Unpopular opinion and I expect there will be a lot of pushback on it, but what's a good (polite) debate if not enlightening?
-
@jakobrosin yep, and I have 0 problem with that. Transparency is key.
-
@Onj that is missing the point of my argument. The issue is not that you might screw up. Bugs, with all the permutations, compatibility issues etc are absolutely and completely inevitable. It's not the screw-ups that worry me. It's how the screw-ups happened and how the screw-ups are dealt with, as appropriate, that concern me.
@JustinMac84 If you let it concern you. If people don't fix things they're putting out, if what they're putting out sucks so bad it hurts, kills people, don't go near it. ever. You're absolutely not wrong for that.
-
@JustinMac84 You won't get better if we stop it in it's tracks. Remember the size of computers when we were young? Talk to your grandparents and ask them the size of computers back then. They had to start out like junk before they got down to the smaller than fingernail size we can produce now.
New things have to suck before they don't.
Old things learnt how not to suck by sucking in the beginning.@Onj But again, you're over-simplifying my argument. No-one said anything about stopping anything in its tracks. I believe I was quite clear that AI isn't going away, nor should it. Carrying on regardless, "yes there are a bunch of nay-sayers and we're already seeing the ways things are going wrong and people losing their jobs etc, but fuck it, they're just pooping the party, bunch of miseries,"
-
@JustinMac84 You won't get better if we stop it in it's tracks. Remember the size of computers when we were young? Talk to your grandparents and ask them the size of computers back then. They had to start out like junk before they got down to the smaller than fingernail size we can produce now.
New things have to suck before they don't.
Old things learnt how not to suck by sucking in the beginning.@Onj or stop everything, ban AI forever, don't have to be the only options. We could appropriate regulate, investigate, move more slowly and get a healthy AI with a more significant net benefit.
-
@Onj But again, you're over-simplifying my argument. No-one said anything about stopping anything in its tracks. I believe I was quite clear that AI isn't going away, nor should it. Carrying on regardless, "yes there are a bunch of nay-sayers and we're already seeing the ways things are going wrong and people losing their jobs etc, but fuck it, they're just pooping the party, bunch of miseries,"
@JustinMac84 I'm not oversimplifying anything, I'm stating a fact. You're taking it as a personal slight. The 'You' in my statement is not personally directed, it is just a thing.
I also agree with your last post, so that could hardly be oversimplifying could it?
Ethical AI is important.
Stuff that is going to be used to kill people, autonomous robots controled by AI, that is not your friend or anybody's friend. WE need to push for that to be banned and quickly. -
@JustinMac84 I'm not oversimplifying anything, I'm stating a fact. You're taking it as a personal slight. The 'You' in my statement is not personally directed, it is just a thing.
I also agree with your last post, so that could hardly be oversimplifying could it?
Ethical AI is important.
Stuff that is going to be used to kill people, autonomous robots controled by AI, that is not your friend or anybody's friend. WE need to push for that to be banned and quickly.@Onj I assumed your propenultimate post was a response to my argument. I don't feel slighted, just want you to understand that I regard banning all ai ever as impractical, unworkable and not necessarily beneficial. I do however feel that we are adopting it at a wreckless pace and that things like cognitive atrophy; accute job loss; inaccurate decisions, information and unreliable products; environmental destruction
-
@JustinMac84 I'm not oversimplifying anything, I'm stating a fact. You're taking it as a personal slight. The 'You' in my statement is not personally directed, it is just a thing.
I also agree with your last post, so that could hardly be oversimplifying could it?
Ethical AI is important.
Stuff that is going to be used to kill people, autonomous robots controled by AI, that is not your friend or anybody's friend. WE need to push for that to be banned and quickly.@Onj and people being forced to bear the cost of data centres etc, worrying about these things is not negativity or hate, it is common, rational sense.
