Post #3368297

I think it makes sense as temp assets in my field (video games), but ideally, you get a real artist rather than use AI. Temp can help visualize the intent, but a real artist will always out perform a machine on creativity, style, etc. I’ve used it for image quality upscaling—I don’t know how to do this, but I guess I could learn. There’s likely other cases that are “visual” gen AI but maybe medical (pattern recognition?) or gap filling for something like architecture (like first pass treatments). I’m completely guessing there. The cost to generate an AI image is something like 60 ml of water (shot glass?) or 1kWah (like watching 2 HD movies via stream). Sure, yes, at scale, this stuff is bad. I would say the worst element is corporate profit of public goods: these machines were made with mass theft, and therefore, In my opinion, should be nationalized or universalized. In this reality, that is basically a joke. At an individual level, and a personal level, I know driving my car is bad, especially if it runs on gas. Running ACs in the summer is also bad. Leaving the water running while shaving is bad. So is a myriad of many things I do. AI use is completely optional, but it’s not an automatic marker of anyone’s moral standing, at least not more than the other cases I mentioned. You can also offset these costs as a way to be more morally just. For me: Use for temp art Hire a real human Offset as best you can. One of my favorite shows is the Good Place because it highlights how impossible it is to live a perfectly good, moral life in the modern world. I think ascetics who aren’t using the internet or posting on social media are probably closest. I’m sure as hell not.