AI cat
category: general [glöplog]
Entries into debate, which turns mostly into analysis and what humans like follows.
Initially, an enthusiastic support for AI argumenting against the stealing property of current generators, quote:
GEEK BLOG - The Artist Cat, the AI Cat, and the Misunderstanding of Creation
Here’s a MEME I’ve seen about AI, with a cat, representing an artist fishing in the sea, pulling up his creations. And then comes along an AI cat who is fishing in the artist cat's bucket, seemingly using his creations as if it's stealing from the artist. On the surface, this image seems amusing, but it highlights a major misconception that many have about AI and art. The idea that AI is "stealing" from human artists is not only incorrect but also misses the essence of what AI truly represents. In fact, both the artist cat and the AI cat are fishing in the same large pool—the creative space where all types of art are inspired and emerges from.
While the artist cat is using traditional methods, just like a painter with a brush, the AI cat is using a different tool: the "prompt brush." Much like how a photographer captures a moment by pressing a button, the AI generates art based on the input it receives. But here’s the important point: just because you can hold a brush, a camera, or type a prompt doesn't automatically make you an expert or an artist. Talent, intention, and the depth of understanding of the medium are what truly define an artist.
■ WHAT MAKES AN ARTIST?
At its core, the term "artist" isn’t defined by the tools you use, but by your ability to create and convey meaning through your chosen medium. An artist is someone who practices a craft and is recognized as such, either by others in the field or by the general public. It takes more than just owning a paintbrush, a camera, or having access to AI tools to be considered an artist. An artist invests time, skill, and creativity into their work, often refining their techniques over years of practice. Their art is valued by both peers and the wider community—and never self-proclaimed (especially when it comes to taxes).
An artist may also make a living from their craft, or at the very least, be acknowledged by others in the industry as someone who has reached a certain level of mastery. This recognition, whether from other artists or the public, helps to solidify their identity as an artist. As for me, while I enjoy creating and transforming photos and images in various ways, I’m far from being an artist and don’t consider myself one.
■ THE MISCONCEPTION: AI IS NOT STEALING ART
One of the most common arguments against AI-generated art is that it's "stealing" from human artists. However, this argument doesn’t hold up when you understand how AI works. AI doesn’t take or "steal" from anyone. It generates new pieces based on the data it has been trained on, but it doesn’t replicate specific works—it creates something unique. In fact, both AI and human artists are drawing from the same creative pool. The difference lies in the method of creation. Each should be appreciated for what it is, without direct comparison.
Think about it like this: a traditional painter and a photographer both aim to capture or create a beautiful image. A painter may work with oil or acrylics, while a photographer works with a camera. AI, in this context, is simply another tool that can generate art, but it’s a tool just like a camera or a paintbrush. The AI doesn’t create without human direction. It requires prompts to function, just as a photographer needs to frame their shot.
Just like how a photographer can capture an ultra-realistic image or a painter can replicate the same, AI can also generate ultra-realistic images. However, each of these methods—photography, painting, and AI art—are distinct from each other. They involve different processes, techniques, and skills. While the results might be similar, the paths to creation are fundamentally different.
■ AI ART ISN’T PERFECT (and Neither Are Other Tools)
While AI is an exciting tool for artists, it’s not perfect. Creating truly polished, detailed AI art requires practice, skill, and a deep understanding of how to use the technology. AI art can sometimes produce stunning results, but unless you’re a seasoned professional who knows how to craft the perfect prompts, the output often requires tweaking and refinement. Just like photographers who use editing software to adjust lighting, contrast, and composition after capturing an image, AI-generated art frequently needs to be digitally reworked to achieve a polished finish.
This process isn’t unique to AI. Traditional artists often tweak and refine their work in post-production as well. A painter might step back from a canvas to adjust certain details, while a photographer might enhance an image using Photoshop. The key point is that creation, no matter the medium, involves an ongoing process of improvement and adjustment. AI art isn’t a magical "instant artist" button—it’s a tool that, like any other, requires knowledge, practice, and refinement to achieve a truly professional result.
■ TALENT IN EVERY MEDIUM
Whether you're painting, taking photos, or using AI to create, each method requires its own form of talent. To be a successful photographer, you need to understand light, composition, and timing. A painter must master brushwork, color theory, and texture. And an AI user must know how to craft effective prompts to guide the AI towards the desired outcome. Just because you can press a button, use a brush, or type words doesn’t make you an instant artist. It’s the skill behind the tool that defines you.
