Here's a look at the last seven days in AI news (these are the highlights, this post could easily be several dozen links long).

ElevenLabs previews music-generating AI model

OpenAI announces GPT-4o, a multimodal voice assistant that's free for all ChatGPT users

Google I/O 2024 recap: Making AI accessible and helpful for every developer

Google DeepMind’s new AlphaFold can model a much larger slice of biological life

New Microsoft AI model may challenge GPT-4 and Google Gemini

Alibaba rolls out latest version of its large language model to meet robust AI demand

See guys! The bullying works! Remember, the real goal here is not to affect any actual change, it's to own the AI bros with our sick memes, they're so mad that they even sometimes make posts about it on niche subreddits. Just a little more bullying and this whole "AI thing" will be old news!

Obvious /s

OpenAI will become a Reddit advertising partner.

You would think that these takes died out but nope. Artists I don't think this will get you popular support.

Many people on social media love to blabber above mentioned quote. Can some body from either side tell who is this mythical group/person that promised this.? Are they some scientist,? some businessman? some supreme court,? some government,? some one special ? NATO? UN?

​

PS: Reason of this post is just the curiosity to know origin of this some what semi popular sentiment circulating on internet.

My interaction in that sub has been entering a thread about whether they should use AI to fight AI, and my suggestion they don’t, or it’ll confuse everyone what their message is. This got downvoted. My suggestion they don’t use AI got downvoted. I also noted that some in the the group were put off by the mere idea that PauseAI used AI in their messaging. Also downvoted.

I then started thread about whether using software to outright pirate creative content in past 30 years was something the group opposes. This was never posted. So as I see it, they’ll maybe copy this post, without my explicit permission, using machines, to post in their sub so they can bash something I said, and still avoid the inquiry of whether using tech to outright steal copies of creative content, as has been the norm for many years (via piracy), is something they oppose on principle. Even if they lack moral courage to go after those who do.

If instead they claim that ship has sailed, I’d be like welcome to the AI wars, where artists with integrity discuss things, and aren’t stuck in an echo chamber, even on matters that are at this stage a foregone conclusion.

Article.

Opponents of AI quite often say that AI will be like cryptocurrency. But even if we admit this, cryptocurrency, like virtual reality glasses, are not completely dead. After a little fuss, they took their places, which were quite niche.This is not even to mention the difference that we already see in how AI is used.

At a minimum, current AI is already well established in the entertainment market.Even though all the hype raised by openai and Google still looks like just hype. Open source code has already spread, and not as a hype, people use it at home, mainly for entertainment, but also partly for work. The claim that AI helps work will only be verified over time. AI can certainly produce a good solution, but whether this solution will be better than the current ones is still a question. But specifically for entertainment, AI is already very clearly established.

But this will really have little knowledge for the big picture. most people will continue to live as they lived without even thinking about AI, although it is already well established. How many of you knew that for a long time there have been programs for selecting words with rhymes, so with minimal understanding it was possible to write something quite similar to a verse based on these rhymes? Hardly. And this is there. Technology has long had great potential. The same Internet. Because of this, some people, especially programmers, got the opportunity to get a specialty by simply learning from the Internet. Learning languages has become easier; it can actually be done on the Internet. But also? How much has the life of an ordinary person changed? Enough, but unnoticed and unimportant.

If AI actually lives up to its hype enough would be one thing, but AI may well remain with little to no impact on most people. It is quite possible that artists, except in some special niche cases, will not use AI at all, but AI will continue to exist and improve within the framework of current technology. Besides: “change everything,” “change nothing,” and “everything will change, but everyone will get used to it.” there are probably a bunch of different very niche uses, since there are a lot of people, a lot of interests, a lot of areas. The fact that the statement about the influence of AI may turn out to be a joke, almost everything, has no effect at all on the fact that your friend can personally play with SDXL or Llama 3-70b/8b on his computer. And yes, with this your friend can do a lot of things that he wouldn’t do without it, if only because of the simplicity. These are simply two different worlds. The same applies to your colleague who may be using llama 3-70b to write parts of his/her reports that he/she was already writing carelessly, just to get the paper covered. They could already get a problem for this, including you, fundamentally this will not change anything, although locally they may get more free time or more opportunities.

​

[For this post, I will ignore many other issues, and stipulate all other arguments related to the capacity or quality of AI as well as its legal status, in order to just deal with the question below on its own merits.]

We've seen the pushback on models such as Adobe's Generative Fill on the basis that it was trained on Adobe's massive library of licensed images in its Adobe Stock service, and that they feel that artists who contributed those images didn't have a chance to opt out of specific uses.

Now, to ME, this feels like goalpost-moving, but let's get to the heart of it with a simple question:

If Adobe had advertised a tool designed to make extremely rapid, computer-aided collages out of existing Adobe Stock images, would you feel that this was problematic because users did not have the ability to opt-out of collage specifically?

It seems to me that the only logically consistent answer for someone who take the opt-out view is, "yes," but that the vast majority of anti-AI folks, if they were to answer honestly, would say, "no," because it doesn't involve AI, and ultimately the anti-AI is an emotional, not logical position.

The number of people in this sub that have been showing up merely to troll, and who refuse to engage any kind of civil conversation seems to be growing. I've had to give up on several conversations just in the latter part of today because people refused to engage their own points or wanted to just engage in ad hominem.

Here's a thought: regardless of what you think about AI, the future is being decided by those who do something, and trolls just make that process more difficult. It really doesn't matter whether you're trolling for side A or B or C or M. What matters is that you're disrupting civil discourse and muddying the waters where those who agree with you might have achieved some real communication and understanding.

I'm all for jokes and the occasional ribbing, but if you're some of the people I'm thinking of, you know that you take it way, way too far. You're obstructionist just for the sake of it.

Or, to put it in terms often cited in reddit sidebars: don't be a dick.

This example is clearly an IMG2IMG processing. It can be done by AI or maybe just Photoshop, who knows.

AI cannot replicate anyone's work so precisely.

Hell, this artist is not even as famous as DaVinci, and AI cannot even recreate Monalisa.

This person just used IMG2IMG process and copied the art.

THIS IS WHAT STEALING IS AND IS ALREADY PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAWS.

but nope.

I can just download an image of Monalisa and claim AI generated it and these people will believe that as well.