-
@Onj I assumed your propenultimate post was a response to my argument. I don't feel slighted, just want you to understand that I regard banning all ai ever as impractical, unworkable and not necessarily beneficial. I do however feel that we are adopting it at a wreckless pace and that things like cognitive atrophy; accute job loss; inaccurate decisions, information and unreliable products; environmental destruction
@JustinMac84 I personally like the idea that the CEO of Claud basically told trump to 'go fuck yourself' but not in those words, because they didn't want to build no-control robots to spy on the US and whatever else might come of that. Good for him.
-
@JustinMac84 I personally like the idea that the CEO of Claud basically told trump to 'go fuck yourself' but not in those words, because they didn't want to build no-control robots to spy on the US and whatever else might come of that. Good for him.
@Onj Absolutely agree with you there. and also, I am glad that people are making money off the tools you create. That is cool. My only intent in replying was to assert that I think there's a difference in requirements and responsibility between someone who owns a thing like a washing machine and the people who make a thing. I also think that we need to listen to the science and not be in such a hurry.
-
@Onj Absolutely agree with you there. and also, I am glad that people are making money off the tools you create. That is cool. My only intent in replying was to assert that I think there's a difference in requirements and responsibility between someone who owns a thing like a washing machine and the people who make a thing. I also think that we need to listen to the science and not be in such a hurry.
@JustinMac84 You know that thing in the 90's, was it the ESRB which was the board for rating video games?
We need a modern something for that with regards AI. comprehensive, third-party independent testing that come up with a proper rating standard and some kind of scale for energy use and many more things that I'm not qualified to think of. -
@JustinMac84 If you let it concern you. If people don't fix things they're putting out, if what they're putting out sucks so bad it hurts, kills people, don't go near it. ever. You're absolutely not wrong for that.
@Onj @JustinMac84 Thing is, I think you can have it both ways. If I write code, I make sure I know how it works and how it's created. AI is a tool for me. It saves me time. But I do know how it works, I'm an engineer and I've coded stuff by hand. I play piano ... not as good as you. I know you've used Suno or other tools to play with AI and its creativity. Would you accept a piece of music that AI made as yours? When I make things with code, I involve myself with the process, but I know I don't have time to do what I did today and write 5000 lines of it. I give it attribution as my assistant to as a writer in my code and in my application. I do, however, and will always, be able to break it apart, know what code was written, and be able to solve the problems that inevitably will come. Because I use AI as a tool to make something of the form of an application work. Without some knowledge of programming though, I would never release it because I know that it or some portion of it will break. What I'm saying is that Ai should be used with care. Know what it's maaking. Understand how it works. And for goodness sake, don't do what I know you don't do but others often do and rather than going to Google to search if something has been made that solves your problem, you employ AI to write you a program to do it. For me that's too risky, and if I've found an application that has had thousands of people run it, try to break it, push it to its limits, I'll use it more fully. I can write svupport for said app. But for the person who would rather AI a solution but does not know how their new solution works, eventually they'll get a call, know nothing of why its breaking on person B's computer, ask AI about it, be confused because AI no longer has the background that allowed it to make the thing. To make this ... thing ... shorter, just be careful. Learn about your code and how it works, you'll thank me later.g or
-
@Onj @JustinMac84 Thing is, I think you can have it both ways. If I write code, I make sure I know how it works and how it's created. AI is a tool for me. It saves me time. But I do know how it works, I'm an engineer and I've coded stuff by hand. I play piano ... not as good as you. I know you've used Suno or other tools to play with AI and its creativity. Would you accept a piece of music that AI made as yours? When I make things with code, I involve myself with the process, but I know I don't have time to do what I did today and write 5000 lines of it. I give it attribution as my assistant to as a writer in my code and in my application. I do, however, and will always, be able to break it apart, know what code was written, and be able to solve the problems that inevitably will come. Because I use AI as a tool to make something of the form of an application work. Without some knowledge of programming though, I would never release it because I know that it or some portion of it will break. What I'm saying is that Ai should be used with care. Know what it's maaking. Understand how it works. And for goodness sake, don't do what I know you don't do but others often do and rather than going to Google to search if something has been made that solves your problem, you employ AI to write you a program to do it. For me that's too risky, and if I've found an application that has had thousands of people run it, try to break it, push it to its limits, I'll use it more fully. I can write svupport for said app. But for the person who would rather AI a solution but does not know how their new solution works, eventually they'll get a call, know nothing of why its breaking on person B's computer, ask AI about it, be confused because AI no longer has the background that allowed it to make the thing. To make this ... thing ... shorter, just be careful. Learn about your code and how it works, you'll thank me later.g or
@ner @JustinMac84 No because I'm probably a hypocrite. If I prompt Suno to make something based on an idea it isn't mine but I could probably learn to play it. Coding feels different. It's not. I know that in my head but it feels more wholesome. I cannot explain why, and I have zero reason for thinking so.
