Well, now instead of paying the photographers for the stock photos to use as headline pictures, people instead pay the AI firms for the stock pictures to use as headline pictures.
Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.
The actual position: "First, prove you're not an AI, and then we can discuss..." Yeah, no, I'll take myself being strangely prescient this morning.
Precisely. There is no need to wait for "the position" to be formulated since a) it won't be; b) it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow, not even a strawman.
> it's mostly "AI is bad because, full stop" anyhow
Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm?
The same could be said of commissioned paintings when photography became a thing. And yet here we are, and I doubt anyone - except maybe artists - would say the world is worse off.
ori_b · · focus · HN ↗
The fact that the suck machine works isn't something to be proud of.
skeledrew · · focus · HN ↗
In what way?
Joker_vD · · focus · HN ↗
Which is "worse" by some metric, I'm sure.
minitech · · focus · HN ↗
Joker_vD · · focus · HN ↗
minitech · · focus · HN ↗
- not even a position
- not something you were remotely “prescient” about
Joker_vD · · focus · HN ↗
minitech · · focus · HN ↗
Ooh, the rare* double straw man. Since you look like you could use the exercise in intellectual honesty, I’ll pose the question directly: can you think of any reason that the ability for anyone to generate fake photographs indistinguishable from reality with no skill, time, or money required might make the world a worse place? Cause harm?
* I wish
skeledrew · · focus · HN ↗
minitech · · focus · HN ↗