• Xanthobilly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    To be clear, you’re referring to generative AI and artificial general intelligence. There are many forms of AI that downright deliver. The field is evolving at such a speed, I think nay-saying will look naïve in hindsight.

    • SJ_Zero@lemmy.fbxl.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve been involved in a lot of failed AI projects (failed at the onset because the premise was wrong for the job). The field didn’t start yesterday.

      Not saying it can’t work at all ever, but it’s much more limited than people think it is based on a good demo in chatgpt.

    • donuts@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Too many forms of AI (for example AI “art”) rely so heavily on the idea that anything that can be seen on the internet is fair game to feed into a dataset regardless of license or intellectual property, that I don’t see any legitimate path forward.

      EITHER these companies start paying data/IP owners a license (which may be prohibitively expensive for the amount of data that’s needed to produce anything good) OR society is completely overhauled/evolved in a way so that copyright and intellectual property are no longer things that exist (which is unlikely considering the political resistance to anything even remotely socialist, and likely means the end of human-made commercial media as artists would no longer be able to make a living.)

      I don’t see any way in which the status quo, in which artists are just being flagrantly ripped off by AI companies, can legitimately continue.