Not sure if this is AI. If so, then it is an example that AI content need not always be bad.
But it is on who owns it and uses it for what. Collective control over AI, directing it for the benefit of the people would be good.
Edit
Anyway, since this is causing discussion: Anyone with the meme making skills see a non-AI version of this? Or anyone who has the skills to do that? Or anyone who can share the tutorials to easily/quickly learn how to do that?
He had a serious work accident and couldn't afford proper surgery, so he's forced to go to work with an arm sewed back on backward.
And he still doing construction? Isn't that a OSHA violation? :P
He, maybe hes just left handed
This is ai and it's pretty bad lol
The 4 panel is almost certainly AI, but the first panel is based on work originally by Denis Lushch from Australia and was first seen in 2019. I always thought the guy with all the cookies is supposed to be Rupert Murdoch.
It's based on that, but it clearly has been run through the AI slopinator and fucked up the original image.
Yeah everything ai does is based on work originally by a human lol
A gun is only as evil as its user
Tell that to the 100+ children that die from unintentional gun accidents every year. It doesn't require malice to kill someone with a gun. Incompetence and negligence do it just fine.
Criminal negligence is a type of evil
A gun is also as stupid as its owner.
No lol. Also the worst example, the weapons industry is so bad, what are you on about?
Significant difference between gun and weapons industry. Political power grows out the barrel of a gun.
If 99% of guns were sold to angel inc. would you call guns good? If so, then it's still not something inherent to the guns. If not, then your Devil Inc. Analogy isn't very good since it's not at the core of your reason for disliking them.
A gun cannot be evil.
It is like saying a rock is evil. The user, the suppliers, the distributors n all can be evil or not, according to what it is used for.
Tho, guns are potentially dangerous tools, since they are mainly used to take lives or threaten people with its ability of taking lives and can lead to escalation.
So, there should be enough care and awareness on its use and ownership.
Yep, pretty much what I was getting at.
A rock is a rock. It's there through natural happenstance and cannot control what a person will do with with it.
A gun is a gun by design. A tool made specifically for the purpose of harming or killing another individual. Often bought and owned by people with fragile egos, or those who believe that have too much to fear, but never own by rational people.
kill computers
what did the artist draw this on then?
Really awkward formatting. Someone def made this in AI and then clumsily collaged them together.
As for the "tool neutral, usage good" argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
Good time to remind everyone: There's no such thing as Just a Tool
As for the "tool neutral, usage good" argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.
Both are not tools or technology, but Nazis being used, right?
Is it about AI researchers?
Even there, the military/surveillance-AI companies and personnel would be the ones similar to Unit 731, right?
Ai bring controlled collective doesn't change shit about its insane and damaging water usage.
I don't pay for models in any way so I'm not responsible for the emissions during training. AI companies decided to create these emissions, not me.
I did a bit of research and the full emissions of AI is relatively small compared to other things but still far from negligible. If we take this guardian article at face value the total emissions of AI is 80 million tonnes. Which is about 1.3% of total carbon emissions (about 6 billion tonnes). I did a bit of research and I just thought I'd share.
Does it use that much water? How does it compare to water use by regular datacenters?
And if it is controlled by a collective, they can reduce wastage and use renewable sources, recycle water etc, without having the profit-only main motivation, right?
"What are you worried about? I just use the plagiarism, propaganda, csam and deepfake machine created by technofascists to make political memes."
What "collective" owns locally run llms and slop generators?
Who do you think you're paying for access to the software?
What do you think that software was trained on?
Or are you just trying to justify your use of the slop machine by claiming you're using it for some noble purpose?
Yes its AI
But you know what? That damn first panel (a version of it that isn't garbled by a bot, anyway) has been floating around forever. Getting a narrative arc to properly finish the point is... so very gratifying.
This is the best use for AI image generators imo: throwaway meme slop that isn't really supposed to look very good, wouldn't have been made otherwise, doesn't make any money off of other people's labor, and did not take away a labor opportunity/labor power from anyone. It's not like the AI companies are making money off of this, not even close, they're all bleeding to death.
Oh it's wasting water and electricity? The water and electricity were already wasted by training, you can't un-waste the water or electricity. In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!
Oh it's plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn't realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.
In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!
Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?
If it is very bad to use, we can choose not to use it. But if not, we can use it.
Oh it's plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn't realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.
Yep.
Tho, the prople who worked on the confent should be paid decently and also on how derivatives of the content maybe bad for future income and thus thy should provided a share of the income or given a one time settlement or whatever that would be good. Collective ownership would be good on that too. That is beyond AI, and the general nature of capitalism
And regarding property rights, especially on memes, are not most memes plagiarising or creating derviatives or litrak copying without paying the original creator? Like, are not screenshots from movies, series, youtube videos etc. used without permission or payment? Is that bad? Are these folk against memes of all types?
So, the issue is the earnings of the worker, right? And also attribution.
Collective ownership would likely be the solution there.
Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?
The sunk cost fallacy would be "we've already invested so much into AI, we have to keep investing into AI to make it worthwhile!" As long as we're not pouring more resources into AI there isn't an issue. An AI model that is already trained won't be untrained because we stop using it, after all.
It's like freeganism.
Collective ownership would likely be the solution there.
Why yes I do believe you are correct. In my opinion Collective Ownership of the means of production would be a great solution here. We could like... Build greenhouses around the data centers! Or even better; Build the greenhouses upwards over the data centers. Five story greenhouse heck yeah.
Or we could just you know... stop using the data centers. :|
p.s Why do we not capture the steam coming out of nuclear reactors cooling towers? I'm to lazy to look it up.
Oh it’s wasting water and electricity? The water and electricity were already wasted by training, you can’t un-waste the water or electricity.
Water and electricity are wasted running the data centers on really inefficient power generators at the plant.
"He's going to swipe your cookie"
It's so much worse on mastodon lol
How many trees?
And how many tress did our comments here take? How manu trees does a youtube or porn video being streamed or uploaded take?
Or is it the issue that the output does not have enough value for a tree to have died for it?
I'd much rather see a hand-drawn stick figure drawing showing this sequence. At least then there'd be artistic intent behind it
The message of the content is great and right! It is fun no one commented it yet. Or may be ignoring the message was part of their answer.
One who refuse any type of AI use could make a version, even by hand as some claims, or in 10 minutes... But they of course disagree with an important part of the message.
For them, the rich editor who owns the intellectual rights on works is someone to protect. They identify to the worker who has his only cookie (the remaining part of his intellectual rights the rich has let him). And they are scared by collectivism.
So great job, you forced them to see otherwise for a second! I hope some of them may take a time to think farther than their cookie.
@lemmy.ml
go to feed...
@lemmy.ml
go to feed...
„Not sure if this is AI”
save