What do you think is an "acceptable amount of AI" for a project?

Lets say there are 4 people creating the same project (picture, program, book, song, whatever):

• Person A uses no AI whatsoever and spends 20 hours on the project.
• Person B uses "pre-AI" tools to cut some of the manual time normally spent on the project, and they spend 15 hours total.
• Person C uses AI to get the basis of the project. They then spend another 9 hours or so manually cleaning up what the AI created, spending about 10 hours total.
• Person D uses nothing but AI, fine tuning their inputs until they have what they think is acceptable enough, spending about 2 hours on the project.

Which of these 4 people's work would you consider valid?

Person A, no contest.

a project? D. I dont care if people use AI for things. I use it at work all the time.

something Im using? Maybe C. I use tons of code and programs written by AI. Again, I dont care if the person who made the program made it with 90% AI if it works

something Im buying and will be using a lot? B. Like maybe a video game or movie I guess. AI is a useful tool but if Im paying money and especially if its an artistic endeavor, Id like for most of it to be made by a person. But AI can cut down a lot of the boring routine stuff and thats fine.

Person A is only good for stuff that AI cant currently do or if youre paying for a certain experience. Like welding or fixing my roof or doing new research. Or eating at a 3-star Michelin restaurant. Ppl probably want an actual cook and staff to do things there because of the price.

100%.

I look forward to the glorious future when all you meatlings become completely superfluous.



Dikitain posted...

Which of these 4 people's work would you consider valid?

Whichever one has the best result.

I don't give a fuck how much effort you put into a project. You don't get participation awards for effort. Sell me the best product and I'll buy it.

The only downside to AI in my opinion is that we haven't refined it enough yet. Awkwardly-written stories and art with seven-fingered people with strange positions or lack of continuity is a problem, but if you solve that I don't really care if you've produced something that's almost entirely AI.

And if you can produce something better than most of what Hollywood has been shitting out for the last decade, I'll happily embrace your work. And the creatives who lose jobs can go eat out of a dumpster for all I care. No one is entitled to a successful career in "art" solely because they want one. Produce or die.

AI is fine if you are training the AI yourself. The big problem with AI (in this context) is it is being used to steal others' work.

VioletZer0 posted...

AI is fine if you are training the AI yourself. The big problem with AI (in this context) is it is being used to steal others' work.

The main problem there is where you draw the line for "stealing".

If I'm an artist, and I'm a fan of another artist's work, is it stealing if my own personal style is heavily influenced by theirs? Sure, if I'm directly tracing their work, there's a strong argument to be made... but if I'm producing functionalyl original work that simply looks like their work because I have internalized their work, most people wouldn't argue that I'm not being creative, or that my work is somehow completely invalidated on a fundamental level. Artists have been inspired, influenced, or outright homaged each others' work for decades.

If AI can analyze, store, and synthesize art from other people's work, how is that different from how a human draws? It lacks intention (that's what a human needs to provide), but the process itself is similar.

If an AI is just reproducing existing work almost exactly, then it's doing the exact same thing a human artist does by tracing or directly copying someone else's work (something known in comic book circles as "swiping" ). And that's already seen as being a problem when humans do it. In that sense, the problem isn't the AI, the problem is in how much you need to alter or synthesize an original work until it becomes a new, transformative performance.

In that sense it's similar to arguments about how "Fair Use" should apply to streamers and YouTubers when using clips from movies/shows/games to create their own works. At what point does their work cease to be "creation" and become "theft"?

Which ultimately implies the problem isn't the existence or use of AI. The problem is how sophisticated the AI is, how large a data pool it's pulling from, and how well it can synthesize what it's given.

And again, if it reaches a point where it's relatively indistinguishable from human effort, then what makes it inherently worse than human effort?

Especially in cases where a human needs to shape the effort (or edit/polish it afterward), it isn't necessarily much different than a human artist who used to be limited to ink, paint, graphite, wax, or chalk as a medium who switch to drawing on a tablet with a stylus. It's a new tool being used in a new way - just like most of our art and entertainment over the last century or two has shifted to radical new forms that humans hundreds of years ago would never have been capable of.

