It's really clear that businesses are hoping to replace people with AI. In an industry that is already very difficult to make a stable living in, and troubled with regular plagiarism, is it really that surprising that any encroachment of AI into that space would be met with backlash?
Even if you can see how individual circumstances could be beneficial to your workflow, it's a general direction I think many take issue with quite fairly.
> It's really clear that businesses are hoping to replace people with AI. In an industry that is already very difficult to make a stable living in, and troubled with regular plagiarism, is it really that surprising that any encroachment of AI into that space would be met with backlash?
But what's the plan, then? Prevent any third party from downloading Blender and integrate it in any way with an agent?
Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.
Without a constant stream of stolen training data, the "AI" piracy bleed-through and isomorphic plagiarism business model is unsustainable.
We look forward to liquidating the GPU data-centers at a heavy discount. =3
> Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.
I'm skeptical of this line of reasoning. Major content providers have no problem with copyright, even when content is completely produced by anonymous contributors. Is this supposed to become an issue when you eliminate some anonymous contributors?
>Major content providers have no problem with copyright
Besides getting sued for piracy, settling out-of-court with Disney, and or externalizing DMCA/RIAA take-down liabilities on users.
A human may transfer rights or "license" to another party in many circumstances, but may not re-sell a codified Coca-Cola logo trademark out of convenience.
All levels of the US courts concluded an "AI" can't transfer nor actually create content rights. Most WIPO members also seemed to follow the same consensus.
There was a similar issue with folks selling marginally pitch-shifted audio assets on the Unity and Web stores. Note, they didn't have the original legal right to license this content, and customers would get their content flagged eventually.
Some kids are cheeky pirating Sony and BBC libraries... exploiting peoples assumption buying an old CD set somehow magically gives the holder broadcast or game distribution rights.
Keep being skeptical, as it will keep you in business. =3
Not owning the rights to some content and somebody else owning those rights are not the same thing. If someone else owns the copyright and you redistribute their stuff without permission, they have grounds to sue you. If nobody owns the copyright, because it expired long ago or because it came into being without human creative input, you can sell it just fine. So can everyone else, of course. Now, if you put your own stuff on top, that you own the copyright to, those other people can no longer redistribute it without your permission, but you can. So there's hardly any risk in using uncopyrightable background art.
Unless the "AI" content output is fundamentally unable to prevent piracy of other peoples content (it demonstrably can't even on a CEO live stream.) Most models will happily spew any statistically salient trademark, copyrighted and or patented code/music/images/video. Note too, GPL/LGPL is a contaminating license, so legal submarines will surface sooner or later if injected into closed-source projects.
The "how" it happens part is just legally irrelevant "[piracy] with extra steps", but if you are interested in details see below. =3
Some on this forum will be working for companies with conflicts of interest on the topic, and if an employees words were construed to be the opinions of the company that could be bad for that person.
I was once almost fired for saying a little too much in an HN comment about pentesting. Being dragged into an office and given a dressing-down for posting was quite traumatic.
The central issue (or so they claimed) was that people might misconstrue my comment as representing the company I was at.
So yeah, I don’t understand why people are making fun of this. It’s serious.
On the other hand, they were so uptight that I’m not sure “opinions are my own” would have prevented it. But it would have been at least some defense.
Good on you. I’m happy to hear you got out of that kind of environment. It’s soul-draining.
Also a relief to hear that other people had to deal with this nonsense. I was afraid the reaction would be “there’s no way that happened,” since at the time I could hardly believe it either.
It's a shame most companies don't do weird and interesting variants anymore. I suppose it's hard to do when you need mass market appeal.
Especially in regards to cars, often getting a bargain is about finding the cars with faults you personally don't care about but most people do, or versions not many are interested in.
Unfortunately the way speculators have inflated the used market means the rare (because no-one wanted it) versions are priced on their rarity not their utility.
Is a bit like saying I'll never watch a movie again because LLMs can summarise it for me. For many tasks and activities the UI or experience in the browser is actually the end goal of what I am doing.
And they're very sensitive to new releases, often making it difficult to work with after a major release of a framework for example. Tripping up on minor stuff like new functions, changes in signatures etc.
A stable mature framework then is the best case scenario. New frameworks or rapidly changing frameworks will be difficult, wasting lots of tokens on discovery and corrections.
It is funny seeing people ping pong between Anthropic and ChatGPT, with similar rhetoric in both directions.
At this point I would just pick the one who's "ethics" and user experience you prefer. The difference in performance between these releases has had no impact on the meaningful work one can do with them, unless perhaps they are on the fringes in some domain.
Personally I am trying out the open models cloud hosted, since I am not interested in being rug pulled by the big two providers. They have come a long way, and for all the work I actually trust to an LLM they seem to be sufficient.
Their financial projections that to a big part their valuation and investor story is built on involves actually making money, and lots of money, at some point. That money has to come from somewhere.
It can matter to you without it being a grand philosophical, ethical or commercial concern.
That's where I'm at with this stuff, and I think I am in good company.
The image represents a facsimile of seeing the real world with my own eyes, which an AI image does not. That is important to me in this context, that of learning about the real world by literally observing it.
Business logic is usually the most substantial part of legacy systems in my experience, so I imagine so.
Not to be too negative but a lot of modern software complexity is a prison of our own making, that we had time to build because our programs are actually pretty boring CRUD apps with little complex business logic.
We're also not seeing much difference in real throughput at an agency. Everyone is getting decent results, output wise but it just doesn't seem to change the outcomes that much. There is also a mixed incentive at an agency, because a reduction in hours spent is a reduction in revenue.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but I suspect if cost continues to increase and output only improves incrementally from here, that the cost will be the final decider rather than the competence.
I could see it being a thing we use only sometimes, for some things, but ultimately remain reliant on developers to get the work through the pipeline.
Management seems disconnected from reality. Real employees accumulate tribal knowledge, have an almost infinite context, and don’t keep disabling unit tests because they don’t pass. They don’t really cost money if it’s information workers that build almost all of the modern service industry. It’s management that we should see as a cost center.
That's true but employees offer more than code output, and you still need people operating the "machine" at this stage.
I am interested in how corporate politics evolves in this new environment. Usually all the way up the chain, managers and directors use head count as a measure of power and influence (and compensation). Who's going to pay a director top level pay when all they're doing is funneling requirements to various agents? That seems like a technical role that isn't particularly aligned with the soft skills management excel with either.
Very similar taste in games, and I had heard of it but wrote it off as a simple puzzle game, kind of in the mobile-game-esque throwaway genre. I must have been mistaken.
Even if you can see how individual circumstances could be beneficial to your workflow, it's a general direction I think many take issue with quite fairly.
reply