-
@Onj @JustinMac84 Thing is, I think you can have it both ways. If I write code, I make sure I know how it works and how it's created. AI is a tool for me. It saves me time. But I do know how it works, I'm an engineer and I've coded stuff by hand. I play piano ... not as good as you. I know you've used Suno or other tools to play with AI and its creativity. Would you accept a piece of music that AI made as yours? When I make things with code, I involve myself with the process, but I know I don't have time to do what I did today and write 5000 lines of it. I give it attribution as my assistant to as a writer in my code and in my application. I do, however, and will always, be able to break it apart, know what code was written, and be able to solve the problems that inevitably will come. Because I use AI as a tool to make something of the form of an application work. Without some knowledge of programming though, I would never release it because I know that it or some portion of it will break. What I'm saying is that Ai should be used with care. Know what it's maaking. Understand how it works. And for goodness sake, don't do what I know you don't do but others often do and rather than going to Google to search if something has been made that solves your problem, you employ AI to write you a program to do it. For me that's too risky, and if I've found an application that has had thousands of people run it, try to break it, push it to its limits, I'll use it more fully. I can write svupport for said app. But for the person who would rather AI a solution but does not know how their new solution works, eventually they'll get a call, know nothing of why its breaking on person B's computer, ask AI about it, be confused because AI no longer has the background that allowed it to make the thing. To make this ... thing ... shorter, just be careful. Learn about your code and how it works, you'll thank me later.g or
-
@ner @JustinMac84 No because I'm probably a hypocrite. If I prompt Suno to make something based on an idea it isn't mine but I could probably learn to play it. Coding feels different. It's not. I know that in my head but it feels more wholesome. I cannot explain why, and I have zero reason for thinking so.
@Onj @ner Props for the honesty. But then we come to the interesting question of at what point does something become yours. Hans Zimmer, John Williams, they write pieces. They tell the orchestra what to play. At what point is the prompt detailed enough for the same ownership to be legitimate, when you're just telling the AI what to play?
-
@ner @JustinMac84 No because I'm probably a hypocrite. If I prompt Suno to make something based on an idea it isn't mine but I could probably learn to play it. Coding feels different. It's not. I know that in my head but it feels more wholesome. I cannot explain why, and I have zero reason for thinking so.
@Onj @JustinMac84 I can't say that about my code. I feel kind of janky using it, but it gets the job done and I'm super transparent that I worked with Claude to make the thing. Big difference though, I know how it works, to the centilla. That's how I get around feeling like a fraud in a developer costume. I can directly tell Claude that i think the issue is somewhere in x.cs in the abc method of the blarp object. And we fix it, move on.
-
@Onj @ner Props for the honesty. But then we come to the interesting question of at what point does something become yours. Hans Zimmer, John Williams, they write pieces. They tell the orchestra what to play. At what point is the prompt detailed enough for the same ownership to be legitimate, when you're just telling the AI what to play?
@JustinMac84 @ner Lol that's too deep and I don't know. What I know is that AI coding is fulfilling a mad dream I had as a kid to have a thing made that I wanted made, even if I couldn't do it. People say the same about music with Suno. If it makes them happy, why not?
Musicians often worry they'll be put out of a job. Not me.
I know what I can bring to the table. I know my skills, the way I play is mine, and even if an AI trained on my material I could still switch it up, so I don't fear, honestly. I know many do.
