The thing about AI

[CheertheSecond]

What we should advocate isn't banning AI.

AI is inevitable. Ask everyone how effective banning something is. Like how we ban nukes, narcotic, firearms, etc. The thing isn't the problem just as AI isn't the problem. The problem is how it is used. Hence, what we should hate and fight against isn't AI. We should hate and fight against the exploitation of AI.

So how do we fight?

Simple. Many said that AI is about improving technology. Sure. Then we will cut all profit.

Ban the ability to commercialise AI. We must demand that all AI be opened and free to everyone and no action of gaining financial profit from AI is allowed. This will safeguard interest for all artists (writers, voice actors, etc. included) while letting the tech companies to improve AI however they want. This is a fair exchange because no one can be certain about preventing AI from stealing or using arts inappropriately so shutting them all down is the only good choice. After all, AI doesn't even pay tax.

I am serious. I am not pulling legs or being sarcasm. Banning AI won't work that just let the big tech companies to voice their presentation of AI is the future to frustrate us. We need to cut off their abilities to make money so neither the big tech or the small AI thieves get anything in return.

 

[blackcrowcrowd]

Ban the ability to commercialise AI. We must demand that all AI be opened and free to everyone and no action of gaining financial profit from AI is allowed.

Literally impossible. If AI cannot be commercialized, what is the point, then? Why would people develop AI? For fun? Developing them costs a lotta money and maintaining them also costs money. This case can only might happen if the AI is fully controlled by the governments, making them free yet restricted for all people (which is crazy, you really don't want the governments to be the only one controlling this basically super weapon stuff)

This will safeguard interest for all artists (writers, voice actors, etc. included

Thing is.... it safeguards ONLY the interests for artists, right? Then why should other people care? Our world have way worse problems that iykyk (cannot get political here)

This is a fair exchange

As I said before, it really isn't. Why would tech companies improve AI if they get nothing for it? They won't even be able to pay for food bro

 

[CheertheSecond]

Thing is.... it safeguards ONLY the interests for artists, right? Then why should other people care? Our world have way worse problems that iykyk (cannot get political here)

Because artists are every human. Every one makes an art work somewhere in their life. Protecting artists is protecting humanity. Arts are also what influence and build cultures. Human civilisation literally started when someone wove tales, made painting and invented languages. All of these are made by artists and they are arts.

What is more important? A few minor groups that exploit AI or the vest interest of our entire civilisation?

As I said before, it really isn't. Why would tech companies improve AI if they get nothing for it? They won't even be able to pay for food bro

Then that means they are simply exploiting AI for their interest and their interest aligns little with the rest of us. Then we have more reason to not care and push for a total ban of AI commerlisation.

 

[Avarice_Of_The_Seven]

Avarice reads this thread and the replies carefully. His gaze cold and mechanical.

Thousands of arguments and logical reasonings flash through his mind.
Then suddenly, his body starts glowing and floating slightly in the air, he looks as if he had gained enlightenment.
As if he had understood all the truths of the world.
There was a light of wisdom in his eyes.

With a kind and benevolent smile, he opens his mouth to speak.
but he froze before any sound could come out.

The view in front of him was chaotic, giant yellow monsters called Pikachu were everywhere, shouting "Pika pika pika" on the top of their lungs.
The world was in chaos, more and more humans were turning into Pikachu monsters.

There was no logic in this world. The only thing that reined supreme in this world was unreasonable crowd mentality.

Avarice looked at this chaotic scenery and the light of wisdom began fading from his eyes. And what replaced it was a darkness of fear.
He looked at the chaotic world and slowly closed his mouth, choosing to keep his thoughts to himself.

What is more important? A few minor groups that exploit AI or the vest interest of our entire civilisation?

Then that means they are simply exploiting AI for their interest and their interest aligns little with the rest of us. Then we have more reason to not care and push for a total ban of AI commerlisation.

Let me explain how the interest of civilization and government works, with an example.

There are 100 people that exist to form a civilization.
Among these people, 10 are artists, 10 are AI developers, 1 person is government and the rest are different groups and general population.

The current system is one of compromise. Where both artists and AI developers make some compromise.

Those AI developers and artists are both part of civilization. Government won't give a damn about arguments like "Artists will loose their job" or "Everything is art", because government has to think equally about all interest groups. AI developers too will loose their job if AI is banned. And the civilization won't progress in technology.

In the end, there is no small interest group or big interest group, there are just different Interest groups with different needs and priorities. Your Argument states that the world is filled with artists and that there is only a small minority of AI developer or users.

But in truth, AI is everywhere, most companies adapt and use it, It's present in most daily used apps and most software include it. Why? Because Idealism doesn't run a country, or a civilization for that matter.

 

[CheertheSecond]

There are 100 people that exist to form a civilization.
Among these people, 10 are artists, 10 are AI developers, 1 person is government and the rest are different groups and general population.

There aren't 10 are artists, 10 are AI developers, 1 person is government and the rest are different groups and general population.

