I want to hear more arguments ..Bonsai Humor Thread No. 2

[JoeWilson]

I saw many people (not here) arguing that we shouldn't generate AI images because it takes a lot of electricity to generate them, therefor, hurting the planet. That's where my argument about wasting electricity on entertainment comes from. I was not arguing that anyone is against entertainment.

As far as "stealing" art, that is one heck of an argument. Is emulating a style stealing? I don't think AI is going into the Louvre and bringing me the Mona Lisa. "Stealing" a style has been done by artists since the beginning of art, and happens in every single man-made thing we can possibly imagine. I doubt whoever designed your clothing had all of their ideas originate from their own brain. I doubt whoever designed my car came up with the design in a dream. If you think bonsai is an art form, are you copying the Japanese style, taking jobs from Japanese bonsai artists?

The only valid argument, in my humble and unknowledgeable opinion, is that many people (not only artists, but programmers like me, writers, engineers, etc etc etc) are going to lose work down the line.

As I mentioned a post or two back, copyright for an art style is a gray area. But this is largely an academic point, as designs, characters, and original intellectual property in any form are not only copyrightable, but the author of the work is granted copyright automatically. The reason the style argument is moot is that the same theft-based AI models, for example, Midjourney, which was trained on countless pieces of stolen artwork, generate both input-based style variations of photos like we saw in this thread, and prompt-based generative AI images. All of it fundamentally runs on theft. Every generative AI model that produces a passable image or video was trained on copyrighted material, either directly or in its pre-training dataset.

There are numerous ongoing lawsuits that outline the degree to which AI companies have trained on and benefited from stolen, copyrighted material. For example: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg5vjqdm1ypo

Here's another, Anthropic, notoriously trained on seven million pirated books: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77vr00enzyo

Some AI models claim to be "ethically trained", meaning trained only on content they own or that is in the public domain, but almost universally, they have licensed a training library that contains copyrighted material that was never meant for commercial use. There's a very common one that most AI companies use that escapes my memory.

OpenAI famously let it slip that they trained on millions of hours of YouTube content. I can do this all day...

PS: Theft and energy use are far from the only reasons AI models are problematic. Resource use (water) is a big problem, especially for the small communities where new data centers are built, which are struggling to provide water to homes. Relying on AI is literally making people dumber - parts of your brain start to shut down as you rely more and more on the AI to solve problems and do tasks for you. It simply sucks a lot of the time; the answers it provides are often wrong, sometimes dangerously so. Relying on it for anything critical (like medical advice/information) is extremely risky. And on and on.

 

[shohin_branches]

First of all NO ONE stole anything. Fidur had an AI image generated from his own picture that he has of his own tree.

Actually my Roomba uses AI to map and navigate around my house so that it can do its job of cleaning.
It uses machine learning to map the house and remap if I decide to throw a chair in its way.

Look, you guys and I will just have to agree to disagree
I like the image created from the AI and I think its art. I don't believe that only humans or sentient beings can create art.
Art can come from anywhere IMO. Nature creates art in the twisting of a tree by the wind or the weight of snow or the colors of a sea shell, its nature's art.

I don't see much difference between an AI rendering of a photo or someone making a drawing from said photo. In either case its just copying the image.
Its not an original work, its not inspired, its just a copy, one generated by a machine and one by a human.

As for people making a living as artists or anything else for that matter. I acknowledge it isnt easy making a living as an artist, but there are many, if not most careers that are not easy either.
We all choose to pursue a line of work or career to make money to live. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.
No one is obligated to buy or support anyone or any business just so they can make a living. If they have a product I want or need, Ill buy. If enough people want the product, they make money and thereby a living. If they cant make a living then its time to find another line of work where they can. That's life.

The AI companies stole intellectual property to train their models. That has been the main point of every post on this topic I have made and still people don't understand it.