Nothing to do with this discussion really but adjacent. -
@JustinMac84 @ner Lol that's too deep and I don't know. What I know is that AI coding is fulfilling a mad dream I had as a kid to have a thing made that I wanted made, even if I couldn't do it. People say the same about music with Suno. If it makes them happy, why not?
Musicians often worry they'll be put out of a job. Not me.
I know what I can bring to the table. I know my skills, the way I play is mine, and even if an AI trained on my material I could still switch it up, so I don't fear, honestly. I know many do.
Nothing to do with this discussion really but adjacent.@Onj @ner I've always wanted to know your take on this. Take live gigging out of the equation completely because AI can't do that yet. Pretend I don't know you. How do you feel about the following attitude and imagine it becoming more prevalent. Why would I want to listen to, much less buy Andre's music, when I can just generate my own? Why should I hire him for a project requiring recorded music for the same reason?
-
@JustinMac84 @ner Lol that's too deep and I don't know. What I know is that AI coding is fulfilling a mad dream I had as a kid to have a thing made that I wanted made, even if I couldn't do it. People say the same about music with Suno. If it makes them happy, why not?
Musicians often worry they'll be put out of a job. Not me.
I know what I can bring to the table. I know my skills, the way I play is mine, and even if an AI trained on my material I could still switch it up, so I don't fear, honestly. I know many do.
Nothing to do with this discussion really but adjacent. -
@Onj @ner I've always wanted to know your take on this. Take live gigging out of the equation completely because AI can't do that yet. Pretend I don't know you. How do you feel about the following attitude and imagine it becoming more prevalent. Why would I want to listen to, much less buy Andre's music, when I can just generate my own? Why should I hire him for a project requiring recorded music for the same reason?
@JustinMac84 @ner Great question and my take on it is this:
You listen to whatever makes you happy, and you buy whatever makes you happy. If that isn't me, that's absolutely fine.
I am one of hundreds and thousands of musicians that learnt to play a particular way, and sometimes it's hard to break out of that way. AI can do what we cannot because it's trained on us hundreds and thousands, and approximate/amalgamate what it learnt, into something you want to hear.
You may not like the sound choices, so you can spend time directing it and hope it produces what you want, and if that makes you smile, that's what music should do.I'm in a very small minority when I say that, but AI music is here to stay. The good, the bad and the terribly ugly. I've heard it all.
Eventually it will become so good you won't be able to tell it apart from real-made stuff but real made stuff is still going to get made anyway, regardless because some of us love what we do and will keep doing it.I'm not angry, I'm not mad, I'm not arguing. I only speak for myself when I say all of that, but truly, having had AI create some stonkingly good bangers from my own uploaded material, I'd be a terrible liar if I said I hated it.
-
@JustinMac84 @ner Great question and my take on it is this:
You listen to whatever makes you happy, and you buy whatever makes you happy. If that isn't me, that's absolutely fine.
I am one of hundreds and thousands of musicians that learnt to play a particular way, and sometimes it's hard to break out of that way. AI can do what we cannot because it's trained on us hundreds and thousands, and approximate/amalgamate what it learnt, into something you want to hear.
You may not like the sound choices, so you can spend time directing it and hope it produces what you want, and if that makes you smile, that's what music should do.I'm in a very small minority when I say that, but AI music is here to stay. The good, the bad and the terribly ugly. I've heard it all.
Eventually it will become so good you won't be able to tell it apart from real-made stuff but real made stuff is still going to get made anyway, regardless because some of us love what we do and will keep doing it.I'm not angry, I'm not mad, I'm not arguing. I only speak for myself when I say all of that, but truly, having had AI create some stonkingly good bangers from my own uploaded material, I'd be a terrible liar if I said I hated it.
@JustinMac84 @ner I hate the shit stuff. Utterly loathe it. The thing is, a lot of pubs and clubs use AI-generated stuff now because they don't have to pay copyright on it, but it's all generated from what seems to be the same generic 'Musac in a lift' template, never anything really groundbreaking. That pisses me off. It really does. It could be the good stuff but it never, ever is.
