OpenAI and Anthropic are cooked...

​

(https://websterjournal.com/matpat-draws-overwhelming-crowd-at-keynote-event/)

Honestly, I agree with that approach.

You can criticise AI without treating the entire technology as inherently evil. You can acknowledge its flaws without pretending it has no legitimate uses. You can defend artists without attacking everyone who uses AI to create.

AI being capable of producing garbage doesn't mean every AI-assisted creation is garbage. That's judging the tool by its worst outputs rather than examining what someone actually does with it. This is what me and most pros I have talked to believe in how people should handle the technology.

A billion-dollar corporation uses AI to replace 40,000 employees and optimize the price of a sandwich down to the individual customer's financial desperation and nobody bats an eye.

But some guy running a plumbing business out of his garage uses ChatGPT to write a professional email and suddenly he's unprofessional and not trustworthy.

Apparently small business owners are supposed to spend 14 hours working, come home and personally write every invoice, advertisement, website description, and customer response with their own blood.

God forbid an individual gets access to technology that used to require an entire corporate department.

No. The plumber needs to hire a marketing agency for $3,000 a month. He needs a receptionist, a copywriter, a web developer, and preferably a middle manager to supervise the whole operation.

Otherwise the business isn't authentic.

Meanwhile Walmart is using enough computing power to simulate the birth of the universe to figure out how to squeeze as much profit out of each customer.

Like what a fuck is this? Half face, half mask with some glowing eye, and why there is a phoenix in the corner?

I want to add a concrete experience to the conversation about AI and ableism after commonting on this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/NnoZaMMzsG

I’m blind. I have central vision loss; that is, I can't see fine detail at all. I haven't been able to read a book for 10 years. Haven't been able to drive for 6. And now, writing the old fashioned way, just as I have done for 30 years, is starting to become difficult.

I also have fourteen novels that have been sitting idle, waiting for publication. One of the biggest barriers has been revision. Writing a draft and being able to reliably work through revisions yourself are very different things. Before ChatGPT, revision wasn’t something I could reliably do independently. Now it is.

Writing - revision, in particular - is a visually intense art form. You're always reading back through the manuscript, trying to find a path forward that will delight the reader. Watching myself slowly lose that capability has been among the hardest parts of my disability journey.

But now, with AI assistance, I can write again.

It also allows me to develop software. I can have a conversation with my code, describe what I want, and work through changes without needing to strain what vision I do have left chasing semicolons in my javascript code.

The same goes for publishing. I can’t use visual layout tools. But I can write code with AI assistance to produce a well laid out design because, before my vision loss, I had years of experience as a layout editor. My first book is now ready for publication. The cover has human-made art, and the book’s design was done entirely through code I wrote with AI assistance.

There are tangible results: my website audience has been doubling about every two weeks for the past three months, and I’m now up to around 400 daily visitors. Work that was sitting unfinished is moving toward readers.

I can describe the stories I want to tell and the things I want to build. The barrier has been getting through tools and processes I couldn’t use independently. Being able to talk through the work has opened up possibilities I didn’t have before.

There’s room to criticize AI and discuss its costs. I also want those conversations to include disabled people who use it to get work done that we previously couldn’t do ourselves.

When I talk about AI as an accessibility tool, this is what I mean: I can finally revise my books, build software, and prepare my work for publication.

ETA: Lots of folks in the comments not knowing that 1) blindness is a spectrum, and 2) only 30% of the blind/low vision population is fully non light-sensitive. I have friends with RP who see perfectly 20/20 through a tiny pinhole. They're still blind, and part of the blind community.

In accordance with Rule 9. This person is a public figure with over 155k subscribers on her YouTube channel.

There's either one of two scenarios here. Either she's been grifting the anti's side to draw engagement. Or one of the biggest AI writing detectors cannot be trusted. What do you think is more likely the case?

Speedrunning Idiocracy and turning our collective minds into absolute pudding.

Source: https://github.com/gregkh/kernel-development/blob/master/graphs%2Fpatches_per_release%2Fcves_fixed_per_release.png

AI coding tools are pretty good at finding bugs and make it easier and faster to fix them.

Importantly, security vulnerabilities in new releases seem to stay roughly the same and the change to which bugs count as CVEs was around version 6.8 already.

It’s in the title, really. I am getting downvoted for this, one-hundred-percent.

Judge it by the flavor, not the appliances used. If the end product is good, the tools used to make it shouldn't invalidate it.

This paranoid detective work is ruining your ability to enjoy things, and it's making the whole environment toxic.

Because I know you'll ask, this doodle is drawn. By hand.

In today's filing with the SEC, Anthropic warned potential investors of what it sees as a very real existential threat, acting directly against its own financial interests by telling everyone reading the filing that are likely to go to Hell.

In fact, it both tells people that investing in Anthropic is the only way to prevent personal damnation, AND that investing might not be enough.

A company already known for using scare tactics and presenting itself as a savior has now used the most important document it's ever released—one that people have been anticipating to an extreme extent—to harm as many people as possible.

This is legitimately unhinged, no matter where you stand on the AI thing, IMO

Q:

Generative AI is advancing rapidly, lowering the barriers to creating things. At the same time, this raises the question of where human talent can truly shine in game design. How do you view generative AI and games as a form of culture?

Shigeru Miyamoto:

…That’s a big question. Let me see.

Computers came along during my generation. Before that, people typed on typewriters. Then word processors came along, and so on. Tools have continued to evolve, one after another.

