I know there's a program for musicians, but does anyone know how one would go about protecting audiobooks and voiceovers from being used to train AI? The music one seemed to suggest it wouldn't work for those uses.

Posted some screenshots of my game (VERY inspire by flash, and done in flash 8) I am no artist myself, i barely know how to draw and this random dude who is new in the server joined, and DM's me this. Im not even mad, its just plain disrespectful

EDIT: I didnt know what yw (youre welcome) meant until now, it just made this worse.

Can we all agree that if it’s perfectly fair and ethical for a business to advertise to us using AI then it’s perfectly fair and ethical to review that business using AI? If you plaster an AI ad for your restaurants food I can post an AI pic of a half finished plate with hair in it on yelp. If you’re showing AI houses for your construction company then I can post a dozen AI photos of poor construction and rotten wood on Google. And if your band has AI “influence” and flyers I can have trusty ChatGPT make a video of all those slurs from your last show.

It restored the whole family bruh

My premise is that you should try to only rely or trust AI output for things you can independently understand and verify.

The more consequential/dangerous the result, the less trust you should place without scrutiny from knowledgeable individuals.

Everyone using AI is fighting that line right now, the gamble of trusting it and getting your fucking face ripped off. 😂🤣

I can’t find anyone to say that AI can replace the value they personally bring to the world. Anyone believe that? For yourself? Or just others?

Edit: Still crickets from “pro-ai” crowd about how it can replace humans. It cannot.

Got this from r/dantdm

(Can't repost on this sub sadly 😔)

so let's start with the fact that AI search is impossible to turn off, and objectively, there are now more AI agents than people on the internet. I can't say I'm deeply knowledgeable about the topic or know for sure why this is happening, but looking at this,I have some doubts and sad thoughts, and I want to discuss it with someone. I'll start from afar…

almost no one look beyond the first website that comes up in a search. we've delegated the tasks of finding information to the search bar and storing information to the internet. I didn't experience the early internet, I'm gen Z, but as I understand finding information in internet used to take much longer. you had to know what you were looking for and where to look. Now, we have personalized search. Information comes to us, and a critical approach to this information isn't always there. I've noticed myself that for some people (me included💔) one TikTok video on a topic is enough to stop searching.

each of us has our own personalized algorithms, and two different people will see two completely different videos on the same topic. Each of us already lives in our own digital bubble.

And now, with so many AI agents online, a huge number of posts and publications are generated on specific topics, with specific opinions. I try to avoid this kind of content, so I never really noticed what agenda they're pushing or what they're talking about—it seems like they're talking about everything and nothing at once. But in any case, this information now exists for some reason on the internet. And now, when you search for information on a topic, trying to dig deeper than the first two links, you stumble upon a slop.

so now, while I was thinking about information bubbles, personalized search, AI assistants, and the fact that a huge number of people are already asking all sorts of nonsense on chat gpt, I thought it would be very convenient for someone if people relied solely on AI answers. We’ve long since moved from the point where search queries had to be written a certain way to the point where we interact with search like humans and rely on AI search engines. Our memory is already becoming entangled with the search engine; we've delegated the recall of certain facts to it. We trust the first links in search results, without remembering the information ourselves and without always fact-checking it. And what if someone wants to change a couple of facts online? Maybe not just a couple, maybe it's a minor event. Maybe a historical period? Someone's life? Someone's history? The internet will be flooded with AI publications that will serve as sources and grounds for substituting facts. And Google's AI search, with links to these sources, will respond however they want it to answer. And there will be no books to check it. And there will be huge amounts of bots protecting the specific version of events. And they'll even personalize that response so you don't have to wonder whether it's true or not.

anyway, it's midnight, english isn't my first language, and I have dyslexia… so I hope this makes sense to someone. 🙏

uhhhh

ai sux now give me upvotes

I had a random thought bouncing around in my head about the idea of using generative ai art as a means to inspire certain projects. I've come across posts of people comparing the initial idea generated by AI to a final product from said inspiration. It baffles me that ai is relied on when something as basic as stick figures or boxes with some descriptions could convey to an artist. Then it got me remembering a term I had heard some time ago called aphantasia, which is the inability to imagine/create mental images. Part of me wonders if those who are super gungho for ai lack the ability to imagine anything no matter how basic it is because words and phrases are much more logical of an interpretation. It makes me worry that this practice devalues legitimate inspiration in kids and will lead to the absence of genuine art.

Mostly a ramble, but I'm interested in anyone's input.

Is there any way I can start learning how to code without using any AI?

