Not sure if this is AI. If so, then it is an example that AI content need not always be bad.

But it is on who owns it and uses it for what. Collective control over AI, directing it for the benefit of the people would be good.

Edit

Anyway, since this is causing discussion: Anyone with the meme making skills see a non-AI version of this? Or anyone who has the skills to do that? Or anyone who can share the tutorials to easily/quickly learn how to do that?

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand@lemmy.caEnglish
    246·
    11 days ago

    Really awkward formatting. Someone def made this in AI and then clumsily collaged them together.

    As for the “tool neutral, usage good” argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      62·
      11 days ago

      As for the “tool neutral, usage good” argument, I think of it like Operation Paperclip or Unit 731. Be damned sure the juice is worth the squeeze.

      Both are not tools or technology, but Nazis being used, right?

      Is it about AI researchers?
      Even there, the military/surveillance-AI companies and personnel would be the ones similar to Unit 731, right?

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    174·
    11 days ago

    This is the best use for AI image generators imo: throwaway meme slop that isn’t really supposed to look very good, wouldn’t have been made otherwise, doesn’t make any money off of other people’s labor, and did not take away a labor opportunity/labor power from anyone. It’s not like the AI companies are making money off of this, not even close, they’re all bleeding to death.

    Oh it’s wasting water and electricity? The water and electricity were already wasted by training, you can’t un-waste the water or electricity. In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!

    Oh it’s plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn’t realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      5·
      10 days ago

      In fact, if you refuse to use the AI model they trained then the water and electricity were wasted for nothing!

      Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?
      If it is very bad to use, we can choose not to use it. But if not, we can use it.

      Oh it’s plagiarism? Oh not precious property rights, I didn’t realize we were fucking capitalists protecting the sanctity of copyright.

      Yep.
      Tho, the prople who worked on the confent should be paid decently and also on how derivatives of the content maybe bad for future income and thus thy should provided a share of the income or given a one time settlement or whatever that would be good. Collective ownership would be good on that too. That is beyond AI, and the general nature of capitalism

      And regarding property rights, especially on memes, are not most memes plagiarising or creating derviatives or litrak copying without paying the original creator? Like, are not screenshots from movies, series, youtube videos etc. used without permission or payment? Is that bad? Are these folk against memes of all types?

      So, the issue is the earnings of the worker, right? And also attribution.
      Collective ownership would likely be the solution there.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        43·
        10 days ago

        Is that not a sunk cost fallacy?

        The sunk cost fallacy would be “we’ve already invested so much into AI, we have to keep investing into AI to make it worthwhile!” As long as we’re not pouring more resources into AI there isn’t an issue. An AI model that is already trained won’t be untrained because we stop using it, after all.

        It’s like freeganism.

  • skisnow@lemmy.caEnglish
    135·
    11 days ago

    It’s not an example of AI usage being good, on account of it’s soulless garbage slop with unbalanced pacing, which adds nothing to the original strip that it was stolen from

    • eldavi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      121·
      11 days ago

      it’s filtered through an american lens – one that prefers to blame the technology rather than ever taking action against the epstein class that wields it to our detriment.

    • 1Malayali@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      94·
      11 days ago

      Does it use that much water? How does it compare to water use by regular datacenters?

      And if it is controlled by a collective, they can reduce wastage and use renewable sources, recycle water etc, without having the profit-only main motivation, right?

    • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
      86·
      11 days ago

      You can generate AI locally.

      Also can we please stop talking about AI in terms of water usage? The amount of total carbon it emits is a much bigger concern.

        • pineapple@lemmy.mlEnglish
          51·
          10 days ago

          I don’t pay for models in any way so I’m not responsible for the emissions during training. AI companies decided to create these emissions, not me.

          I did a bit of research and the full emissions of AI is relatively small compared to other things but still far from negligible. If we take this guardian article at face value the total emissions of AI is 80 million tonnes. Which is about 1.3% of total carbon emissions (about 6 billion tonnes). I did a bit of research and I just thought I’d share.

  • Peacepath@lemmy.world
    23·
    10 days ago

    The message of the content is great and right! It is fun no one commented it yet. Or may be ignoring the message was part of their answer.

    One who refuse any type of AI use could make a version, even by hand as some claims, or in 10 minutes… But they of course disagree with an important part of the message.

    For them, the rich editor who owns the intellectual rights on works is someone to protect. They identify to the worker who has his only cookie (the remaining part of his intellectual rights the rich has let him). And they are scared by collectivism.

    So great job, you forced them to see otherwise for a second! I hope some of them may take a time to think farther than their cookie.