There are plenty of amateurs in every field: amateur photographers, amateur painters, and amateur AI artists. What separates an amateur from a true artist is the depth of understanding, the originality, and the ability to convey meaning or emotion through their work. Just because someone can create something doesn’t automatically make them an artist by the true definition of the word.
■ LET’S STOP COMPARING AND START ENJOYING ART
It’s funny how so many people, especially those new to the art world, feel the need to compare and criticize others based on the tools they use. The truth is, art is meant to be enjoyed, no matter how it’s created. Whether you’re an old-school painter, a photographer, or someone experimenting with AI-generated art, you’re all part of the same creative landscape.
The people most likely to be threatened by AI art are already established professionals who understand the nuances of creation. AI is a tool that can enhance creativity, speed up production, and help artists explore new possibilities. For them, it’s not about replacing their jobs—it’s about augmenting their creativity.
The real concern should be about evolving with the times. Just as photographers had to adapt when digital cameras replaced film, traditional artists and designers must embrace the tools available today. The ones who don’t will risk falling behind, while those who adapt will be able to use AI to further their artistic capabilities.
■ THE "KAREN" OF AI ART
Sadly, social media has given a platform to many individuals who, for lack of a better term, just love to hate. These people spend their time trolling online, commenting on AI-generated art with disdain and outrage. They treat AI art as if it’s some existential threat to the art world, when in fact, it’s just another tool. Much like how a vegetarian might storm into a steakhouse to berate patrons for eating meat, these individuals make it their mission to convince everyone that AI art is somehow "wrong" or "unethical."
It’s not. AI art is simply another form of creative expression. If you don’t like it, don’t engage with it. Scroll past it. If you feel the need to voice your opinion, post it on your own wall. But stop making nasty comments or trying to sabotage something just because you don’t understand it. Criticism is fine, but negativity and baseless hatred isn’t productive.
■ LIVE AND LET LIVE
At the end of the day, art is personal. It’s meant to inspire, provoke, and be enjoyed. If you don’t like a particular medium or style, that’s okay. But let people create in whatever way suits them best. Not everyone will use AI, and that’s fine. Just as not everyone will pick up a paintbrush or a camera. But let’s all agree that art is meant to be shared, appreciated, and respected, no matter how it’s made.
If you don’t like something, just keep scrolling. But don’t be the one to throw negativity around. As the old saying goes, “Live and let live.” In the world of art, there’s room for everyone, whether they’re using AI, traditional tools, or anything in between. And that’s what makes the world of creation so exciting—there’s no one right way to do it. Let’s embrace all forms of art and creativity.
And remember: Don’t be a Karen. Let people enjoy art in their own way, without judgment. But that won’t stop Karens from being Karens.
— DID YOU READ ALL OF THIS?! 🤩
Thanks for reading! If you made it all the way through, drop your favorite color in the comments for a surprise! 💥
Initially, an enthusiastic support for AI argumenting against the stealing property of current generators, quote:
GEEK BLOG - The Artist Cat, the AI Cat, and the Misunderstanding of Creation
Here’s a MEME I’ve seen about AI, with a cat, representing an artist fishing in the sea, pulling up his creations. And then comes along an AI cat who is fishing in the artist cat's bucket, seemingly using his creations as if it's stealing from the artist. On the surface, this image seems amusing, but it highlights a major misconception that many have about AI and art. The idea that AI is "stealing" from human artists is not only incorrect but also misses the essence of what AI truly represents. In fact, both the artist cat and the AI cat are fishing in the same large pool—the creative space where all types of art are inspired and emerges from.
While the artist cat is using traditional methods, just like a painter with a brush, the AI cat is using a different tool: the "prompt brush." Much like how a photographer captures a moment by pressing a button, the AI generates art based on the input it receives. But here’s the important point: just because you can hold a brush, a camera, or type a prompt doesn't automatically make you an expert or an artist. Talent, intention, and the depth of understanding of the medium are what truly define an artist.
■ WHAT MAKES AN ARTIST?