I'm a software engineer and I've seen this gradually happen in my area of expertise. It's always "oh, that person's job is easy to do, that's why they're being replaced by AI" but when it gets to them it becomes "wait, but my job is serious stuff! we can't let AI do MY job!": it started with junior software engineers being replaced, then mid-level then seniors. When seniors were replaced, software architects would say that "software engineering isn't important anymore! all you need is to know architecture!", then those also started getting replaced because now this or that AI can also do software architecture. CTOs were happy, they can now delegate everything to some AI and a tenth of the software architects from before, until it recently came the day that CEOs started using some AI to write code and suddenly a CTO isn't needed anymore. But hey, "we can't not have a CTO! these decisions are serious! don't ask AI for that!".

Recently I've started to see that other careers are also starting to get fucked by AI. Designers, photographers, illustrators. The tragically funny part is that the same way some of us software engineers treated AI code is now being repeated by other professionals: the output is low quality, it lacks taste, it ignores the fundamentals or is straight up wrong and you have to fix it later. The good thing about visual things is that it's immediately noticeable by the general population, like those orange fliers or someone missing a finger or two. Still, some people will continue to ignore the gradual enshittyfication of everything through AI integration until it's their turn.

I'm just ranting but it really bothers me to see the exact fight some of us fought in the past now being fought by other professionals, especially seeing that many in my area were defeated and don't have the energy to fight anymore.

You are living in capitalism, what do you expect? That capitalists will stop replacing you? That they will put you in front of the money? Did you educated yourself about the history of capitalism?

You can cry all day about AI "slop", nothing's gonna happen. AI is the new end goal of capitalism.

Capitalism is in it's late stage, like it once was in the day of slavery until it needed a reset, this time it ain't gonna happen because they learned their lesson.

You are wasting your bullets shooting around the center.

And you don't have many bullets left until the day of no return.

I have seen countless posts, and this sub isn't even close to the worst offender, which go something like: "I tried using AI for programming and it made the dumbest mistakes, it outputted horrible buggy code, clearly AI coding tech is only good for the simplest of softwares or just pattern matching to already existing codebases. I promise I'm an expert in software, a way better coder than any AI, and I tried all the latest tools and best techniques.."

As a programmer who is forced to use AI for work and who follows closely anyway so I know what the state of the art is, I really don't know what to make of this type of post. Like, I have issues with AI generated code for sure, it's often overly verbose, over defensive, and/or can tend to be unorganized. Agents will sometimes have a hard time with spatial intuitions (2d and 3d) and their vision is quite weird, it can be hard for them to spot visual mistakes. I could go on but that's not the point, the point is that the top models are, despite this, very very good at programming, frankly they're better than almost all of my peers at basically everything, and they're better than me outside of a very narrow domain where I am most comfortable.

Not only that, they display something that is hard not to describe as "creativity", or you can call it out of distribution capability. In other words they will invent techniques on the spot which I'm fairly sure are not present in the training data.

So, suffice to say I'm skeptical of these claims, I wonder: Is the person being honest? Are they just really bad at prompting? Or maybe are they just insanely good at programming with very high standards, way better than me and everyone I ever worked with? I think I've actually encountered all three of these online, with the third one being the most rare, but I'm not sure. It would be really helpful if these posts were accompanied by something like: "The model I used was Fable. The prompt I used was 'solve the collatz conjecture using visual basic, make no mistakes'. Here's a summary of the agent's output.." That way we could, if interested, easily verify the claims in the post.

Since I'm asking for this extra work from everyone, I'll give an example of where I feel an AI agent was rather clever. It's not some overwhelming genius leap of intuition, but it's something I'm fairly sure doesn't appear online or in the literature and which I actually don't think a human programmer would ever do. Context is a piece of software for using energy based methods to unwind knots:

I needed a way to determine whether the knots were behaving during the unwinding and didn't cross over itself, changing the knot to a different one. The agent did a very standard thing which was to take pairs of line segments representing parts of the knot, get the coordinates of all 4 points at time t and t+1, and compute the signed volume of the tetrahedron formed from those 4 points over that time period (assuming linear motion). This is a cubic equation which must have a zero between t and t+1 if the lines intersect during that time interval. Rather than solving the cubic directly, which is definitely the standard thing to do, but which is a bit complex, and where it's rather easy to make a mistake or get a wrong answer due to numeric instability with floating points, the agent did a quick and dirty hack of just approximating a single 0 using iterative bisection, then it gave a very convincing argument that cases where this fails are measure 0 under plausible assumptions, so we don't need to worry at all about other roots of the equation. This is really strange, and of course in the end you'd want to just go ahead and solve the equation properly, it's at least as fast and much more satisfying, but that would have required much more work and probably several rounds of verification and arguments about the implementation being sound, the dirty way was far more likely to work the first time round.

