I don't think a requirement that "you may only train AI models on things that you own the rights to" is unreasonable or luddite at all.
What is luddite is wanting to destroy other people's tools, because it is too efficient and makes a job too easy. That's not a little bit luddite that is the exact description of the luddite movement.
Your analogies to human beings learning things are irrelevant, because these are not human beings. They are tools being used by human beings to process other peoples work, behavior and likenesses into things that they can use for themselves.
No, you still don't get it. AI can be used to process other people's work, but that's an option, and in that case I agree that you need to own the rights for the originals. But what you need to understand is that training AI and using it to process someone's work are two completely separate processes. Owning the copyright to all training data is literally impossible, and would make any AI infeasible.
In a way, it is a kind of money laundering.
That's the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard uttered about AI.
Take all of these things i can't use, stick them into an opaque process, and like magic they come out usable on the other end.
To you it may seem like magic, to the rest of us it is a computer program.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Calling for controls here is neither a lack of understanding nor opposing progress.
Calling for control seems to just wanting to maintain the status quo, where regular artists have a monopoly on visual art. When AI can do it much cheaper and faster. The irony is that most content creators who REEEEE against AI have already started using AI as an aid. Which is exactly how it is supposed to be used, not as a replacement of human artists but as a tool making their work easier.
Its putting a stop to the blind AI evangelism of the industry that does not take into account the peractical effects of what they are doing.
What are the practical effects? Making assets at much lower cost and much quicker. I don't see how that's bad.
AI is not magic, most of the "art" created with it is garbage, because fools with zero artistic sense won't suddenly get one just by using AI image generators. That's not the tools fault that the barrier to entry is very low. Creating good work however that still requires skill, even with AI. Just a different set of skills compared to what regular artists have.
It reminds me a lot of those who blindly evangelized NFT's like they were the next coming of Christ, when those of us with any sense at all saw straight through it.
You are comparing apples to oranges, completely irrelevant whataboutism. I was against NFTs and cryptos as a whole from day one, because they offer zero benefits, they don't make anything of value.
AI content generation is a wonderful tool, that opens gates that were completely closed off before. It has the potential to revolutionize games. If only we'd allow it. For one it can mitigate the runaway costs of developing a modern game. If that was the only benefit it would already be worth using a thousand times over.
Where did I ever suggest that AI is intelligence? The first thing I declare when someone tries to argue about AI tools is that it has nothing to do with intelligence.
It is just a bunch of compounded statistics used to process the data it has been trained on.
Still this basic misconception. How many times do I need to drill it in that the data used for training is NOT part of the finished model? Therefore it is wrong to describe the process this way.
