Also you can't argue that it's not equivalent because the AI is trained on stolen data unlike DAWs because many people pirate plugins in DAWs and thus also steals.
It's fully consistent to be either pro AI and pro DAW or anti both, but I am fine with DAW's.
I am still against AI due to environmentalism.

>>107488655
>I used to be against AI
stopped reading here
you're retarded

AI music is a good thing because it kills off millions of shitty bedroom producers using DAW. Only actual real musicians will be able to survive

>>107488689
The guitar is like the trombone

>>107488678
>I still am

>>107488689
Define real musician.

Music is solved there is no need for any more, due to its limits every genre has peaked.
All new releases are just rehashing old ideas and its estimated there are 3000 albums a day released worldwide and 99% dont sell. Its oversaturated and dead due to how anyone can make an album at home

>>107488714
Able to understand and write musial notation, play an instrument and play it live.

You glueing together other people sample s together using Fruity Loops isnt a musician

>>107488655
>because it took away human jobs particularly generative AI takes away jobs of actual artists
If a token predictor can take your job, maybe there wasn't much value in what you were doing?

>You could even argue that it's happened long before
And in many other fields. One artisan draws a head, a million coins are struck from the die.

>I am an environmentalist and AI is very bad for the environment (also yes I am pro-nuclear energy.)
In what way do you *think* this is bad for the environment?
How do you reconcile the long term storage problems of the spent fuel, and the few decades of runnning pumps to keep the non-power-producing rods cool?

>>107488726
>Its oversaturated and dead due to how anyone can make an album at home
It was over-saturated and 'dead' a long time before that happened. There's been little to no "innovation" since electronica of the 80's sorta birthed the underground rave scene of the early 90's

>>107488751
>In what way do you *think* this is bad for the environment?
uses a lot of water, uses a lot of power, increases electricity bill

>>107488655
People who use DAWs to make music worth listening to are exceptional. It's not something anybody can just do. You think making banger EDM is easy? I'd like to see you try. It takes serious talent. And the thing about DAWs is, they made entirely new genres of music possible. They allowed the creation of new sounds that people couldn't have possibly dreamed up before.
AI just copies old sounds and amalgamates them. It hasn't invented new genres like DAW users have.

>>107488884
i dont really see the issue of complexity as important at all, i saw this objection in the post last year but im not moved.
it doesnt really change the fact that human jobs (intrument performers) are lost.

>>107488898
You're missing the point. People liked the music produced with DAWs because it was new, fresh, and interesting. AI generated music just sounds like derivative slop. It's boring as fuck. And there's nothing impressive about it or anything worth appreciating.

>>107488824
>uses a lot of water
But nuclear doesn't?
Newsflash: When you use water to absorb heat from something, it's still water. Unless you turn it to steam, then that'll become water shortly.

Nuclear takes *decades* of pumping water with no power production. It does it constant for the spent fuel pools, and each time the reactor shuts down for a fuel change or a lining change there's decades of pumping whilst it cools. Using water *and* power.

>uses a lot of power
True. But that's mostly a problem of *how* you get the power.

>increases electricity bill
No more than any other supply/demand factor. If you find yourself a graph of energy prices over time, with a wide enough window, you should notice a very clear trend. You'll notice this trend started a long time before "AI", and the inception of it hasn't made any notable spike.

>>107488919
The difference is that nuclear is used to provide our homes with energy and drive our energy costs down whereas AI is being used mainly to flood the internet with slop, scam people, and replace humans at their jobs so that elites can turn then into biofuel

>>107488898
>human jobs
The entire concept is flawed. How many 'positions' exist just for someone *to* have a job?

Great example here is covids. Everything kept happening. Highlighted how much is pure bullshit just for someone to have a job.

>>107488931
>and drive our energy costs down
As evidenced by zero price drop, costing more than any alternative to constuct, costing more than any alternative to operate, and vastly outweighing every other option in terms of long term maintainence and cost just in existing?