There are

just different Interest groups with different needs and priorities

It isn't an argument about

Those AI developers and artists are both part of civilization. Government won't give a damn about arguments like "Artists will loose their job" or "Everything is art", because government has to think equally about all interest groups.

It is an argument about a future where arts degenerate and we have less artists in the traditional sense, and such future should be avoided at all cost. This becomes less of a minor issue like politic or economy but more about human, their soul, mind and spirit as a whole. For the betterment of mankind, all other interest must be excluded. This isn't an idealism nor belief. It is everything combines because for the first time, the one aspect that sets human from the other living lifeforms is threatened.

AI developers too will loose their job if AI is banned. And the civilization won't progress in technology.

This is false. The rally does not concern banning of AI. Therefore, AI development will continue albeit at a smaller scale in self-funded projects. People that think there are application that can be used due to AI development will actively fund AI research whether the commercialization is banned or not. More importantly, the government will keep funding AI dev if there are military application.

Slow down. Yes. Won't progress? No.

But in truth, AI is everywhere, most companies adapt and use it, It's present in most daily used apps and most software include it. Why? Because Idealism doesn't run a country, or a civilization for that matter.

Burning fossil fuels powers the human civilization and kills the world. Fossil fuels are used daily in many platforms of different scales. Do these facts nullify the threats burning fossil fuels poses to the livelihood of everyone? No.

There is no correct way or wrong way for a world to function. There are only ways and the consequences of these ways. Some consequences are more unacceptable than the rest and I say losing Art is worse than all. The cascading effect of the loss of art is too important to ignore.

 

[Avarice_Of_The_Seven]

Let me explain to you how economy works, because you really need to understand it.

There is demand for something then there will be supply. The supply is converted into demand in exchange for compensation. This compensation is the very thing that puts food on your table.

Compensation = livelihood

You said; AI demand can be allowed to be met by AI supply, but AI can't be compensated for meeting the demand with supply.
Since there is no compensation, There is no reason to meet the demand with supply, then the supply itself will seize to exist.

Compensation lost during supply creation but no compensation gained during the process of meeting the demand with supply.

So it really isn't all that different from banning AI.
And all the livelihood of the related industries and all the people dependent on them will be lost due to the lack of compensation.

And you will be rather shocked to find out how many millions or billions of livelihoods are dependent on AI.
And millions and billions need to compensate them, Your idea about limiting the compensation to small groups is really not that different from no compensation at all.

And tangible problems will always outweigh intangible problems with no immediate consequence.

So from the government point of view that cares most about running a country, is something intangible like mind or spirit more important or is the livelihoods of people more important?

Well, I think you already know the answer to that.


Now, here ends the logical and reasonable arguments. Below is Pikachu language argument without any logic or reason, for the sake of ragebait.

Are you depraved enough that you will destroy the livelihood of millions or possibly billions of people, just for the sake of some illusion like mind or spirit?
Are people's lives less important that mind and spirit?

You evil demon.

Where is this mind and spirit that you spoke of? I don't see it. Does it help the lives of people in any way?
If the economy is less important than this mind and spirit then why do artists ask for compensation? We can ban commercialization of art as well and artists will still continue to create art. Why waste resources on something that is above economy itself?

What is this mind and spirit, anyways? Can you eat it? Does it satiate your hunger or thirst? Does it give you home?

Look at these shameless people, treating innocent AI developer's lives as trivial. How can they even sleep in relief, knowing that their pointless arguments are destroying someone's lives?

These peoples have no morals. Monsters like them should be wiped away from society.


Side note: ragebait is so much fun.

 

[unlaumy]

Now, here ends the logical and reasonable arguments. Below is Pikachu language argument without any logic or reason, for the sake of ragebait.

Are you depraved enough that you will destroy the livelihood of millions or possibly billions of people, just for the sake of some illusion like mind or spirit?
Are people's lives less important that mind and spirit?

You evil demon.

Where is this mind and spirit that you spoke of? I don't se it. Does it help the lives of people in any way?
If the economy is less important that this mind and spirit then why do artists ask for compensation? We can ban commercialization of art as well and artists will still continue to create art. Why waste resources on something that is above economy itself?

What is this mind and spirit, anyways? Can you eat it? Does it satiate your hunger or thirst? Does it give you home?

Look at these shameless people, treating innocent AI developer's lives as trivial. How can they even sleep in relief, knowing that their pointless arguments are destroying someone's lives?

These peoples have no morals. Monsters like them should be wiped away from society.


Side note: ragebait is so much fun.

 

[CheertheSecond]

Take Avarice's reply as a very late April's fool joke.
My mistake for not putting the serious reply only on the title.

 

[McPhoenixDavid]

I remember that in the early 18th century, a professor said they should ban paper.

Some people also threw a tantrum when digital art became a thing, saying it was fake art and hollow. They hated "undo".

Some people will always rebel. Yet technology will move on and evolve. Neither the economy, nor the government truly cares about what happens to a small number of people. It's the sad truth, but that is it. It cares about efficiency and cash.

 

[CheertheSecond]

I remember that in the early 18th century, a professor said they should ban paper.

