安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
0 
檢舉此篇文章
We will never give in and we will always be a pain for you then
Data training content is always made of biased material, which inherently leads to them being biased. Not only that, but the people that have the AI code can easily just code the AI into generating things and behaving the way they want.
Have you never stopped for a second to think about that? Did you think your AI girlfriend actually loves you because you're a lovable individual rather than the fact she's programmed to believe that?
AI fearmongering is dumb. Always has been. Always will be.
And yes, creativity is a process that stems from people's different personal environmental conditions and previous experiences, and AI does the same in its own way. The issue isn't how creativity is made nor its definition, but rather the alienation of people leading to the dull-ification of personal creativity. It's not you expressing your thoughts and experiences, it's another medium expressing their creativity.
A lot of AI fear is fairly justified in my opinion, although people don't know how to explain why they're afraid of AI. Ignoring ethical-legal aspects (which are VERY important keypoints), there are two main fronts in the AI issue: what it means for art as a means of expression, and commercial aspects.
Commercially the accessibility of generative AI for images caused an immediate issue: it strongly affected small artists that relied on commissions or donations. It's plain cut. While this is the point people often bring up, this isn't the real issue. All professions likely faced or will face a crisis at some point.
However, in my opinion, the issue is actually on the end of the person that uses the AI. There's an atrophying of knowledge as art skill, but more importantly, like mentioned earlier, there's alienation. People trick themselves into believing they have any contribution or expression in the result despite said product being made through a process without any critical thinking or artistic skills.
The issue isn't small artists losing jobs. It's that in an overtly capitalist society if an artist can't partake in it then art will be relegated to mainly a niche hobby and frowned upon as non-contributing. AI promotes laziness and ignorance while empowering its user in a consumerism loop. In the end, what generative AI in art is doing is creating a path where art as expression is ostracized while removing humanity from commercial aspects.
No. Subtractive.
All art -- ALL art -- is about chiseling away at the proverbial mound. The creativity is taking your sum of experiences, which includes the collective wisdom of humanity as documented in books, the internet, and yes collected via AI.
If using AI in the creative process is "dull-ification" then so is drawing inspiration from works you've enjoyed in the past, or from conversations with other people, or from literally anything you've done, said, or experienced that shapes your vision, your very creativity.
The only thing you're right about is the folly of art in a capitalist society, but that is not the fault of AI. Had we moved beyond capitalism, there wouldn't be IP law, there wouldn't be this stupid "art landlord" movement of artists angry at AI's existence, there wouldn't be people crying about "plagiarism" instead of dealing with real problems.
AI ain't stealing. AI is a tool. And it can be used to make great things, or slop, no different than one can use a pencil for the same.