Like nearly everything else, there’s a gray area. We don’t need to reject generative AI images outright, although, that’s the easiest path for lazy people–to see everything as black or white.
On Christmas, I posted an AI photorealistic image of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman dressed in pajamas in front of a Christmas tree arguing over a Lego Nakatomi Plaza kit. It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s an acceptable use of generative AI images.
People forget the left sensationalizes things as much as the right does.
A lot of them show datacenter energy use for AI without comparing them to other other workloads. If you’re worried about datacenter energy use, I sure hope you don’t download any apps or steam any music/video.
Interesting how for all the comments about LLMs destroying the climate, nobody bothers responding to the one comment bringing sources and figures to the discussion.
I do think you’re raising valid concerns regarding resource consumption + climate change. However:
youre just trying to justify it.
Learn to phrase things without disingenuously putting words into the others’ mouths dammit. This is not Reddit, behave like a decent person instead of a redditor. Nothing the other user said can be even remotely interpreted as “the energy cost is justified”, in fact they didn’t even talk about resource consumption.
It sure sounds to me like they were trying to justify it. Funny or not, if it hurts everyone so no, it’s not a justified use. Hurting anyone, let alone everyone, just for the lolz is far from acceptable.
“It doesn’t hurt anyone.” does not automatically lead to “I think the energy consumption and its impact is justified”, unless the user claimed 1) that they’re aware of the impact, and 2) that they’re sharing that comment as a counterpoint to that impact.
(Note I’m not even disagreeing with their core argument. Seriously, I low key want to use image generation for some stuff, but when I think on the energy usage I simply “eh… let’s not.” I think the way you phrased it in another comment is way better.)
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem. Discussing whether the output of a genai system is ‘art’ or not is a fine philosophical debate, but ignores both the costs of creating the output, and the way the data to do so was sourced and processed.
If human ‘artists’ burned through the same amount of power, water, and other resources just to produce their art there would also be an outcry. If the raw materials that ‘art’ was created from were so blatently copied from others there would also be an outcry. Indeed, when a human is found to be copying another’s work and passing it off as their own, there is an outcry.
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem.
The reply is not claiming they didn’t talk about it; it claims they’re trying to justify it. This sort of “let me assume words into your mouth” behaviour is really bad in online platforms, it’s one of the reasons why Twitter/Reddit/Facebook are such cesspools — once you open your mouth in them, there’s always some bloody muppet pointing their finger to accuse you, while assuming/lying/bullshitting about your “intentions”, what you’re “trying” to do, your beliefs, even the colours of your pants.
It’s so bad that, even if I know this is off-topic, I think it’s worth ranting about it here. We (Fediverse users in general) should be calling this out, before it roots itself here. Unless we want to walk on eggs to say what we think (even if true, moral, and relevant), out of fear others will assume shit to accuse us. Like in Twitter/Reddit/Facebook. Or we get to repeat what’s “safe” to say here, in a big circlejerk.
And it’s completely unnecessary here; the other user could’ve said instead "There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though,you aren’t mentioning energy costs even if they matter" or similar and it would be perfecto.
[On-topic, genAI]
As I said the resource consumption concern is perfectly valid. I also agree with the second concern you’re raising, authorship. I’ll even raise two other concerns here:
3. Those image generators are flooding the internet with low quality content, and making it harder for people to find the good stuff.
4. They’re lowering the bar for fictitious but believable scenes, that can and are used to promote disinformation.
Whilst I agree with your point about strawman arguments in general, that isn’t really the case here. The OP explicitly said “It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone” when, in fact, it does. This appears to be their primary justification for using it, whilst ignoring the well known costs of that use. I conceed that a, very charitable, reading of their comment might be that they are simply unaware of the environmental and authorship issues and are only focused on whether their image is “funny” and not directly causing harm. However, those issues are so well known that I, and aparently other commenters, do not feel they can reasonably overlooked in any discussion about whether the use of genai can be justified in general.
The other issues you brought up are very real too and, in many ways, more insidious that the obvious ones discussed before. How we overcome those, now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don’t know.
Whilst I agree with your point about strawman arguments in general, that isn’t really the case here. The OP explicitly said “It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone” when, in fact, it does.
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying. Their point literally coalesced into “i posted a funny picture and it didn’t hurt anyone” which is factually untrue by participating in driving demand for harmful tech.
I wasnt insulting in any way, I was illustrating how their point fell apart. There is real, quantifiable harm.
No, I will not fuck off. Criticise what people say, instead of your assumptions over what they say. And if you’re unable to tell both things apart, then you’re probably better off shutting up.
And if I see muppets like you doing this shit again I’ll call it out again, again, and again. And if I were to do the same, I also expect others to call me out.
Yeah your one image that one time didn’t necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.
Generative ai is just a tool for creating text and images. Not everything created using is art, just like not every piece of text written by a human or an bunch of pixels drawn in photoshop is art. What matters is intention of the author, the effort put in and whether other people perceive it as art.
It silly to call everything created by ai as art, but not because of the tool used. Most of it is not art simply because it was not created for that purpose, it is there for pure silly entertainment.
It is equally silly to vehemently hate it if the creator does not even claim it’s art.
Like nearly everything else, there’s a gray area. We don’t need to reject generative AI images outright, although, that’s the easiest path for lazy people–to see everything as black or white.
On Christmas, I posted an AI photorealistic image of Bruce Willis and Alan Rickman dressed in pajamas in front of a Christmas tree arguing over a Lego Nakatomi Plaza kit. It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone. I think that’s an acceptable use of generative AI images.
