Taking the time and effort out of something is exactly what strips it of its beauty

Beauty is not just an “idea” that someone has and needs to get out onto a medium

It is a process and journey that a person undergoes to get said idea onto said medium

That journey often plays out very differently than the person expects. Things change, the art is different from the idea, and the person learns and grows

Our modern society is so obsessed with results, competition, and efficiency that we no longer see the truth: the journey is to be enjoyed, and from enjoying the journey, comes beauty

I encourage you to meditate on why our society is so sick and depressed right now, and extrapolate to how we got here, before assuming this will be a good thing for society

I saw a quote earlier this week that I'll copy here:

> I considered renting out sound stages, flying to exotic desert locations, getting a scuba team to shoot the underwater scenes in an aquarium, commissioning custom-made Teletubbies costumes, hiring SAG actors, building dozens of miniature sets, and spending my life savings on making this video. But using AI just seems slightly easier.

Making short films with AI is still incredibly effortful. If you're being careful and diligent, it takes days to "shoot" and edit the entire shot list for a 5-7 minute short.

Would you say that the creators of today's animated TV shows, in mechanizing production with Toon Boom Studio, have stripped the beauty away? I still found "Bojack Horseman" to be a salient dramedy.

Would you say that Pixar, in using motion capture and algorithms to simulate light, physics, and movement, is cutting away the journey?

This is a new adventure and new level of abstraction we're embarking upon.

I'm already thinking about the next way points: real time mocapped improv for D&D campaigns and live community theater fantasy and science fiction productions.

These are tools that bring us to new places, that enable us to tell new stories. Previously you'd have to win Disney budget approval to tell a story matching your vision - now you don't.

You think landscapes are created in an instant?

Nope. A CEO can't essentially steal from shareholders, but otherwise they have extremely broad latitude in how they engage in business.

There is no legal or moral imperative to make antisocial, unethical, or short term decisions that "maximize shareholder value."

This is something that morally weak people tell themselves (and others) to justify the depravity they're willing to sink to in order to satiate their greed.

The concept doesn't even make sense: different shareholders have different priorities and time horizons. A businessperson has no way to know what it objectively means to maximize their returns. They must make a subjective determination, and they have extremely broad latitude to do that.

If I run an AI business, then people using more AI means more business. If noone uses my AI then I go out of business

Increasing shareholder value can be done in the broadest sense by just increasing business

If I fund my own business, I can control growth and _choose_ ethics over profits, in the hope that stunting growth is acceptable if my customers value ethics too, and that whomever I someday pass my company to shares these values

If I take capital investment, I now have a contractual agreement to provide returns on that investment. Yes failure to adhere can result in lawsuits or legal penalties. Or I can be fired/voted out for failing to bring high enough returns. I now _cannot_ choose ethics over profits, due to the conflict of interest of self-preservation

So you are correct - there is no legal or moral contract to behave unethically, but there is instead a strong systemic and self-preserving incentive to do so

I think we almost agree here, but you make it sound as if the exec can simply stand up and do the right thing here. I argue the exec will simply be pushed aside for another

This is what people refer to when they talk about the binds that hold modern day mega-corps

If you yourself are an exec, I personally think you can understand these truths and work with them as best you can, and still be a good human being of course, but that there are lines that should not be crossed to keep a job

It is a collective issue we need to solve that of course starts with each individual seeing the true situation with kindness and compassion

You’re just saying there are incentives for unethical behavior? Yeah, obviously.

They don’t need to be excused by “well that’s their obligation.” It’s not! Actually, a person’s obligation is to act morally even when there are incentives otherwise, which is approximately all the time for nearly every person.

This is something children learn (lest they be excluded from their society) yet Very Smart People in the upper echelons of the business world conveniently forget.

> If I take capital investment, I now have a contractual agreement to provide returns on that investment. Yes failure to adhere can result in lawsuits or legal penalties.

This is not true. If you've signed a contract that says anything like this, consider getting a real lawyer.

When will people wake up and see that venture capital is driving execs to show growth, overhire, then RIFF to consolidate wealth and drive profit metrics?

When will people see that technology and AI is not the solution to save the world, but one that is actively killing it? One that is actively driving us apart and radicalizing us?

As a kid, I grew up loving sci fi, games, and tech. It is a shame these same dreams drive so us to destroy our planet and civilization. Our curiosity is going to be our end

As the zen parable says, the man is flying by on a horse and is asked “where are you going?”, to which he replies, “i dont know, ask the horse!”

I hope people can self reflect and challenge themselves on if what they believe is really right. The only way is for us to open our views

Intel is not funded by venture capital.

You could remove venture and it would still be accurate

Sorry, but I don’t find it a very insightful comment.

(Removed comment about it being AI-generated since that might be unfair.)

Its not AI generated. Sorry friend. Even if it was, assess the message, not the medium :)

The new fabs were funded by PE.

PE is not VC. VC is targeted at early-stage companies, which Intel is not.

Replace VC with shareholders - the point is the same. Someone wants more money out than in. That same someone doesn’t have long-term incentive to care about our future, or even the customer

To achieve that, business owners do as I mentioned and more. Not out of maliciousness or spite, but out of necessity

Depending on the PE firm, it could make the worst VC look like an angel

Not really. Intel made an agreement with a PE firm while well into building the fabs. In terms of the overall capital spent, most of it is Intel's.

1. These models have been trained on private data many a time without permission

2. Making something public isn’t always a choice made by the creator

3. Making something public does not denote fair use, this is why copyright (albeit arguably a poor solution) exists

4. These LLMs consolidate wealth into a small group using outputs from a larger, often less wealthy group (creatives) without fair compensation

1. I’m disinclined to believe that purely because of the inconvenience of doing so. Much easier to scrape the entire internet.

2. How so? If you sell your stuff and someone makes it public, it’s still your choice to sell it.

3. That’s only true as far as recreating the content is concerned. Reading and viewing is by definition fair use for publicly visible information.

4. Define fair compensation. I feel like the creatives are just upset that their work is “easy” to replicate with these models. And that isn’t even true, they never appear as unique or interesting as truly new work.

1. If scraping the entire internet is easier, but doesn’t give me as good of results as including private or licensed data, I will train my LLM on private data or lose the race. It is not about easy. Just look at some of the lawsuits against OpenAI: https://originality.ai/blog/openai-chatgpt-lawsuit-list

2. Think about this - what you are saying is that you can’t sell anything without also making it public. These are not the same thing. I sell something to get value from my labor. I make something public to get eyes on it. The whole issue is that people who want to privately sell things have their work being undercut by LLMs

3. LLMs are recreating the content

4. Take Miyazaki. He spends his whole life developing a unique art style and skill. Years. He makes his living and provides a living for others with it. The value of that _used to be_ the movies he was paid to make and the revenue they generated. Now LLMs can create his work for free, and he doesn’t see a dime whenever someone converts their profile picture into his style. This is the ethical problem - he is not compensated, let alone the ethics of upending artists years of work for the sake of it

These LLMs primarily distribute intellectual and creative wealth from media conglomerates to anyone on earth with $20. (Without fair compensation, agreed)