>whereas AI is being used mainly to flood the internet with slop, scam people
That's third party use, at best, and only what *you* see from it. It's doing shit tonnes of "work" in multiple fields. From medicines to materials science.

>so that elites can turn then into biofuel
Having access to turbines, solar panels, and batteries, why would they need to biofuel the population? Seems to cost more than it gains.

>>107488933
jobs are important for the economy

>>107488933
This people will vote for a tyrant to make them build skyscrappers before accepting theyre useless meatbags.

>>107488655
It sounds to me like you're inventing justifications to rationalize your emotional reaction

>>107489042
i consider emotions to be just as valid as logic/reasoning, because both come from my instinct and my instinct is evolved by the objective external world the same way the blacksmith hammers down on the blade.
i consider my instinct to be tied to the external objective truth thus.

>>107489068
if my instincts say something is wrong and thus i have an emotional reaction about it, then i ought to find a way to rationalize why that is so. (either because the thing is inferior, or unnecessary for society, or not worth the energy etc etc)

>>107488989
>jobs are important for the economy
Not in the slightest. What matters is the flow of money.
You are likely to instinctively argue that money is a consequence of the job, but this is precisely the problem and it's a purely artificial one.

>>107489006
Useless is a function they will ascribe to themselves. Without having to waste most of their time furthering someone else's agenda they can turn their time to something they value. If that's just sitting on them arse and smoking weed, well the math says the economy can support an 80%+ rate of that, and the chances of 80%+ of the people not getting bored enough to actually do something?

>>107489110
>Not in the slightest. What matters is the flow of money.
so what are you implying here? universal basic income?
if there is no labor or production happening, how will the market move? how come it wont stagnate? especially when there are unemployed people out there that CAN work but dont have any jobs because they dont exist

>>107489154
>unemployed people out there that CAN work but dont have any jobs because they dont exist
And you somehow require more evidence the model is unsuitable for purpose?
Yeah, I suppose you're right. Infinite growth in an environment that clearly demonstrates limited resources isn't likely to recursively generate it's own problems that amplify each cycle.

>so what are you implying here? universal basic income?
Pretty much. At least as interim step to help the hard of thinking decouple from token-based transfer of fictional wealth.

>if there is no labor or production happening, how will the market move?
Who said that? Care to point out where?
Schemes like UBI remove the *requirement* to work. Not the *possibility*. There's always going to be tasks resistant to automation.
You may argue that having met all their necessities, what incentive exists for work? The answer would be "more than survival". There's lots of things that sit in this catagory.

>how come it wont stagnate?
Why would it?
All you're doing is saving time and effort by scraping out that which isn't needed...

>>107489247
>The answer would be "more than survival". There's lots of things that sit in this catagory.
and you believe anyone would care about things beyond their immediate physical needs? we live in nihilist times

>>107489333
Granted, there will be those. Will they make up 80%+ of the examples, tho?

All it takes is 30% of people to want more. Be that more shiny things, more knowledge, more skills...
I don't think it's an outlandish proposition.

I mean. People are perfectly happy only meeting their minimal needs now, right?

>>107489372
>All it takes is 30% of people to want more. Be that more shiny things, more knowledge, more skills...
and if there was a way to gain "more" by doing absolutely nothing, and if there was a way to gain by doing nothing (kinda like how ceos dont do any labor or how thieves just rob people) why would they choose that?
you know today no one really wants to work at factories or workhouses in the west, everyone is trying to be a tiktok influencer, youtuber or "enterpreuner"

>>107489450
>today no one really wants to work at factories or workhouses in the west
Was this ever any different? I always thought 99% of employment was just folk seeking money, and occasionally some get to do something they actually enjoy.
You trying to tell me there's people at subway that want to be there?

>and if there was a way to gain "more" by doing absolutely nothing
Like?
To strengthen your point, try to include something that isn't an option right now.

>and if there was a way to gain by doing nothing (kinda like how ceos dont do any labor or how thieves just rob people) why would they choose that?
So they spin up their own company?
I'm having problems grasping what you're trying to convey here.