At its core, the term "artist" isn’t defined by the tools you use, but by your ability to create and convey meaning through your chosen medium. An artist is someone who practices a craft and is recognized as such, either by others in the field or by the general public. It takes more than just owning a paintbrush, a camera, or having access to AI tools to be considered an artist. An artist invests time, skill, and creativity into their work, often refining their techniques over years of practice. Their art is valued by both peers and the wider community—and never self-proclaimed (especially when it comes to taxes).
An artist may also make a living from their craft, or at the very least, be acknowledged by others in the industry as someone who has reached a certain level of mastery. This recognition, whether from other artists or the public, helps to solidify their identity as an artist. As for me, while I enjoy creating and transforming photos and images in various ways, I’m far from being an artist and don’t consider myself one.
■ THE MISCONCEPTION: AI IS NOT STEALING ART
One of the most common arguments against AI-generated art is that it's "stealing" from human artists. However, this argument doesn’t hold up when you understand how AI works. AI doesn’t take or "steal" from anyone. It generates new pieces based on the data it has been trained on, but it doesn’t replicate specific works—it creates something unique. In fact, both AI and human artists are drawing from the same creative pool. The difference lies in the method of creation. Each should be appreciated for what it is, without direct comparison.
Think about it like this: a traditional painter and a photographer both aim to capture or create a beautiful image. A painter may work with oil or acrylics, while a photographer works with a camera. AI, in this context, is simply another tool that can generate art, but it’s a tool just like a camera or a paintbrush. The AI doesn’t create without human direction. It requires prompts to function, just as a photographer needs to frame their shot.
Just like how a photographer can capture an ultra-realistic image or a painter can replicate the same, AI can also generate ultra-realistic images. However, each of these methods—photography, painting, and AI art—are distinct from each other. They involve different processes, techniques, and skills. While the results might be similar, the paths to creation are fundamentally different.
■ AI ART ISN’T PERFECT (and Neither Are Other Tools)
While AI is an exciting tool for artists, it’s not perfect. Creating truly polished, detailed AI art requires practice, skill, and a deep understanding of how to use the technology. AI art can sometimes produce stunning results, but unless you’re a seasoned professional who knows how to craft the perfect prompts, the output often requires tweaking and refinement. Just like photographers who use editing software to adjust lighting, contrast, and composition after capturing an image, AI-generated art frequently needs to be digitally reworked to achieve a polished finish.
This process isn’t unique to AI. Traditional artists often tweak and refine their work in post-production as well. A painter might step back from a canvas to adjust certain details, while a photographer might enhance an image using Photoshop. The key point is that creation, no matter the medium, involves an ongoing process of improvement and adjustment. AI art isn’t a magical "instant artist" button—it’s a tool that, like any other, requires knowledge, practice, and refinement to achieve a truly professional result.
■ TALENT IN EVERY MEDIUM
Whether you're painting, taking photos, or using AI to create, each method requires its own form of talent. To be a successful photographer, you need to understand light, composition, and timing. A painter must master brushwork, color theory, and texture. And an AI user must know how to craft effective prompts to guide the AI towards the desired outcome. Just because you can press a button, use a brush, or type words doesn’t make you an instant artist. It’s the skill behind the tool that defines you.
There are plenty of amateurs in every field: amateur photographers, amateur painters, and amateur AI artists. What separates an amateur from a true artist is the depth of understanding, the originality, and the ability to convey meaning or emotion through their work. Just because someone can create something doesn’t automatically make them an artist by the true definition of the word.
■ LET’S STOP COMPARING AND START ENJOYING ART
It’s funny how so many people, especially those new to the art world, feel the need to compare and criticize others based on the tools they use. The truth is, art is meant to be enjoyed, no matter how it’s created. Whether you’re an old-school painter, a photographer, or someone experimenting with AI-generated art, you’re all part of the same creative landscape.
The people most likely to be threatened by AI art are already established professionals who understand the nuances of creation. AI is a tool that can enhance creativity, speed up production, and help artists explore new possibilities. For them, it’s not about replacing their jobs—it’s about augmenting their creativity.
The real concern should be about evolving with the times. Just as photographers had to adapt when digital cameras replaced film, traditional artists and designers must embrace the tools available today. The ones who don’t will risk falling behind, while those who adapt will be able to use AI to further their artistic capabilities.