 

[blackadam]

Noone can guarantee you if someone see a yacht of your project not gonna be "inspired " especialy in countries when your court have no jurisdiction..
(not mentioning skillset resources etc needed to build a yacht

has passed you by

always skipping that part.. however i stop sometimes if i see "confidential" or "top secret" stamps before using

amount of electricity being used for AI,

datacenters eat a lot of energy, thats all i need to know atm - not in my interest range
I'm waiting for ai things to be energy efficient, compact and portable, excellent in image recognition and with dose of autonomy - that's where the fun begins

AI companies did not receive permission or pay for licenses to train their AI models on art

cost in money and time questions the validity of the AI training project

Post all of your work with watermarks

Thats always good idea, even for pictures - to avoid them being used in scam online auctions..

If we were off fossil fuels

No way in near future, inefficiency of renewable sources, potential risk of mishandling atomic sources, ineffective and expensive batteries
Nah, not gonna happens soon

convenience of making funny images

this is part of the ai training

 

[SailDesign]

<snip!>not in my interest range<more snip>

That explains a lot.

 

[Sansokuu]

Oh boy, conversations about AI and making art. Glad I am sitting this one out, cause do I have opinions.

As a distraction, here is a pot I am painting for Nationals that sums up my feelings.

 

[shohin_branches]

No way in near future, inefficiency of renewable sources, potential risk of mishandling atomic sources, ineffective and expensive batteries
Nah, not gonna happens soon

We lost a lot of time with the last 100 years of fossil fuel subsidies stifling new innovations. It is very possible, but people have to be intentional about it. Policy choices kept us in an energy dark age all for profit.

This is old news, but it's important to understand the lengths that tech companies are going to for such incredibly power hungry processes. The average energy bill will continue going up for regular Americans. The super rich don't care and the poor will suffer.

https://www.npr.org/2024/09/20/nx-s1-5120581/three-mile-island-nuclear-power-plant-microsoft-ai

 

[JoeWilson]

Cute little filters to make a painting from a photo of a tree or turn your selfie into a little anime picture might seem harmless at first glance. No, the person who posted the AI-altered tree image isn't an evil monster or anything like that. But it's important to understand the wider context. These cutesy little things are just a small example of how AI companies are inserting themselves into our lives, hoping that we get comfortable with and reliant on these things before we realize what they do and how they work. So that when special interest groups and politicians push for laws that exempt AI companies from copyright laws, something that is currently in the works, we will be too numb to it to care.

 

[JoeWilson]

cost in money and time questions the validity of the AI training project

Call me old-fashioned, but if your business model doesn't work without the mass theft, maybe your business fundamentally doesn't work, and you should try something else.

 

[blackadam]

but people have to be intentional about it.

To cut off fossils alternative should be cheaper, reliable, safer and widely available. Otherwise..
That atomic power plant you posted have some "issues" ( melted reactor) in the past

.

That explains a lot.

you cant put ai datacenter with infrastructure on non communicating mobile device.. yet.

politicians push for laws that exempt AI companies from copyright laws

only until ai get hands on sensitive or top secret data and leaks itor make some srious mess, politicians and military get rage

there was some ai related quote that i like

"Every AI ever built has an electromagnetic shotgun wired to its forehead."​

Gibson, Neuromancer
wonder when someone consider this as essential..

 

[Wulfskaar]

@shohin_branches @JoeWilson

I greatly appreciate the responses and will honestly take those arguments into consideration for my own usage.

 

[BrianBay9]

Glad we finally got an argument going in the "more arguments" thread! We might have lost the humor though

 

[SailDesign]

For those who (like me) are fed up with Google always giving a useless AI-generated "answer" to your queries, a simple " -ai" tacked on the end of your search term will turn that off.

I won't use AI if I can avoid it, and I refuse to store things in the cloud. All of my data is local, and has redundant backups. After (counts on his fingers) 53 years of computer use, I am both skeptical and suspicious of anything outside my control. Luddite? Not really.

 

[blackadam]

Google always giving a useless AI-generated "answer"

that was quite recent addition

simple " -ai" tacked on the end of your search term will turn that off.

and this is great advice, thanks

 

[Brain Treez]

Just so @shohin_branches and @JoeWilson don't feel alone, I am fully on board the anti-AI movement. I don't fault people for getting a little amusement out of the toys the tech companies have released, hell my profile picture on Bnut when I joined last year was an AI-generated tree in the shape of a brain. However, the more I learned about the cost (financial, environmental, social), the less I could stomach using it in any way. I think the indifference to these costs stems from them being mostly invisible for now.

If the fun new trend was standing on a bridge and throwing a piece of trash in the river to see it float out from under the other side, I bet fewer people would be so dismissive. Sure, one tiny piece of trash doesn't make a difference, but what happens when millions and millions of people start throwing their one piece of trash in the river? All for what? Some conveniently generated generic images that are forgotten about just as quickly as they're created? The utopia that "AI" is trying to sell us is that it will handle all the tedious, monotonous tasks in our lives so we can pursue hobbies and leisure like music and art, but what's happened is it's giving us tools to hollow any critical thought, reasoning, or creativity out of things like art.

Those that say "this technology is happening no matter what, so we might as well get behind it" are wrong. It only feels that way because tech companies are incinerating unthinkable amounts of money to tell us it's inevitable! These companies' very existence depends on this lie so they can keep raking in money from investors. The truth is there is very little consumer demand for any of this garbage, and therefore no profitable business model, so it's being shoehorned into anything possible so it becomes so ubiquitous that we don't question all the billions of dollars being sacrificed in the name of "progress" that could be spent on real, tangible improvements to people's lives. Public opinion really does matter, and the more people see the full picture, the more weight can be brought against tech companies and billionaires actively squeezing society for their own personal gain.

I know arguing on the internet is likely the least effective method of changing someone's mind that there is, so all I will do is encourage you to read more on the subject. The source I would recommend most is Brian Merchant, a respected tech journalist that puts out a newsletter called https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/.

Now let's get back to arguing about soil or something. Bonsai is art that is literally alive and AI cannot replace, so let's celebrate that!

 

[Carol 83]

Glad we finally got an argument going in the "more arguments" thread! We might have lost the humor though

So, how do you feel about jade as bonsai....

 

[Michigan Tree Murderer]

Glad we finally got an argument going in the "more arguments" thread! We might have lost the humor though

A Jade, AI, and my theory of art, walk into a bar on military time. Humor walks up and places a "kick me" sign, finishes his beer and leaves.

 

[Paradox]

I refuse to store things in the cloud. All of my data is local, and has redundant backups. After (counts on his fingers) 53 years of computer use, I am both skeptical and suspicious of anything outside my control. Luddite? Not really.

I also refuse to store anything in the cloud. Built a new computer last year and put 8TB of storage in it. OF course Microsoft tries to force you to use their cloud storage so they can sell you more. ITs on by default when you install the OS. It stored config files for one of my programs in the cloud and the program didnt know to look for it there and it made me redo the configuration questions every time I restarted the program until I figured out what was going on and put the config file in the right place and shut the cloud storage off. Man was I pissed, sent MS a scathing email telling them thehyg need to make it more clear on install and give the ability to opt out with a yes/no question rather than assume people want to pay them even more money. I explained how their OS stole my files and put it in their freaking cloud without permission and that the program wouldnt work correctly until I put the file in the right directory.

lol dont get me started in MS and their BS cloud and other crap they dont give you the option for and you have to go through all kinds of gymnastics to turn off and get the OS to work the way you want it to.