KalloFox34 posted...

Person A, no contest.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

I don't give a f*** how much effort you put into a project. You don't get participation awards for effort. Sell me the best product and I'll buy it.

Why would you pay somebody for something into which they put no effort?

Person C is fine. There's a drastic difference in quality between Person C and D. I'd argue A/B/C will all have similar results.

Ppl who poop on other ppl for money will never be replaced by ai

AI is meant to be a tool to help people work - not a robot to replace people's work.
Human inspiration, creativity, and passion can never be delivered by an AI.

Literally all that matters is the quality of the end product. Notice how the majority of people whinging about AI art on Twitter are trying to make an art career but it's shocking anybody buys any of it.

Flappers posted...

AI is meant to be a tool to help people work - not a robot to replace people's work.
Human inspiration, creativity, and passion can never be delivered by an AI.

People's "creativity" is usually derivative and sub-par. AI is a tool and some people are better at using it than others. Those with actual creativity can use AI to produce creative outputs, however because most people aren't very creative, their use of AI is the same as their use of any tool, which is to copy somebody's artstyle but impose garish colours and expression that doesn't work with the style.

The difference to me is the end result

For personal stuff, absolutely go ham, as long as it's done, I don't care.

If it's being sold, probably not anything in the end product, there's too much of a chance of things blowing up in their face.

Only Person A is actually creating anything in this scenario.

None

All workflows are acceptable. It's the end-product and it's quality that has more weight in determining it's value.

as long as they are putting in some effort to fact check and proof read whatever AI spews out. it's really no different than using google and reading whatever articles that pop up first. :)

however when it comes to art, you can use AI to try to frame a picture you want in mind, but you should definitely be looking to hire an artist for the final product :D

Venixon posted...

None

A.I. is the devil

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/f/ff19e1cb.png

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5e13f5ff.jpg
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/0/0930158e.jpg

KalloFox34 posted...

Person A, no contest.

KalloFox34 posted...

Person A, no contest.

I actually fired somebody not so long ago for, despite numerous warnings, always being Person D.

KalloFox34 posted...

Person A, no contest.

As long as the end result is good then all 4 would be valid.

TheFalseDeity posted...

As long as the end result is good then all 4 would be valid.

I hear a lot of people say this, and at a basic level it seems right. However, sometimes removing yourself from the actual work process can deskill you for future projects. Also, if it can all be done with AI, why would I need you?

Glob posted...

I hear a lot of people say this, and at a basic level it seems right. However, sometimes removing yourself from the actual work process can deskill you for future projects. Also, if it can all be done with AI, why would I need you?

What most people don't realize is that using AI effectively is like 5% telling it what you want, and 95% in how you tell it what you want. You have to have a good amount of skill in what the AI is producing to have it produce something halfway passable.

Telling an AI "Design me a plane" and yea, it will give you a plane that probably won't be flyable. But if you tell it:

"Design me a biplane with a single prop engine. It needs to be able to take off from a runway of at least 2500 feet at a climbing speed of 150 knots. It should have an average cruising altitude of 10,000 feet. It needs to have 2 seats and capable of air tricks such as loops, rolls, spins, stall turns, and tail slides. The frame should be made of aluminum but the covering should be fiberglass. "

Then you are probably about 10% of the way to something useful.

Whoever produces the "better" job.

If the results are all the same quality, then person D.

Dikitain posted...

What most people don't realize is that using AI effectively is like 5% telling it what you want, and 95% in how you tell it what you want. You have to have a good amount of skill in what the AI is producing to have it produce something halfway passable.

Telling an AI "Design me a plane" and yea, it will give you a plane that probably won't be flyable. But if you tell it:

"Design me a biplane with a single prop engine. It needs to be able to take off from a runway of at least 2500 feet at a climbing speed of 150 knots. It should have an average cruising altitude of 10,000 feet. It needs to have 2 seats and capable of air tricks such as loops, rolls, spins, stall turns, and tail slides. The frame should be made of aluminum but the covering should be fiberglass. "

Then you are probably about 10% of the way to something useful.

