Has the War Against AI Already Been Lost?

[Hydra009]

Brandon Sanderson talks about AI.  It's moderately entertaining, but for the audience's sake I'll summarize.  He talks about the common objections to generative AI - the kind of thing that generates images and songs and books.  It's a very resource-intensive process, which concerns him, but that's not his real objection.  It unethically takes works under copyright and generates works based on them.  Again, concerning, but not the real objection.  It replaces a human with a machine - closer to his real objection - but not quite there.  Lots of technology has replaced human workers and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

For him, the purpose of writing his earliest books wasn't to make a product, it was to develop himself and his skills and to accomplish his goal of writing a novel.  This is his main objection to AI - it stifles growth by killing this process in its infancy.  Generative AI, by definition, does not learn or grow based on its output like a human author.

Will AI art replace human-produced art?  Not necessarily.  We decide what art is and what we're willing to pay for.  If it can no longer sustain economic viability, generative AI dies.

[Blackleaf]

AI is good for two types of people:

1. The rich, who don't want to pay people for their hard work.

2. People without an ounce of artistic talent or passion, without the patience to learn, and without the respect for those who do create art. It allows them to go around saying, "Look what I made! I'm an artist now, because I typed in a prompt and got this result!"