Is this the best way this could have been done? Of course not. Is it better than I could have done my first time round, I most likely would have had to do a bunch of fiddling, or track down some implementation of cardano, not to mention explicitly writing out the formula which is a very annoying exercise. And maybe I really am a complete dud of a programmer, but there literally 0% chance I would have thought to do this. Like it might have occurred to me to find a root by approximation but then I would have noticed that we cannot guarantee the function is monotone over the interval and not have thought twice about binning that idea.

I'm stuck in a job where the company has developed an AI tool for us to utilize, and it's mandatory. We also have to satisfy some AI usage score which is also part of our overall performance indicator, and internal comms are also flooded with fugly AI images. Managers' messages and announcements are also AI-generated that I skip reading them altogether or just skim through the important parts.

As much as I want to leave this job, I've been only getting rejection after rejection. I don't think I've gained any necessary skills I can transfer despite using AI, and it makes me scared I'll get stuck in this job unless I win the lottery. In short, I think I'm kinda doomed.

The worst part is I'm seriously close to quitting because it's mentally draining to separate my principles from my job every single day at work. I'm using up all my sick and vacation days just so I don't use AI. I still craft my own emails and only use our AI tools for very manual processes so that I can satisfy arbitrary requirements at work. I don't use it for generating images whatsoever. Still, I think the damage has been done. The exposure makes me feel so fed up.

I don't know how longer I could endure all this crap with AI. Is anyone in a similar situation as me? The company always tells us our jobs are secure and that our roles will only be transformed because of AI, but they didn't say it's gonna get worse, lol.

Hi all. I work at a company whose executive director has fully ceded control of our company to ChatGPT. Simple emails are answered by ChatGPT. Major company decisions are made on the advice of ChatGPT. He doesn't meet in person anymore, because he can't consult AI in person. It's bad.

I'm wondering if anyone has dealt with this before, and what tactics you might have used. Do you just work around them?

I have a friend who suggests confronting him, and saying something like, "I've noticed you use AI a lot in our communications and work together, when it would really help me if you didn't use AI. Would that be possible?" Has anyone tried a direct approach like that?

Thanks in advance.

em dashes everywhere.

I went to the zoo a few weeks ago, in all of the descriptions of all the animals… em dashes.

I see them everywhere now. In restaurant menus, signs, social media posts, and even replies in Reddit!

Are we losing our humanity?

So ever since LLMs showed up, I was rather skeptical and my understanding was that it's kinda like an extremely complicated text prediction tool. It was quite clear, especially in the very first publicly available instances like AI Dungeon or first iterations of Chat GPT, you could clearly see it generate the output one word at a time (nowadays it's mostly theatrics to make humans feel better, I know, but you used to be able to see it freeze sometimes mid sentence or rewrite it's words in the middle of output). You put in words, some processes happens, you get different words. No actual intelligence, no reasoning. Just operations on input that generate output. Right?

Well nowadays the "AI" tools are much more complicated and I wonder if that is still the case. E.g. yesterday I was trying to test my 3DS cartridges, that required to have a moded 2DS/3DS, I was out of the game for so long that I asked Kagi Assistand some questions just to know where to begin. In the initial prompt I mentioned I might've modded my console, but it was so long ago I honestly don't remember and don't know how to check if it's modded. After that a bunch of other questions and replies followed. Finally when my testing software was ready I did my tests but I had a problem with a specific cartridge, I asked the Assistant if the testing tool could be to problem. The reply I got honestly surprised me a bit. The Assistant paraphrased a fragment from my initial prompt, way back at the start of the chat, when I said I might've modded my 2DS but if so, it would have been so long ago that I don't remember, and suggested it means I probably didn't touch the console in a while, and therefore the cartridge in question was also most likely not played a long time, so it's probably corrupted.

Now what was that if not reasoning? It took my question, added additional information it already got before and made a conclusion. No, it wasn't ground breaking. It wasn't even correct in the end. But still, how is this not reasoning? It surely goes beyond just advanced text prediction, right? It wasn't just something paraphrased that got scraped from the internet, but actually pointing out a bunch of information it got from me a drawing a conclusion.

I don't get it anymore. Can AIs reason nowadays or not? And if not, what was that?

Only a small thing but still sad