>>107489532
>You trying to tell me there's people at subway that want to be there?
so youre saying back then they were forced to for money, then what about now when theyre no longer forced to do it due to universal basic income?
whos gonna do it now that theyre not forced to do so?

>>107489575
>whos gonna do it now that theyre not forced to do so?
Again. It doesn't remove the *possibility* of work.
I'm supposed to issue reasoning for random third parties? Okies... Maybe they want to travel, go look at some pyramids for a month or two. Maybe they want to develop and launch a cubesat. Maybe they want to get a shinier car. Maybe they want a new playstation. Maybe they ...

AI will enable 24/7 surveillance of everything you do, and use every slight misstep you do against you.
If you have a desk job, it will analyze every move you take on the computer for efficiency, and threaten to have you fired if it finds you slacking off.

It will track your every move through facial recognition. Israel used this to track and murder Palestinian resistance fighters. In the UK it is already illegal to cover your faces to evade this (unless you're brown and it's a Burqa).

AI enables genetic engineering which if left unchecked will turn humanity into a sterile slave race that has to rely on AI for its reproduction, with its very genetic makeup dictated by those who contriol the AI. It starts now with people who have heritable diseases engineering their babies to not have those diseases, progress towards genetically engineered people outcompeting everyone, and will eventually get to not having a uterus etc. because it is more efficient.

Defense systems based on AI are ultimately controlled by the AI company. Palantir will soon be the last instance to decide who America gets to defend itself from.

White people in particular should be worried about AI because currently all major AI companies (including Palantir, OpenAI and Google) are run by either Chinese or by Jews, the former being a geopolitical adversary and the latter having a religious imperative to exterminate all people of European descent, and both groups are willing to employ AI to achieve their goals.

>>107489741
>AI will enable 24/7 surveillance of everything you do
No. The AI makes it easy.
What enables it is the stupid descisions you've made oer the last few decades that have the supporting technology in place and ready to abuse.

> it will analyze every move you take on the computer for efficiency
Why are you using your computer for work? They provide the computer or they don't want it done. The certainly don't give a fuck about data authenticity or security if they cannot assure the security of your platform. Questionable if there's any productive value, if you're *able* to use your own hardware. It's certainly nothing that matters.

>In the UK it is already illegal to cover your faces to evade this
If engaged in a protest...

>AI enables genetic engineering which if left unchecked will turn humanity into a sterile slave race that has to rely on AI for its reproduction
Interesting take. What's to stop it without the AI?

>Defense systems based on AI are ultimately controlled by the AI company.
How long do you think 'defense' grade customers are going to tollerate a lack of control over their own hardware?
Also, you're putting a lot of faith in keeping these systems secure. It's a good thing you can't project images directly onto sensors...

>White people in particular should be worried about AI
Why? AI wouldn't give a shit what colour your skin is. The only reason it scores higher hits on 'whites' is the bias to the training data.

>former being a geopolitical adversary
So... The entirety of your argument is: They are competitive
??

>the latter having a religious imperative to exterminate
And your solution to witholding technology from a *religion*?
Because that's what jew is. It's a religion, not a race. Them hook-nosed fuckers isn't the ones that spent 40 years wandering in circles in the deserts...

Nothing changes if you are pro or against AI
Same as electricity. You can decide you are against it and form an amish cult around not using it but the rest of the world will do as they please
And as in electricity the economics are all pro AI: from mega corporations profiting off it, to smaller corporations using it in their products down to ordinary people using it to translate/summarize/generate/automate some of their work

"Losing jobs" is something that is normal, humans reallocate.
We have half a billion people and growing in the delivery / rider / app platform gig industry. Isn't that a shit job? Yes, so? That's the nature of most jobs.
"But I spent 7 years of my life on higher education so I am now entitled to a good job", that's not true, and still you will have your "education" to relocate. If tomorrow we get robotics to displace surgeons, they will still be doctors, they will find something else to do, heath related.
If AI needs no more guidance in coding you will use your STEM education to find some data to wrangle at some job, teach kids, whatever. If everything fails you can deliver food
I don't think there will be a single person in the world that will starve because of AI

>>107490082
>I don't think there will be a single person in the world that will starve because of AI
Functionally, this does not have to be the case. But the number of things that don't need to be, but very much are, strongly suggest this will happen, if it hasn't already.

