How backlash against generative AI is sweeping the internet

AI-generated media—images, music, writing, and video—have spread steadily across the web, and the internet is becoming increasingly unfamiliar.

Fueled by the rise of deepfake images and videos, the “Dead Internet Theory” is becoming a reality and conspiracy theories are flourishing.

The AI ​​hype cycle has reached an interesting new phase, with investors pouring money into the technology but negative stories dominating the discussion – Taylor Swift deepfake scandal, Glasgow Willie Willy Wonka fiasco, backlash against AI-generated assets, etc. Spend the night with the devil and doctor whoand numerous copyright lawsuits.

Billy Coul, the organizer behind Glasgow’s Willy Wonka fiasco who was named and shamed by Rolling Stone magazine as a “corner-cutting huckster”, has used generative AI to publish 16 books on Amazon.

Kuhl came to be known as “Willy Wanker” by the internet, but he wasn’t the only one using generative artificial intelligence to try and make a quick buck.

This technology has made scammers more brazen, flooding the online marketplace with AI-generated images and text; meaningless content without creators polluting the waters of the World Wide Web.

Many AI-generated artworks appear lifeless and bizarre, filled with disturbing “hallucinations”—twisted fingers, misshapen furniture, people with distorted faces.

Recent reports show a sharp decline in public trust in artificial intelligence, a shift highlighted by a viral video from the SXSW music festival in which tech leaders championed the wonders of generative AI, sparking outrage from the crowd. boos.

The initial promise of generative AI, that it would bring greater creative freedom, has been eclipsed by harsh reality. The technology is used to cut costs and replace workers.

Amid the AI-induced tsunami of curvaceous anime girls and hazy fantasy art, some artists are experimenting with AI as a tool, and some have succeeded in creating visually striking and thoughtful works.

However, many artists have spoken out against the technology, pointing out that the creative process, while messy, is not an inconvenient obstacle.

The vast majority of creatives don’t want machines pumping out content on their behalf – art is made by people – it’s not ordered by impatient consumers at the push of a button, like fast food.

Self-expression takes time and effort, and the story behind the creation of art is often as interesting as the final product and part of the discussion surrounding it. Creating art is a form of self-expression, not a burden.

How can AI-generated art, which inherently lacks meaning, perspective, and intent, have value beyond novelty?

Does the average consumer really want a landscape filled with media that no one wants to produce?

Philosophical debates aside, many artists believe that generative AI models are “trained” in their work without their consent, and that these models have been used to cut corners in the creative industries.

Before this technology emerged, many artists were in a precarious, precarious position where they were unable to benefit from its rise.

The threat from generative AI is not limited to the creative arts; a recent report from the Institute for Public Policy estimated that 8 million jobs in the UK could be lost to generative AI over the next five years.

Assuming that the output of AI models will be dynamic, reliable, and cost-effective enough to replace human workers, the public is unlikely to cheer the coming of the so-called “job apocalypse.”

Tech leaders in Silicon Valley are united in their promise that artificial intelligence will eventually surpass all expectations; some even believe the technology will become so advanced that it will become sentient.

Today’s generative models have no path to perception or even understanding. But people like to anthropomorphize machines, especially those leading generative AI companies.

Open AI CEO Sam Altman speculated in a 2023 article that sentient AI, known as AGI (artificial general intelligence), was not only possible but inevitable.

“Because the advantages of general artificial intelligence are so great, we believe it is impossible or desirable for society to permanently halt its development,” Altman wrote.

Despite Ultraman’s insistence, general artificial intelligence is still the stuff of science fiction.

The “illusion” remains unresolved, with today’s models consuming water and energy at such alarming rates that Ultraman believes an AI-driven world will require a “breakthrough” in nuclear fusion.

All this water, energy, infrastructure, all these online scams and spam bots, help sustain technology that threatens workers’ livelihoods and erodes creative industries.

The backlash against generative AI has not gone away, and in the long term, AI may be viewed as just another Silicon Valley fad, like NFTs, unlikely to live up to the hype.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *