heddycrow

The real answer to "which came first, the chicken or the egg" - a long line of chicken-like creatures hatched from an egg before the first ever chicken hatched from an egg.

Why lead with this? There is a very long line of dopamine-fracking-like behaviors that hatched before now.

How difficult is it to say that we can't use science to create strawberry flavors but we can use science to basically create what strawberry means in the first place? Oh, you think that the strawberries we have now in all their varieties just arrived with us on the planet in their current form?

Who is to say what the point is where too much tampering is enough? HINT: it's not the ones consuming, they like the new stuff regardless of whether it's real or not.

It's tempting to point the finger at The Capitalist or Capitalism, but this misses the mark no matter how close it is. You are the Consumer. You empower enshit.

Don't believe me? Go build something and see. People don't take the time to look at what you have built and who you are to determine if your product is a worthy investment. You have to sell them. You have to court a demographic and place your product. You will spend a lot of time doing this unless you are already somehow connected into a network that turns everything you touch into gold.

After this process, see if you are not sympathetic to strawberry flavoring. And this is all your fault, right? It has nothing to do with The Consumer, we can't blame those people. We can't blame "You" because you aren't rich and powerful. Even though it's "You" and many people like you that are the whole engine of this thing.

TLDR; "dopamine fracking" is a great term. It lets us explain what those "others" are doing to "us" while we sit by passively and accept our fate.

Shame on them. When they hear this term they will be ashamed and fix their ways or we will make them through our friend The Government.

But where's the clever and magical term that makes "us" behave differently?

The idea is: we could have / have had some ideal situation but some X comes later and ruins it.

If we didn't have a strategy for X in the first place did we build the right thing? Should we go build another same-shaped thing also with no strategy for X?

Ah, but protocols and all of the good stuff from humanity, etc. Come on...

The internet is still there. Just go find it. Just go spend your time, money, and attention on it instead of where you are spending it now.

You won't do that, though. Will you?

People...

I wish that those who support #2 looked a lot less like #3.

For that matter, I wish those who were pro-AI were more strictly supportive of #1.

I so wish this were true. Put AI in the title, garner instant attention.

Yeh, I might have went overboard with the snark here. It seems even the line hinting that this was snarky was lost.

If it helps, imagine the text more as a work of art than an instruction manual. Art matters.

Better the enemy you know than the one you do not. That false?

And how is it we know as much about closed models as we do about the open ones?

It is, quite frankly, completely wrong that this man was arrested—if anything, by this line of reasoning, it should have been an artist instead—since AI, as we are told, merely makes copies of what hard-working human artists have already created and shared on the internet.

AI is plagiarism—full stop—nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, this point could have been made without sarcasm (and AI tells for parody)—I’m aware—but that would remove a certain… texture from the argument. And where, exactly, is the fun in that?

Support continued development of AI in the open. Support use of local or small scale AI. Your usage, support, and attention matters.

Regulate so that you price out equal access to it.

Small players can't afford cost of regulation.

Then create a layer around that which all small players pay into so they can participate regardless of whether they do or not - something like insurance or licensing.

Modernity.

There's a lot of detail lost when you collapse towards "everyone". Some portion of that set is not the same as the other part of it, but both make sounds.

People get up in arms according to what seems acceptable to be complaining about. Voices get amplified similarly.

And sometimes the people complaining about AI in art are completely different people from those that might do so about code.

It is the same thing. There is no good excuse to claim a defense or objection for one group of people and not apply that fairly to others. All that "is it art" discussion is just noise.

But then again maybe artists feel more vulnerable than coders. People generally don't hire coders for their output but more for what their output will do. Coders create and maintain a money printer. A successful artist will create an output that immediately becomes scarce and in-demand; the output is the money and the artist then becomes the money printer. It's not hard to see that one is under more immediate threat than the other. So they scream louder.

Just a bunch of thoughts. In good faith, take from it what you will.

Why can't we have a system where this is baked in?

I think it’s important that systems like this exist, but getting them off the ground is non-trivial.

We’ve been building something similar for image/video models for the past few months, and it’s made me think distribution might be the real bottleneck.

It’s proving difficult to get enough early usage to reach the point where the system becomes more interesting on its own.

Curious how others have approached that bootstrap problem. Thanks in advance.

It's unfortunate that we have so few words for where we are in history right now. AI is AI is AI to some. A lot gets lost in that collapse.

Thanks for seeing it, though. It's very difficult to wave a flag to call people over when the only flag you have also looks a lot like the flag for danger, trouble, or nefarious deeds. At least if some people get it, there is hope that others will, too.