■ THE "KAREN" OF AI ART
Sadly, social media has given a platform to many individuals who, for lack of a better term, just love to hate. These people spend their time trolling online, commenting on AI-generated art with disdain and outrage. They treat AI art as if it’s some existential threat to the art world, when in fact, it’s just another tool. Much like how a vegetarian might storm into a steakhouse to berate patrons for eating meat, these individuals make it their mission to convince everyone that AI art is somehow "wrong" or "unethical."
It’s not. AI art is simply another form of creative expression. If you don’t like it, don’t engage with it. Scroll past it. If you feel the need to voice your opinion, post it on your own wall. But stop making nasty comments or trying to sabotage something just because you don’t understand it. Criticism is fine, but negativity and baseless hatred isn’t productive.
■ LIVE AND LET LIVE
At the end of the day, art is personal. It’s meant to inspire, provoke, and be enjoyed. If you don’t like a particular medium or style, that’s okay. But let people create in whatever way suits them best. Not everyone will use AI, and that’s fine. Just as not everyone will pick up a paintbrush or a camera. But let’s all agree that art is meant to be shared, appreciated, and respected, no matter how it’s made.
If you don’t like something, just keep scrolling. But don’t be the one to throw negativity around. As the old saying goes, “Live and let live.” In the world of art, there’s room for everyone, whether they’re using AI, traditional tools, or anything in between. And that’s what makes the world of creation so exciting—there’s no one right way to do it. Let’s embrace all forms of art and creativity.
And remember: Don’t be a Karen. Let people enjoy art in their own way, without judgment. But that won’t stop Karens from being Karens.
— DID YOU READ ALL OF THIS?! 🤩
Thanks for reading! If you made it all the way through, drop your favorite color in the comments for a surprise! 💥
A reply from someone who tests AI and seems to break every iteration, still, quote:
Just had a dialog with an AI, which basically responded, "I can't provide credit for all the artwork I've stolen (been trained on), because there's so many.
It replies the same for very niched Scientific Paper, where the relevant number of papers, and therefore the number of people to credit would be very low indeed.
The data that AI is trained on pure piracy, like Itunes and Spotify. Copying and stripping credit, now you pay some middleman for content they didn't create.
It's still possible to train AI with only data that you yourself created, and have it spam endless remixes of your own stuff. The result is still the same, the devaluing of (in this case your) content, and the spamming actual artists out of existence.
The cases where AI is trained with only data that you yourself created are less than one in a million of all of the spam we've seen, however.
AI is not fed terrible or average content; only the greatest, by humans cherished, and most valued content.
It's not really possible to defend AI stealing (copying and removing credit) and destroying human artists (by generating spam in minutes) -- just ask an AI assistant how the content you just prompted was generated.
The only thing wrong with the meme is that creating great content takes time, resources, commitment, and either many tries or talent.
It doesn't come just by providing bait and waiting.
Credit is further removed, when the prompter doesn't even share AI agent and prompt, but somehow wants to pretend that he or she made it, to pretend that they are artists or content creators.
This is obviously also fake and bad in every way, but more than that reveals a wish that "not everyone could do the same". Well, if AI agent and prompt is shared, there will be 1000 very similar images (etc) as replies, and anyone could decide for themselves if you as a person were much involved in the process...
Just had a dialog with an AI, which basically responded, "I can't provide credit for all the artwork I've stolen (been trained on), because there's so many.
It replies the same for very niched Scientific Paper, where the relevant number of papers, and therefore the number of people to credit would be very low indeed.
The data that AI is trained on pure piracy, like Itunes and Spotify. Copying and stripping credit, now you pay some middleman for content they didn't create.
It's still possible to train AI with only data that you yourself created, and have it spam endless remixes of your own stuff. The result is still the same, the devaluing of (in this case your) content, and the spamming actual artists out of existence.
The cases where AI is trained with only data that you yourself created are less than one in a million of all of the spam we've seen, however.
AI is not fed terrible or average content; only the greatest, by humans cherished, and most valued content.
It's not really possible to defend AI stealing (copying and removing credit) and destroying human artists (by generating spam in minutes) -- just ask an AI assistant how the content you just prompted was generated.
The only thing wrong with the meme is that creating great content takes time, resources, commitment, and either many tries or talent.
It doesn't come just by providing bait and waiting.
