing half his business is probably more due to people cutting back on discretionary spending more than AI taking jobs.
What's more perilous is that the internet will soon cease to be a useful way to access and distribute knowledge, and has been transformed from a resource for learning and sharing into a clear-cut forest which nobody will replant.
But hey, at least sama got a new gruebel forsey.
What struck me is there's no website for hiring an artist. ArtStation has a Shop section (pre-made art for sale) but no Commissions section. Fiverr has some artists taking commissions but none I could find of really good quality, and there's AI art spam now as well (takes commissions but just sends you an AI prompt result). Reddit has two art commission subreddits but there aren't really many artists there. And both Fiverr and Reddit's main selling point is cheap art commissions, but I was happy to pay more for something good.
Unless you know an artist already that suits the style you're after, and they're currently taking commissions, it seems quite hard to find anyone. I kinda thought I'd be able to go to, like, CommissionArt.com and filter by Traditional -> Oils -> Landscapes or whatever to find someone perfect.
To everyone who says hire a real artist instead of using AI - where do you go to find them?
Love the tech. Hate losing business.
sneak•1h ago
Tons of boiler room illustrators in low income countries would have happily undercut him, too.
tsunamifury•1h ago
brookst•1h ago
Better to say AI took his market.
sneak•55m ago
The fact that it was done by AI is actually immaterial to the economic claim.