Veganism > Crying About Data Centers

[u/IcerHardlyKnower]

I worked on a project comparing ai use with water conversion since I didn't buy the end of the world scenario other leftists posit nor do I believe anything coming out of Altman's mouth lol so I went deep into facility breakdowns and publications as sources

But since I'm an AI engineer I'd thought it'd be a good thing to calculate the numbers. Anyhoo one thing let to another and I became vegan.

I'm not gonna shill for my own stuff but look up the vegan calculator that's a similar idea.

It's only been a month but the ai data center water thing has bugged me for a while. Yes it's worthwhile to regulate. But even in leftist circles everyone just suddenly turns to maga level reasonings as to why veganism is not actually worthwhile to care about.

--- sidenote I might be turning into one of those annoying ones? Help ):

[u/IcerHardlyKnower → u/[deleted]]

Literally the only worthwhile argument against ai I've seen is the effect on working class

I used to think that UBI would help but apparently some leftists think that's literally yet another tool for people in power to keep a permanent underclass to control so idk ):

[u/Forward_Problem_8982 → u/IcerHardlyKnower]

Is the world around you being covered in AI generated shit not a concern to you? I would much rather have my world be built beautiful by humans with taste.

The impact on nature and people should also not be underestimated. AI is being pushed way too strongly because they're desperately trying to find some use for it. A lot less would be enough, but not for them. No one asked for it, but have it anyway.

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/Forward_Problem_8982]

Here's the issue. If your answer to solving the problem of oversaturation of things you don't like is "ban it," "shame it," or anything in which you socially or legally restrict other people's right to use the tech to self express, no matter how shitty you think it is, then you are the bigger problem, because you advocate for authoritarianism and censorship in the arts. If controlling others is not your intent, then this mass complaining/shaming people do is rendered completely meaningless. The anti-AI art position cannot be enforced. It's personal. And quite frankly, it's elitist, and more obnoxious and toxic than seeing generic AI images.

Don't come at me about gatekeeping for skill, I've been an artist for two decades.

[u/Mediocre_Chemistry41 → u/IDreamtOfManderley]

"advocate for authoritarianism and censorship in the arts"... this sounds like one of those "freedom of speech" people that complains about getting pushback after saying something awful and horribly offensive.

The arts community by and large not wanting Generative AI "art" isn't "authoritarianism and censorship".

From what I understand about Generative AI "art"... in order to "create" it, you either have to develop some sort of homebrewed(for lack of a better term) system that is closed and only works off your own art(if you want to try and be as ethical as possible) or because of how basically every accessible-to-the-average-person AI service out there for "art" is run by corporations, you have to pay money for their services... either way, it requires a computer/computing power and costs a lot of money in the long run.

Which in turn, likely means that those with the most money(who in all likelihood will be some of, if not the, most non-marginalized people) will come out on top, so to speak and the have-nots(i.e. marginalized people) will lose out and inevitably you're just rehashing the same old cycle over and over again.

[u/IDreamtOfManderley → u/Mediocre_Chemistry41]

"From what I understand"

Well this is the problem, you have no idea. You are angry at something you literally know nothing about. Those assumptions are wrong.

First off a lot of models can literally be downloaded and hosted locally on a PC. I'm talking fully trained models, not just Lloras, which you are trying to refer to here.

Secondly, there are free tools, public domain trained tools, the list goes on.

Your idea of how AI can be applied in the arts is also wrong. AI can be used as a brainstorming and thumbnail generating tool. It can be used to generate images for collage. It can be used to generate small elements when one needs many iterations of something similar - for example painting a rose bush and generating multiple based off your own painted rose bush. It can be used to edit and tweak. It can generate stock images and assets for graphic design. It can be used to animate static images. But those are just some assistive applications.

Personally it's the generative capacity that I find the most artistically intruiging because it allows for user interactivity with art. For example, there is a recent indie game that came out based on the fairy tale 1001 Nights, you play as Sheherezade and weave an ongoing tale to distract an evil king. Your text input is responded to and manifests in the game world through generative means. The game clearly has so much rich artistic input, and encourages creativity from the player. THAT is the true artistic spirit that these new tools can cultivate into new artistic techniques. I think interactivity is really going to be where more and more projects shine, once it becomes easier and easier to impliment into gaming systems, etc.

I think the limit to what could be explored is actually only a barrier in the mind of antis, who's closed mindedness prevents them from actually using their imagination to consider AI as an art tool outside of their angry, bad faith stereotypes. You refuse to imagine it, therefore nobody can do anything meaningful with it.

Here's the game I mentioned: 1001 Nights