EDIT:
There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, youre just trying to justify it.
People forget the left sensationalizes things as much as the right does.
A lot of them show datacenter energy use for AI without comparing them to other other workloads. If you’re worried about datacenter energy use, I sure hope you don’t download any apps or steam any music/video.
https://andymasley.substack.com/p/individual-ai-use-is-not-bad-for
Interesting how for all the comments about LLMs destroying the climate, nobody bothers responding to the one comment bringing sources and figures to the discussion.
I do think you’re raising valid concerns regarding resource consumption + climate change. However:
Learn to phrase things without disingenuously putting words into the others’ mouths dammit. This is not Reddit, behave like a decent person instead of a redditor. Nothing the other user said can be even remotely interpreted as “the energy cost is justified”, in fact they didn’t even talk about resource consumption.
It sure sounds to me like they were trying to justify it. Funny or not, if it hurts everyone so no, it’s not a justified use. Hurting anyone, let alone everyone, just for the lolz is far from acceptable.
“It doesn’t hurt anyone.” does not automatically lead to “I think the energy consumption and its impact is justified”, unless the user claimed 1) that they’re aware of the impact, and 2) that they’re sharing that comment as a counterpoint to that impact.
(Note I’m not even disagreeing with their core argument. Seriously, I low key want to use image generation for some stuff, but when I think on the energy usage I simply “eh… let’s not.” I think the way you phrased it in another comment is way better.)
That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem. Discussing whether the output of a genai system is ‘art’ or not is a fine philosophical debate, but ignores both the costs of creating the output, and the way the data to do so was sourced and processed.
If human ‘artists’ burned through the same amount of power, water, and other resources just to produce their art there would also be an outcry. If the raw materials that ‘art’ was created from were so blatently copied from others there would also be an outcry. Indeed, when a human is found to be copying another’s work and passing it off as their own, there is an outcry.
[Off-topic, metadiscussion]
The reply is not claiming they didn’t talk about it; it claims they’re trying to justify it. This sort of “let me assume words into your mouth” behaviour is really bad in online platforms, it’s one of the reasons why Twitter/Reddit/Facebook are such cesspools — once you open your mouth in them, there’s always some bloody muppet pointing their finger to accuse you, while assuming/lying/bullshitting about your “intentions”, what you’re “trying” to do, your beliefs, even the colours of your pants.
It’s so bad that, even if I know this is off-topic, I think it’s worth ranting about it here. We (Fediverse users in general) should be calling this out, before it roots itself here. Unless we want to walk on eggs to say what we think (even if true, moral, and relevant), out of fear others will assume shit to accuse us. Like in Twitter/Reddit/Facebook. Or we get to repeat what’s “safe” to say here, in a big circlejerk.
And it’s completely unnecessary here; the other user could’ve said instead "There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, you aren’t mentioning energy costs even if they matter" or similar and it would be perfecto.
[On-topic, genAI]
As I said the resource consumption concern is perfectly valid. I also agree with the second concern you’re raising, authorship. I’ll even raise two other concerns here:
3. Those image generators are flooding the internet with low quality content, and making it harder for people to find the good stuff.
4. They’re lowering the bar for fictitious but believable scenes, that can and are used to promote disinformation.
Whilst I agree with your point about strawman arguments in general, that isn’t really the case here. The OP explicitly said “It’s funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone” when, in fact, it does. This appears to be their primary justification for using it, whilst ignoring the well known costs of that use. I conceed that a, very charitable, reading of their comment might be that they are simply unaware of the environmental and authorship issues and are only focused on whether their image is “funny” and not directly causing harm. However, those issues are so well known that I, and aparently other commenters, do not feel they can reasonably overlooked in any discussion about whether the use of genai can be justified in general.
The other issues you brought up are very real too and, in many ways, more insidious that the obvious ones discussed before. How we overcome those, now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don’t know.
I already addressed this here.
Emphasis mine. If someone is handling things by how they “appear to be”, instead of how they “are”, then the person is simply assuming.
I don’t think the rest of your comment is worth my time replying.
Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying. Their point literally coalesced into “i posted a funny picture and it didn’t hurt anyone” which is factually untrue by participating in driving demand for harmful tech.
I wasnt insulting in any way, I was illustrating how their point fell apart. There is real, quantifiable harm.
Whatever though
Yes, it is. Learn the difference between what people say and your assumptions on what they say.
That is what they were saying, though.
Then quote where they would have said what they think about the energy cost, or what they were trying to do. Oh wait they didn’t.
Seriously. You’re all being assumers. And you are being an assumer and a liar.
So, are you naive or insidious with this? Are you actually eating those bullshit sandwiches or just serving them?
Oh fuck off
No, I will not fuck off. Criticise what people say, instead of your assumptions over what they say. And if you’re unable to tell both things apart, then you’re probably better off shutting up.
And if I see muppets like you doing this shit again I’ll call it out again, again, and again. And if I were to do the same, I also expect others to call me out.
Yeah your one image that one time didn’t necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.
Generative ai is just a tool for creating text and images. Not everything created using is art, just like not every piece of text written by a human or an bunch of pixels drawn in photoshop is art. What matters is intention of the author, the effort put in and whether other people perceive it as art.
It silly to call everything created by ai as art, but not because of the tool used. Most of it is not art simply because it was not created for that purpose, it is there for pure silly entertainment.
It is equally silly to vehemently hate it if the creator does not even claim it’s art.
AI use is driving up energy costs and worsening pollution and global warming . Is that a good enough reason to vehemently hate it?