 

[SailDesign]

I also refuse to store anything in the cloud. Built a new computer last year and put 8TB of storage in it. OF course Microsoft tries to force you to use their cloud storage so they can sell you more. ITs on by default when you install the OS. It stored config files for one of my programs in the cloud and the program didnt know to look for it there and it made me redo the configuration questions every time I restarted the program until I figured out what was going on and put the config file in the right place and shut the cloud storage off. Man was I pissed, sent MS a scathing email telling them thehyg need to make it more clear on install and give the ability to opt out with a yes/no question rather than assume people want to pay them even more money. I explained how their OS stole my files and put it in their freaking cloud without permission and that the program wouldnt work correctly until I put the file in the right directory.

lol dont get me started in MS and their BS cloud and other crap they dont give you the option for and you have to go through all kinds of gymnastics to turn off and get the OS to work the way you want it to.

Yeah - that.

 

[Paradox]

Those that say "this technology is happening no matter what, so we might as well get behind it" are wrong. It only feels that way because tech companies are incinerating unthinkable amounts of money to tell us it's inevitable! These companies' very existence depends on this lie so they can keep raking in money from investors. The truth is there is very little consumer demand for any of this garbage, and therefore no profitable business model, so it's being shoehorned into anything possible so it becomes so ubiquitous that we don't question all the billions of dollars being sacrificed in the name of "progress" that could be spent on real, tangible improvements to people's lives. Public opinion really does matter, and the more people see the full picture, the more weight can be brought against tech companies and billionaires actively squeezing society for their own personal gain.

To be clear, I am not a proponent of AI per se and I am not saying that we might as well get behind it. However I do believe it is inevitable because so much money and effort are being put into it.
I do think that AI has the potential for great good, however it also has the potential for great harm. The implications of the bad things about AI are downright scary to think about.
Companies investing tons of money into AI must think it will somehow be profitable. A business doesn't piss away that kind of money to not turn around and make more money or the business will cease to exist in a matter of time.

I mentioned robot vacuum systems before and it is one of the most tangible things many every day people can relate to. How many people have a robot vacuum cleaner or a robot lawn mower? As I stated above, every one of them uses AI to map and learn the layout of your house/property and update changes if there are any. Of course we can argue that no one needs a robot vacuum cleaner, and we can all just vacuum the house ourselves. However the robot doing it 2-3x a week saves me a ton of time and I think tis a great benefit to me as I dont need to spend as much time cleaning and can spend more time on other things.

Self driving cars are and will use AI to navigate the world. I think we will see more self driving cars in my life time as that technology gets better.

Another good thing AI is doing is in medical diagnosis. AI has helped make diagnosing medical conditions faster and more accurately. I read an article a few years ago about how AI was being used to scan the 1000s of medical journals published every year. Something that a human doctor can not keep up with. The doctor can reference the system that holds the information and can find out if another doctor somewhere else in the world has come up with potentially new treatments that might be more effective or helpful for the patient.

However there is potential for AI to make it easier for armies to kill more of each other, or spy on other countries, steal intellectual property and I'm sure there are other things.

Throughout history there have been a lot of new inventions created that have been seen to be both beneficial and harmful.
Among them are dynamite, plastics, the combustion engine, computers, cell phones. Is AI really any different?

However I agree, enough of this "argument".

 

[Desert O'Piñon]

But it's important to understand the wider context. These cutesy little things are just a small example of how AI companies are inserting themselves into our lives, hoping that we get comfortable with and reliant on these things before we realize what they do and how they work.

This. Incremental steps. Not to get political, but there are many things today that were previously unheard-of, and baby steps is how we got to the situation we find ourselves in today. Cultural, moral, societal, educational, etc. decay won't matter when we're all imprisoned in the matrix because we gradually, generationally slid down another slippery slope to our demise. (That's tongue-in-cheek, because it's probably not obvious in text format.)
Think about it. If we continue putting less and less value on art and creative trades while putting more value on sports (nothing wrong with sports), then eventually AI will be creating all of our art, including bonsai. Children will be taught more and more wrongly (partly because the teachers won't know they're teaching incorrect information) what to think instead of how to think, and innovation will nearly cease. "New" art won't happen anymore, we'll just have impressions of compilations of real, true, thought-provoking art.
note: this response has been entirely AI generated, but the dummy trying to plagiarize the AI generator just copied and pasted without reading the entire text