Credit is further removed, when the prompter doesn't even share AI agent and prompt, but somehow wants to pretend that he or she made it, to pretend that they are artists or content creators.
This is obviously also fake and bad in every way, but more than that reveals a wish that "not everyone could do the same". Well, if AI agent and prompt is shared, there will be 1000 very similar images (etc) as replies, and anyone could decide for themselves if you as a person were much involved in the process...
taupe
Reply from AI enthusiast, quote:
Hey there, thanks for reading and for your detailed comment—always appreciated.
I totally get where you're coming from with the AI "stealing" thing – it's a debate that pops up constantly. But honestly, when you really think about it, that whole idea of AI being trained on "pirated" stuff feels a bit... simplistic, maybe? It kind of skips over how we create in the first place. Like, whether you're painting or writing or whatever, you're constantly pulling bits and pieces from everything you've ever seen and heard and experienced. That's just how our brains work – we mix it all up and build something new.
And AI's doing something similar, just, like, on a massive scale and in its own weird way. It's not just copy-pasting images or songs – it's figuring out patterns and spitting out something new based on that. So saying it's the same as, like, Napster back in the day just doesn't quite click for me. That was straight-up illegal copying. This is more like... a really advanced remixing tool, if that makes sense? And it's not exactly taking credit either – it's not like it's quoting specific artists without saying so. It's making something new, even if it's built on what came before – which is what we all do, right?
The other thing is, and this is key for me, there's still a person driving the whole thing. AI doesn't just spontaneously dream up crazy images. Someone's gotta type in the prompts, sift through the results, and really shape what comes out. It's a whole process of intent and tweaking, just like any other creative thing. It's almost like getting mad at a camera for "stealing" a landscape – the photographer still had a specific vision and chose the shot.
Look, at the end of the day, I’m not saying AI art is perfect or immune to criticism – far from it. But I do think we need to shift the conversation from fear and outrage and try to actually understand what's going on here. Because let's be real, this tech isn't going anywhere, the genie's out of the bottle. There's gotta be room for all sorts of ways to create stuff? Cheers!
Hey there, thanks for reading and for your detailed comment—always appreciated.
I totally get where you're coming from with the AI "stealing" thing – it's a debate that pops up constantly. But honestly, when you really think about it, that whole idea of AI being trained on "pirated" stuff feels a bit... simplistic, maybe? It kind of skips over how we create in the first place. Like, whether you're painting or writing or whatever, you're constantly pulling bits and pieces from everything you've ever seen and heard and experienced. That's just how our brains work – we mix it all up and build something new.
And AI's doing something similar, just, like, on a massive scale and in its own weird way. It's not just copy-pasting images or songs – it's figuring out patterns and spitting out something new based on that. So saying it's the same as, like, Napster back in the day just doesn't quite click for me. That was straight-up illegal copying. This is more like... a really advanced remixing tool, if that makes sense? And it's not exactly taking credit either – it's not like it's quoting specific artists without saying so. It's making something new, even if it's built on what came before – which is what we all do, right?
The other thing is, and this is key for me, there's still a person driving the whole thing. AI doesn't just spontaneously dream up crazy images. Someone's gotta type in the prompts, sift through the results, and really shape what comes out. It's a whole process of intent and tweaking, just like any other creative thing. It's almost like getting mad at a camera for "stealing" a landscape – the photographer still had a specific vision and chose the shot.
Look, at the end of the day, I’m not saying AI art is perfect or immune to criticism – far from it. But I do think we need to shift the conversation from fear and outrage and try to actually understand what's going on here. Because let's be real, this tech isn't going anywhere, the genie's out of the bottle. There's gotta be room for all sorts of ways to create stuff? Cheers!
And finally, reply by analyst, quote:
The comparison to a photographer is very weak, and is not related to an industry focused on providing an automated computerized middleman which is fed pirated content from human creators by persons (humans) unknown, stripping credit, in order to facilitate the spam of collages and remixes of those masterworks.
If you slap Mona Lisa on a spinning cube in a demo, you probably did more work than for any of the instantly recognizable shiny trash spammed on all websites now. (However, we could do this in 1999 and it's old now. Make her smile with a tooth gap, or strip her clothes off using AI and it's all forgotten, it's new again? I just don't think so.)