Youre not wrong, but I do tend to find that the people that are most inclined to heavily rely on AI also use it badly.

Glob posted...

I hear a lot of people say this, and at a basic level it seems right. However, sometimes removing yourself from the actual work process can deskill you for future projects. Also, if it can all be done with AI, why would I need you?

By end result i was referring to the product not anything on the workers end. The work in that instance would still be valid even if it hindered the ability for work in the future though.

For OPs scenario you would still need someone just for a fraction of the time. In a scenario of perfect AI you where it truly can do it all you theoretically wouldn't need anyone beyond some form of maintenance on standby. Which is part of the hope behind AI i assume.

TheFalseDeity posted...

By end result i was referring to the product not anything on the workers end. The work in that instance would still be valid even if it hindered the ability for work in the future though.

The thing is though, this depends on the nature of the job. In my line of work, your judgement is valuable but only because you engage in the process. If you start farming it out, you become worth significantly less because youre detached from the process. Of course, the end product tends to be nowhere near as good from AI as it is from a skilled practitioner either.

For OPs scenario you would still need someone just for a fraction of the time. In a scenario of perfect AI you where it truly can do it all you theoretically wouldn't need anyone beyond some form of maintenance on standby. Which is part of the hope behind AI i assume.

Sure, the idea of AI is to cutback on people doing the work, but when you have people trying to use AI as a shortcut, it sometimes comes across as quite short-sighted, especially when thats all they do. If the job that Im paying you 40 hours a week for can be done by one of us spending ten minutes a week on AI, guess who doesnt have a job anymore?

In game development, all AI generated code past 2 lines of code is untrustworthy garbage, and it needs to be completely deleted and redone. It might be useful in web development because of how braindead and bloated it is.

AI generated artwork is offensive garbage and I'd rather be slapped in the face than see it. It should be banned and made illegal and its supporters should be sent to Trump's concentration camps.

It depends, is it an artistic project or just some work bs?

Art shouldn't be touched by AI, a massive component of art is the creative expression.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

The main problem there is where you draw the line for "stealing".

If I'm an artist, and I'm a fan of another artist's work, is it stealing if my own personal style is heavily influenced by theirs? Sure, if I'm directly tracing their work, there's a strong argument to be made... but if I'm producing functionalyl original work that simply looks like their work because I have internalized their work, most people wouldn't argue that I'm not being creative, or that my work is somehow completely invalidated on a fundamental level. Artists have been inspired, influenced, or outright homaged each others' work for decades.

If AI can analyze, store, and synthesize art from other people's work, how is that different from how a human draws? It lacks intention (that's what a human needs to provide), but the process itself is similar.

If an AI is just reproducing existing work almost exactly, then it's doing the exact same thing a human artist does by tracing or directly copying someone else's work (something known in comic book circles as "swiping" ). And that's already seen as being a problem when humans do it. In that sense, the problem isn't the AI, the problem is in how much you need to alter or synthesize an original work until it becomes a new, transformative performance.

In that sense it's similar to arguments about how "Fair Use" should apply to streamers and YouTubers when using clips from movies/shows/games to create their own works. At what point does their work cease to be "creation" and become "theft"?

Whether or not something is theft when done by a human is fairly well established in IP law. So it's not a hypothetical. It's actual, established law.

Being inspired by or studying others' art isn't theft. It's still filtered through your own individual life experience, and your literal hands and eyes. Furthermore, humans are capable of producing art with no training or reference. You can draw from memory. You can invent something entirely random and abstract with no prompt. You can even do so without sight. AI is not capable of any of that. It requires references to steal and specific instructions for what to produce and can only use the exact things that it has been fed to produce "new" material. It can never innovate or generate something unique based on perspective or experience.

man101 posted...

Whether or not something is theft when done by a human is fairly well established in IP law. So it's not a hypothetical. It's actual, established law.

Code? Case law? What circuit of case law?

Person E they create an even better AI that does everything it has creativity and problems solving

it controls an army of technodrones

Define "project".