>>107488655
>particularly generative AI takes away jobs of actual artists
>A similar thing happened to music a long time ago, and we didn't do anything about it.
You make no argument for why it's bad in the first place, why would it be okay just because it happened before?

What you're talking about is automation, technological improvements making previous jobs obsolete has indeed happened for a long time. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it's bad. Depends on the job and the workers.

Artists are not a valuable job, they mostly produce little value, they are rarely providers and good for their local communities, they are entitled, lazy and are doing a childrens hobby demanding they be taken as seriously as factory workers or garbage men. Them losing their jobs wouldn't be bad.

>>107490082
>Nothing changes if you are pro or against AI
We are already at the point that if you get caught with AI in your game, you're canceled and shut down.

>"But I spent 7 years of my life on higher education so I am now entitled to a good job", that's not true
But it is, because our overlords agree with it. They create womens studies degrees, then they mandate that every company and institution has to hire them, and they do.
They have something you don't, will to power. They force things to be the way they want. If they have a favorite group, they will create good jobs for them even if they produce absolutely nothing.

>>107489912
>The AI makes it easy
Exactly my point. Our entire power structure is based on certain things being too hard to do for the ruling class.
Having everyone's moves tracked 24/7 was impossible for the Stasi because you'd have to employ too many people.

Having your underlings shot for disobedience is hard to do when it's human soldiers and police officers who do the shooting, as they may refuse to do so, or even decide to shoot the ruler instead. AI-controlled drones don't think twice about executing their kill orders.

>Why are you using your computer for work?
>if you're *able* to use your own hardware.
Nowhere did I write that it's my own hardware, nor does it matter. Your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.
Any kind of work that happens on the computer leaves traces of data, which were too expensive to have analyzed by human supervisors at all times, but CAN be analyzed by AI.

>What's to stop it without the AI?
gene editing is too complex to do on a large scale without ML/AI-based tools

>How long do you think 'defense' grade customers are going to tollerate a lack of control over their own hardware?
1. For decades, virtually every government has accepted the use of Windows and other closed source software throughout its entire bureaucracy, even though the code cannot be audited and has been conclusively shown to be a vector of NSA spying by the Snowden revelations

2. As everyone who isn't a complete retard has figured out by spending 10 minutes clicking through Wikipedia articles, and has been publicly said by numerous high-profile US politicians and intelligence officers such as Donald Trump, Joe Biden, rep.'s Thomas Massie and Cynthia McKinney and CIA chief of the Bin Laden unit Michael Scheuer, the top of the US power structure is deeply corrupt and effectively run by Israeli interest groups, who PREFER defense systems being controlled by a Jewish-run company instead of a Goy-elected government.

>>107490380
>Having everyone's moves tracked 24/7 was impossible for the Stasi because you'd have to employ too many people.
So you decided to spend a few decades deploying ever more invasive technologies into your life to facilitate it?

>AI-controlled drones don't think twice about executing their kill orders.
Even better. In simulations of "AI" pilots, think F18's but it doesn't matter, it didn't take 'em too long to work out if it kills the operator denying it targets it's free to rack up a really high score. When they solved that hiccup, it took out the comms relay first...

>nor does it matter.
Doesn't it?
Your lack of imagination leaves a lot to be desired...

>but CAN be analyzed by AI.
Sure. Why would I phear my AI?

>1.
Anything 'security sensitive' doesn't use common home winhoes. And the configurations are non-standard as a rule. Many "western" .gov is shifting from winhoes precisely for the 'NSA' reason you mention. Others have vested interest in sticking with.

>2.
>the US power structure
A crumbling increasingly irrelevent echo. Each day it finds another way to stab another hole in the bucket...
You'll be lucky if that can shape itself in five years time, let alone anything else.