For example, designers used to learn something called lettering in school—the art of drawing letters beautifully, like the lettering on a poster. If you could do that, you could already be called a designer. Similarly, if you could take a typeface that was popular overseas, adapt it to Japanese, and arrange it into a layout, you might be called a designer simply because you could do that.

But as computers continued to evolve, so did word-processing software. Eventually, computers could copy text from somewhere else, pull in images, and render lettering beautifully for you. As these technical and practical skills continued to advance, things like a person's sense of layout and their individual design abilities finally began to come to the fore.

So even if a husband is a designer and his wife takes care of the household, it's entirely possible that his wife actually has a better eye for design than he does. I sometimes worry about whether that might be true in my own case, too. (Laughs.) As things like this happen more and more, the tools change the way we work.

That's exactly what's happening with AI. We've always made a distinction between creating something and doing the work.

When you set out to create something, you first put together the overall structure, right? Then you start arranging things toward a particular goal. Everything that comes after that is the actual work: filling in the gaps, polishing things up, and so on.

The tricky thing is that the work itself is enjoyable. There's a sense of satisfaction that comes from making something, isn't there? (Addressing the reporters.) For writers and all of you here, too.

But what worries me is that people can become so satisfied with the work itself that they start mistaking that satisfaction for having created something good. That's what I'm afraid of.

So, in that sense, the more AI takes care of all kinds of tasks for us, the more opportunities we all have to think seriously about what it really means to create something. I think that's a very good thing.

Looking back at design history, there must have been plenty of designs that emerged simply by copying existing work. But those designs don't really stand the test of time, do they?

What makes a design endure is that an individual sets out to design something with a clear intention. The computer then helps them carry out the work. That's the underlying structure.

No matter how far technology advances, that basic principle will remain—although, well, who knows? AI might eventually end up doing absolutely everything in that process, too. (Laughs.) But for now, I think there's still plenty that we humans can do.

• Source: https://www.ndw.jp/nintendo-interview-261023/#i-6

This felt incredibly relevant to the AI discussion

I noticed the NFT comparisons have completely vanished in 2026. The economic bubble predictions are still somewhat present but I think their presence has slightly diminished too. That said, comparing AI to NFTs may well be the worst tech prediction in history but I'm not seeing much if any accountability.

Sceptics of the tech's capabilities should be thoroughly discredited at this point. Why take any of their analyses or predictions seriously given their history of being incorrect about virtually everything regarding this technology?

You use it for what you don’t love doing, you keep doing the part you like.

I started staunchly anti.

I’ve landed at not wanting to use it, and not giving two shits if anyone does.

Tools help us with drudgery.

We need gyms cause we need to exercise and ever kind of built a world where it’s not naturally built.

We’ll need to do that with cognition.

I’m excited to see what someone creates with it that truly helps us as people.

It’s often the thing we struggle with most.

As an Artist, the creative step has no rules.

Was wrong of me to ever try to gatekeep.

No one’s Artist enough to stand that watch.

Sorry just a ramble but wanted to share, because I’ve struggled with this shit all year.

I’m an Ai free artist, who is ready to see what this newest form in its infancy can truly do.

We’re at the dusk of an age, but the dawn of another.

I’ll say this last bit for writing though.

Writers write, and editors edit.

I can’t and won’t read a wall of text, and I’m always grasping for the voice.

To me, it’s about connection to the person behind the work.

Leave your mark, and I’ll find it.

Happy Monday All

Right now, AI is being fed the product of mankind, their ideas, their creativity, their stories. People come up with new ideas while AI simply unearths derivatives and passes them as new. I'm afraid there will come a time, when AI is used by people to think, we will be stuck without new real creative ideas and thoughts and products.

Am I wrong? Will someone tell me this won't happen?

I am gonna be flamed for this but please people just stop saying being anti is ableist. It's more ableist to assume a disabled person can't make art without a machine doing it for them. It also does not change the fact that you just outsourced an idea to a machine you don't want to credit. Just ask an artist to do a piece for you. At least then your dime goes to a person making a living rather than a huge corporation.

Also before commenting "typical anti" or some unproductive crap, stop and think about how completely pointless it is.

Edit: There is clearly some context missing from this thing. When I wrote this, it was pretty late at night and I was steamed from an experience that day. It was hurried and pieces of a good argument were missing. I am sorry about that, I usually put more effort into these things. With that established, I want to reframe my original argument.
There are dozens of tools available for disabled artists. You can create art with anything and with any medium. I am not saying it is easy, I am saying it is possible and the disabled art community has been doing so for as long as art has existed. Is AI a tool for disabled artists? Maybe if they use it to refine lines rather than generating a whole image for them.

Furthermore, if anyone wants to use AI for their personal recreation, be my guest. The thing I want to get at is that for literally anyone, disabled or not, AI art is not your OWN art. Whether AI art is art is beyond this discussion, but it is not your own art, you did not create it. A machine create it. That is that. You have no finished work, you have no history with the piece of art. It is just a machine that makes things by using correctional gradients to refine images to the minimum threshold of error via reference to the images of thousands of actual artists. If you ask AI to create something, it takes a randomly seeded canvas and refines the lines and colors to create something with the least variability to the thousands of images of that thing.

Go head and try it if you want. Go onto google and create something that has limited assets (such as a specific scientific diagram or a niche game like pizza tower) and it will create something strikingly close if not a direct copy of someone's work. I am not a computer expert, I know this, but that is disturbing to me, especially if I went on to sell this to an art gallery. Taking the spots of some real artists because I want to make money on something I took two minutes to make.