this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
107 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

23 readers
2 users here now

This magazine is dedicated to discussions on the latest developments, trends, and innovations in the world of technology. Whether you are a tech enthusiast, a developer, or simply curious about the latest gadgets and software, this is the place for you. Here you can share your knowledge, ask questions, and engage in discussions on topics such as artificial intelligence, robotics, cloud computing, cybersecurity, and more. From the impact of technology on society to the ethical considerations of new technologies, this category covers a wide range of topics related to technology. Join the conversation and let's explore the ever-evolving world of technology together!

founded 2 years ago
 

No, this is not a Black Mirror episode.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 0xtero@kbin.social 38 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Copyright needs reforms, it's broken as fuck.

The music and film industry have been exploiting this for decades and changing the entire model to a system where artists don't hold copyrights or get compensated for their work, content or (soon) bodies. Art does not enter the public domain anymore. Greed is all there is.

Burn it all down.

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Copyright law? Oh you mean Disney Protection Law?

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

A typical point that I severely miss from most discussions about AI is what it means for future artists or, in this case, future actors. And therefore what it means for us as a society.

By taking the art from the artists, regardless of whether it's an actor, illustrator, author, etc.., the way it is done currently, we will see much fewer people who will even try to learn these skills, or share them. At some point there won't be anything new anymore.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Maybe I'm overlooking something, but isn't the actual change that doing these things will no longer be a viable way to earn a living?

[–] Zeppo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

That’s the problem - it take a lot of practice and experience to get really good at graphic design or illustration. When people are paying you to do it, you can afford to do it all day. If not, you need to spend the majority of your time doing something else, so it takes longer to advance in skill. I see this in my own field with hobbyists/people who do art on the side vs people who do it full time.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Most artists can't earn their entire livelihood by their craft alone. Even those considered good, in most cases, need a main job.

But even the little money you make from your art can at least pay for art supplies (which are very expensive). Learning to be a good in your craft costs an enormous amount of patience, time and money as well. With no money at all to be made out of it, no commissions, and your work immediately flowing into the AI pipeline, new artists will be further discouraged from even trying to hone that craft.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You may very well be right on the money here, but I find it at least plausible that a market for "human-made" art becomes a thing if computer-made art becomes a thing.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] delawen@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We are doing all the AI thing wrong. We were supposed to be replacing hard repetitive manual work with technology. Not replace the art creation.

puts on Obi-Wan's beard

"Technology, you were the Chosen One! It was said that you would destroy the need for work, not join them! Let us focus on culture and enlightment, not leave us with the hard manual work!"

[–] awsamation@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

The problem is that replacing art is an entirely software task. You don't have to figure out a robotics issue for actual manual labor to be done. And for white collar work, art doesn't have an objectively correct finishing point, spreadsheets and reports do.

[–] Kyval@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We were supposed to be replacing hard repetitive manual work with technology.

That already happened, for the most part, 30-40 years ago in manufacturing and industrial applications. Factories employ a fraction of people they did before the 80s.

[–] ParsnipWitch@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago

There is still a lot of hard manual (and underpaid) work left that AI and robotics sadly did not replace. Instead it seems to go for the jobs some people actually might enjoy first.

I feel online platforms like the Fediverse are a conceivably bad place to discuss this, though. Because I assume a lot of people here do work in technical jobs they often enjoy at least a bit.

But a huge chunk of people works in delivery, in warehouses, at assembly lines, as cleaners, in construction, the not so nice parts of elderly care, etc. etc.

[–] awsamation@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Factories employ a fraction of people they did before the 80s.

Depends on the industry. Automobiles? Yeah, that has been largely automated. Trailers? The most common trailer brands I can think of are still built manually.

CNC machines still need operators, and those operators are still doing manual labor. An entire factory only needs one guy on a computer to manage all the programing those CNC machines need. Everything else is about making sure the material is correctly positioned and the machine is working correctly.

Manufacturing isn't nearly as automated as you might think. Not as many industries have adopted the rote programing robotic arms that you're imagining from some Ford production line.

Plus factories and industrial are only a fraction of the manual labor world. Agriculture, construction, forestry, trades, all sorts manual labor jobs exist that have nothing to do with factories. And that's not even counting other unskilled labor fields like the service industry.

[–] delawen@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Don't worry, this is only a problem until they can fully generate actors from scratch. It's just a matter of time.

[–] Supernova@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So much this, creating actor's looks and personality from scratch to fit the demographics is an Hollywood exec wet dream.

[–] LennethAegis@kbin.social 10 points 1 year ago

"I'm thinking, muscular, gruff looking white man who loves his kids".

[–] mPony@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

Years ago a music studio generated an Asian pop artist. (I can't provide details about it because when I web-search for it I get a hundred results telling me how I can do the same thing myself.)
It's already been done, it's _being _done now, and we're not far away from it being relatively undetectable.

[–] donuts@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

The little secret of AI is that it can't generate shit from scratch. It relies on a large and diverse training dataset in order to make anything at all.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

To put it in perspective they want to have a background actor on set for one day, scan them, then use that forever and not just for that movie. And only pay them for one day of work.

[–] Guadin@k.fe.derate.me 4 points 1 year ago

That's fine. Than we will only buy one movie and get all the other ones for free, since we already paid for one...

[–] awderon@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

The actors should get license fees everything their likeness is used. The movie studios already rake in a ton of money.

Book authors also get royalties when their books are published, why not use a similar system.

[–] donuts@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Working people need to all be ready to reject a new wave of AI-powered exploration, the scope and scale of which we have never seen before.

load more comments
view more: next ›