Facebook groups, Twitter memes, Amiga games, it's everywhere. Spam. Piracy facilitated by the humans who dumped the "most famous" pictures into the image generation pool. AKA "training", as if some work was involved.
I have 0 fear of what is called AI in 2025. It will generate wrong answers about most things, STILL can't generate hands, can't change style to make it look like a human artist, can't generate something outstanding like humans have. It's a 20% improved Hey Google or Siri, and just counted as a large language model (as it reverts to as excuse for not being able to deliver content humans could websearch and deliver) it's still very unimpressive: forgetful, easily caught in contradicting itself, and not even knowing when to stop listening when you speak or stop speaking when you say shut up.
Now, the spam itself will make all human content drown in any genre, niche, or industry. It only took minutes for humans to identify AI-generated content, as they would instantly see the difference between a photo or render, and a painting -- or if too close, suspect that it wasn't a creative work, but derivative. We know what an AI-generated, computer-rendered, or copied photo looks like.
However, spam is spam. It reduces the signal to noise ratio, and AI-generated is nothing special here. Again, any genre, niche, or industry. It simply makes it harder for humans to know which "search result" is worth clicking on. (Just like the data mining sites, as well as the tens of thousands of programming blogs and vlogs by amateur programmers, since ~2005.)
The fear if anything is that generating content with Assistants (they're not really an intelligence, just a spam generation tool) will allow this ratio to increase even further, so that it will become even harder to find correct information, even if you look everywhere.
I foresee the replacement of no programmer or graphical artist in the next decade or two. They may however be replaced simply because there will be no way to find actual human creators from all the spam.
When it comes to music, millions of humans seem to hail even three notes in a sequence as the manna from above (e.g. Hans Zimmer), from other merits than the content produced, so here musicians will be safe for as long as they make a song, any song, at the rate of five a day on the laptop. (See e.g. Moby and many other stealers and remixers.)
It's clear that most humans don't understand how to appreciate or understand music, so they need things like memories of adolescence, physical presence or accompanying visuals to like music, and anything else isn't explored.
In other words, the fear in music is that someone would get paid for something they didn't make, but that's much older than Milli Vanilli: Italo Disco and long before that, playback and hiring studio musicians. This means that human credit-stealing and human-using-assistant-credit are equal here in squirting out spam. Possibly the only difference is that a human lives, has a limited life span, must eat and sleep etc, while a content farm can be started while the human does that -- to squirt out more spam per hour.
An invention that hasn't been made yet is that automated spam upload services must identify all the blocks with bicycles in them (or better, use MFA). There seems to be a human creation suicide instinct at play here, since this has not been implemented yet. (@Any spam-ready website accepting uploads.)
To conclude: in essence, what is called AI, but which is instead a pirated-human-content spam-upload-service, is a security issue for websites exactly as great as requiring bot protection and MFA.
The comparison to a photographer is very weak, and is not related to an industry focused on providing an automated computerized middleman which is fed pirated content from human creators by persons (humans) unknown, stripping credit, in order to facilitate the spam of collages and remixes of those masterworks.
If you slap Mona Lisa on a spinning cube in a demo, you probably did more work than for any of the instantly recognizable shiny trash spammed on all websites now. (However, we could do this in 1999 and it's old now. Make her smile with a tooth gap, or strip her clothes off using AI and it's all forgotten, it's new again? I just don't think so.)
Facebook groups, Twitter memes, Amiga games, it's everywhere. Spam. Piracy facilitated by the humans who dumped the "most famous" pictures into the image generation pool. AKA "training", as if some work was involved.
I have 0 fear of what is called AI in 2025. It will generate wrong answers about most things, STILL can't generate hands, can't change style to make it look like a human artist, can't generate something outstanding like humans have. It's a 20% improved Hey Google or Siri, and just counted as a large language model (as it reverts to as excuse for not being able to deliver content humans could websearch and deliver) it's still very unimpressive: forgetful, easily caught in contradicting itself, and not even knowing when to stop listening when you speak or stop speaking when you say shut up.
Now, the spam itself will make all human content drown in any genre, niche, or industry. It only took minutes for humans to identify AI-generated content, as they would instantly see the difference between a photo or render, and a painting -- or if too close, suspect that it wasn't a creative work, but derivative. We know what an AI-generated, computer-rendered, or copied photo looks like.