Some people also threw a tantrum when digital art became a thing, saying it was fake art and hollow. They hated "undo".

Some people will always rebel. Yet technology will move on and evolve. Neither the economy, nor the government truly cares about what happens to a small number of people. It's the sad truth, but that is it. It cares about efficiency and cash.

Good thing but completely irrelevant to my topic though.

 

[McPhoenixDavid]

Good thing but completely irrelevant to my topic though.

"Irrelevant" indeed.

 

[CheertheSecond]

"Irrelevant" indeed.

Sometimes, I have the feeling that people don't read my post and just reply base on the title.

I said I didn't want to fight against AI then immediately the comments devolve into AI banning is right or wrong.

Good thing that you seem to not be one of them.

 

[Alski]

I said I didn't want to fight against AI then immediately the comments devolve into AI banning is right or wrong.

But your first post talking about banning it for commercialization.

 

[Avarice_Of_The_Seven]

But your first post talking about banning it for commercialization.

It's either we didn't understand what he is trying to tell us or that he himself doesn't understand what he wants to say.

 

[CheertheSecond]

But your first post talking about banning it for commercialization.

would "preventing AI from being used yo generate financial benefits directly" be more clear for you?

 

[Alski]

It's either we didn't understand what he is trying to tell us or that he himself doesn't understand what he wants to say.

Yea, i decided to read the rest of the thread and it sounds like his issue is with how capitalism works.

 

[CheertheSecond]

So it really isn't all that different from banning AI.
And all the livelihood of the related industries and all the people dependent on them will be lost due to the lack of compensation.

And you will be rather shocked to find out how many millions or billions of livelihoods are dependent on AI.

We didn't have people depending on AI to survive 10 years ago, do we?

What with a sudden appearance of a group require the entire world to bend for them?

 

[Avarice_Of_The_Seven]

We didn't have people depending on AI to survive 10 years ago, do we?

What with a sudden appearance of a group require the entire world to bend for them?

I know, but that is how the world and civilization works.

Let me give you an example. I'll take the physical page to digitalization as an example (because I'm tired of those AI examples).

Paper was the basis of media before. People used it for several ways and produced it according to the needs.
There were industries that produced it and industries that used it and commerce heavily depended on it.
Even novels and drawings heavily depended on it.

But then came digital media, and within a few years it replaced the functions and needs of paper in many ways.
The people started to demand digital media, and people started producing it. They began learning how to produce it and the teaching institutions began teaching it.
New industries started opening that produced and used digital media and old industries either closed down or shifted to digital media instead.

The physical novels and art became less popular and new kinds of novels and art began to appear due to digital media. The web novels that you and I write and the digital art that we commission for cover.

But from the point of view of physical novelists and artists, we are destroying their traditions and changing art to fit digital screen. They could be even right about that point.
But Government can't decommercialize digital media because digital media has integrated itself into civilization.
The destruction of physical media tradition might be a great problem but it doesn't create any tangible immediate crisis. while on the other hand, decommercializing digital media will create problems that they will have to find immediate solution for and fix.
No one will give a damn about physical media tradition if there is poverty, after all.

So the only solution the government can give is a compromise. Where both the digital media and physical media compromise a bit and preserve some of their interests.

This is the same situation with AI.
It is impossible to decommercialize AI because it has already integrated itself into civilization.

would "preventing AI from being used yo generate financial benefits directly" be more clear for you?

I hope this gives you the answer you were looking for.

 

[McPhoenixDavid]

It's either we didn't understand what he is trying to tell us or that he himself doesn't understand what he wants to say.

It seems to be so.

 

[CheertheSecond]

I know, but that is how the world and civilization works.

Let me give you an example. I'll take the physical page to digitalization as an example (because I'm tired of those AI examples).

Paper was the basis of media before. People used it for several ways and produced it according to the needs.
There were industries that produced it and industries that used it and commerce heavily depended on it.
Even novels and drawings heavily depended on it.

But then came digital media, and within a few years it replaced the functions and needs of paper in many ways.
The people started to demand digital media, and people started producing it. They began learning how to produce it and the teaching institutions began teaching it.
New industries started opening that produced and used digital media and old industries either closed down or shifted to digital media instead.

The physical novels and art became less popular and new kinds of novels and art began to appear due to digital media. The web novels that you and I write and the digital art that we commission for cover.

But from the point of view of physical novelists and artists, we are destroying their traditions and changing art to fit digital screen. They could be even right about that point.
But Government can't decommercialize digital media because digital media has integrated itself into civilization.
The destruction of physical media tradition might be a great problem but it doesn't create any tangible immediate crisis. while on the other hand, decommercializing digital media will create problems that they will have to find immediate solution for and fix.
No one will give a damn about physical media tradition if there is poverty, after all.

So the only solution the government can give is a compromise. Where both the digital media and physical media compromise a bit and preserve some of their interests.

This is the same situation with AI.
It is impossible to decommercialize AI because it has already integrated itself into civilization.


I hope this gives you the answer you were looking for.

Don't worry when I create a big enough riot, the minor AI exploiters will suffer.