>>107490284
>You make no argument for why it's bad in the first place, why would it be okay just because it happened before?
because i want to remain consistent and i dont think you can be consistent while being pro-daw and anti-ai (for only this reason)
i wanna remain pro-daw and still consistent (because inconsistent systems of thought is bad due to not producing logic/truth)
>Them losing their jobs wouldn't be bad.
im not sure i agree

>>107490934
>because i want to remain consistent and i dont think you can be consistent while being pro-daw and anti-ai
Aha. But you can, you just need to explain why they are different.

It's all about automation, and could apply to any job or activity, but almost everyone agrees there is some level of automation that is good.
Even if you like both drawing artists and musicians equally you could easily argue that the DAW (equivalent advanced digital painting software) is the right level of automation that makes it effortless enough to create without destroying creativity.

>>107491240
i dont doubt that automation can be good in the sense of "usefulness", but im talking about good as in "ethical", in other words we ask if automation always leads to a decrease in jobs, especially for individuals that are only skilled in the job that they lost (instrument players that have no other skills), and now that they lost their job to automation, it leads to them and their family starving to death, then is it ethical to contribute to that type of automation?

>>107488655
You still need to make something in that DAW. You can see it like a tool like a more versatile instrument, that can also record music.

>>107488726
music doesn't sell because who buys music if you can listen to it for free? The money from music historically was based on patron relationship. It's not a product you can sell. Someone with money can support the artist. Some fans buy albums, merch, go to concerts. It's just a different way of being a patron. But most people just play music casually, they are not fans. They have no incentive to pay for something that is available for free.

>>107491453
then how do we see stuff like tutorials (for how to make songs) as well as sampling other songs
and for painting stuff like tracing for digital art

>>107488655
I'm against AI for none of those reasons. I'm against AI because it is killing art. And no, AI isn't just a "tool" - tools don't think for you.

>>107491567
are you dumb? if it was like AI you wouldn't need to do the job yourself to create something. You still need to learn it. If it wasn't like that why would there be tutorials to begin with?

>>107491739
if theres a video guide that tells you each specific button you should press, with 0 of your own creativity, that is no different to ai
its just a couple more buttons instead of 1
thats arbitary to make a difference

>>107491739
>>107491774
its definitely too arbitary
by this logic if ai was harder to use then all issues would be resolved
you realize you also still need creativity to make an ai prompt?
its not as simply as simply pressing one button

>>107491798
>b-but you're not using it properly
Funny how something that will supposedly automate everything requires handholding and fiddling to get a reasonable result. You are trying to tell everyone you're clever because you get good dice rolls on AIslop. I can't wait for people like you to go broke on this fake and gay pump and dump scam.

>>107491997
thats not a good counter-argument

>>107492056
How so? Got any arguments beyond "nuh uh"?

>>107491774
no, it may only show you some basics. Hello world equivalent. Maybe some tricks. If you want to make something that is actually yours you need to put your learned skill and creativity to use.

>>107492070
well the first part:
i didnt make the claim that it will automate everything, that said theres nothing wrong with handholding or fiddling to get good results and surely it will get better over time, to the point where prompts can become extremely accurate.
for the second part:
thats just emotional seething

>>107491798
it is more like a commission to a third party or having a slave, not doing the part yourself though

>>107488655

Im against AI because it doesn’t work for the use cases people use it.

AI is great at summarising, finding needles in haystacks, etc.. it sucks at coding, art, etc

>>107492109
that also applies to AI, sure you can generate something but you still need to study to know what the good prompts are to get the best results, especially to get a result that actually takes advantage of your creativity
the only difference is difficulty, where daw is slightly harder to utilize and make use of.

but thats the entire point, the only difference between difficulty shows that if ai was just was hard then what? thats what im asking
would you consider it no different? would it be just as valid? what if it was even harder instead, would you consider it more valid than a daw?
its arbitary thus not a good point
>>107492136
but for commissions its still you doing all the creative work by deciding the theme and the idea of how its gonna look?
do you value the creative part (conceptualizing the art) more than the labor part (drawing it)?