However, spam is spam. It reduces the signal to noise ratio, and AI-generated is nothing special here. Again, any genre, niche, or industry. It simply makes it harder for humans to know which "search result" is worth clicking on. (Just like the data mining sites, as well as the tens of thousands of programming blogs and vlogs by amateur programmers, since ~2005.)
The fear if anything is that generating content with Assistants (they're not really an intelligence, just a spam generation tool) will allow this ratio to increase even further, so that it will become even harder to find correct information, even if you look everywhere.
I foresee the replacement of no programmer or graphical artist in the next decade or two. They may however be replaced simply because there will be no way to find actual human creators from all the spam.
When it comes to music, millions of humans seem to hail even three notes in a sequence as the manna from above (e.g. Hans Zimmer), from other merits than the content produced, so here musicians will be safe for as long as they make a song, any song, at the rate of five a day on the laptop. (See e.g. Moby and many other stealers and remixers.)
It's clear that most humans don't understand how to appreciate or understand music, so they need things like memories of adolescence, physical presence or accompanying visuals to like music, and anything else isn't explored.
In other words, the fear in music is that someone would get paid for something they didn't make, but that's much older than Milli Vanilli: Italo Disco and long before that, playback and hiring studio musicians. This means that human credit-stealing and human-using-assistant-credit are equal here in squirting out spam. Possibly the only difference is that a human lives, has a limited life span, must eat and sleep etc, while a content farm can be started while the human does that -- to squirt out more spam per hour.
An invention that hasn't been made yet is that automated spam upload services must identify all the blocks with bicycles in them (or better, use MFA). There seems to be a human creation suicide instinct at play here, since this has not been implemented yet. (@Any spam-ready website accepting uploads.)
To conclude: in essence, what is called AI, but which is instead a pirated-human-content spam-upload-service, is a security issue for websites exactly as great as requiring bot protection and MFA.
Lastly,
1) These walls of text are not spam, it's just one of many as to what constitutes art, or more broadly, creative work. The enthusiast and the analyst are both to be commended for spending their limited lifetime on forming actual thoughts and saying something that could be original, and not just found commonly everywhere among other spam.
2) While human creators are certainly capable of producing spam, for the reduced time spent they pay the price of originality, and thereby reputation that would outlast their limited lifetime, none of which applies to assistants.
3) The spam is still the danger, not what you call the assistant that produces it. This will force a choice is humans to sometimes choose the less output of even a super human, dedicating his life to his creative endeavor. Unfortunately, too many humans don't ask if the output was human-made. This means that it's a lost cause, however uncreative, human-content-stealing, and appealing (to most humans) the generated output is.
4) This forces a human blockade of generated output that is so quickly created that it threatens to bury human-created output instantly by sheer signal to noise. It's very doubtful that any organized human effort will be able to stand against the flood of generated output. There should be a calculable mathematical formula to determine the milliseconds-to-hours ratio required to withstand it.
1) These walls of text are not spam, it's just one of many as to what constitutes art, or more broadly, creative work. The enthusiast and the analyst are both to be commended for spending their limited lifetime on forming actual thoughts and saying something that could be original, and not just found commonly everywhere among other spam.
2) While human creators are certainly capable of producing spam, for the reduced time spent they pay the price of originality, and thereby reputation that would outlast their limited lifetime, none of which applies to assistants.
3) The spam is still the danger, not what you call the assistant that produces it. This will force a choice is humans to sometimes choose the less output of even a super human, dedicating his life to his creative endeavor. Unfortunately, too many humans don't ask if the output was human-made. This means that it's a lost cause, however uncreative, human-content-stealing, and appealing (to most humans) the generated output is.
4) This forces a human blockade of generated output that is so quickly created that it threatens to bury human-created output instantly by sheer signal to noise. It's very doubtful that any organized human effort will be able to stand against the flood of generated output. There should be a calculable mathematical formula to determine the milliseconds-to-hours ratio required to withstand it.
^ This last prediction is not nice to make. It's similar to Asimov, Clarke, etc, but it would be much nicer to make Sci-Fi predictions about what *humans* can do in the future...
#ed007e
Quote:
??#ed007e
Quote:
— DID YOU READ ALL OF THIS?! 🤩
Thanks for reading! If you made it all the way through, drop your favorite color in the comments for a surprise! 💥
$213
also, parrots don't create.