I think the issue there is that, in the absence of the AI poster, people will still dislike the "worse" poster.
Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are:
* use AI and some people hate it on principle,
don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap,
don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.
As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.
Do people really care much about how beautiful a human made poster look like? I don’t think I’ve ever seen that as an issue, a poster doesn’t have to look fancy. Though if I love any art piece then learn later it was made by AI I will for sure update my judgement and dismiss it as if I was tricked in the first place. You’re way better using Word art for your poster than delegating to an AI if you don’t want to receive negative attention
None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output.
None of those things are battlegrounds for AI art complaints since AI usage is still minimal there. The AI complaints are about anime, posters, YouTube videos, etc.
There was recently an anime in which they used one AI generated background in the ending theme, which spurred countless complaints. It's common knowledge that anime animators are badly paid and work on insane schedules, so they used AI to cut corners. How many of those complainers proposed better wages and less pressure for animators, vs demanding free replacement of the background at no cost on their own? This is entitlement.
When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes, or whether they only complain that they're not getting non-AI at no additional charges.
I don't really understand your argument. So because me in America was not able to vouch for Japanese labor laws, I don't support human art? My country isn't exactly in the nest position to judge other countries's economic budgets. Especially in the arts.
>When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes,
You act like prices for media isn't going up while also enshittifying at the same time. Netflix, Xbox, theatres, DVD/BD box sets, game consoles, and so much more did not need AI as an excuse to raise prices.
This is about paying for better-than-AI human artwork, not any human artwork. Would they pay premium for non-AI? That matters much more than whether they pay when they have no choice.
The point isn't whether you pay for art when no AI alternative exists. The point is whether you would be willing to pay premium for non-AI artwork, vs whether you'd just continue to complain about AI usage while expecting non-AI at no additional charge.
Again, you're making a lot of odd assumptions about how I consume media with zero support whatsoever. I donate to Patreons, I buy albums and games, I even buy merch here and there. Prices have raised over the years and I only spent less because I lost my primary source of income, not because I'm complaining about indie artists asking for too much money.
ai art is worthless to me so I'm not going to pay at all for anything making blatant use of it. So why would I use something I won't pay for as an excuse to complain about prices for stuff I do value? How about we wait for something actually approaching quality to come out and debate over instead of playing theoreticals with that which does not exist yet?
If these AI productivity gains had 4 years to work on a project it should be making something impressive by now, no? So where's this magical collection of productivity that's disrupting art and driving down wages?
Which critic is proposing funding better artwork, made by good human artists? Sometimes, silence says more than words. Non-decision is also a decision.
So you can't criticize something without coming up with some fantasy plan that will only exist in whatever corner of social media you left that comment, to make that criticism somehow now valid?
No, this is merely about what is sustainable, not morals. The supply is shifting towards increasingly AI generated. Almost all of the complainers are consumers and do not change the supply side of things. Until they do, the ultimate result is clear: they will die on a hill.
If you want to die on a hill while feeling morally superior, be my guest.
I think this short exchange highlights the problem really well.
Most people are uninterested in paying for those services, in part because the internet has trained them that information is free and in part because of fairly extreme polarization in opinions that seems to be everywhere.
Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good, but that information was something the news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago, reinforcing the idea that information should be free.
If there going to make money long term, they're going to have to find a new way to monetize. People are actively blocking the ads and don't want to pay for yet another subscription to content they don't access that often.
> news companies were giving away for free not that many years ago
Haven't either ads or paywalls/subscriptions always been the primary way that news companies paid for journalists/sysadmins/servers, etc? What was the funding source 'not that many years ago' if not ads or paywalls/subscriptions?
> Arguing that people should pay for the information they consume now is well and good
Is arguing such a thing "well and good"? I'm not complaining, but my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from will pay their costs (as they said ads and paywalls/subscriptions were out) got downvoted - I'm not even sure that goes as far as arguing that people should help pay for content that they want to receive.
> my GP comment merely asking how the other user expected the sites he wants to get content from
In most cases, I am not particular about which site I read a syndicated government quote on, so "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case.
The use case is more "If I search for information, and a site shows up in the results claiming to have it, but when I am baited in, the content switches to an advertisement which I cannot bypass without paying: then I do not want that site to show up in my search results anymore".
1. Doesn't that just bring us back to the questions that were explicitly raised in the parent/GP comments, such as if you don't want paywalls or subscriptions, then does that mean that you strongly prefer viewing ads (so that the servers, people, etc get paid)?
2. "read a syndicated government quote" - actually, maybe this is the more important thing - I would strongly recommend that you change your news sources so that you are not solely consuming just whatever the government says - instead, switch to news sites that actually employ (and pay) real journalists, editors, etc to not just report what the government is saying, but also to report on the majority of news that the government isn't talking about, and even if it's a topic that the government talks about, to also report what's happening on the ground, to compare government actions to historical precedents, etc etc etc. There are even sites out there that will evaluate a wide variety of news sources based on everything from right/left leaning, to reliability. If you need any help finding some, please let me know.
3.
> "sites I want to get content from" isn't an accurate description of the use case
If I can't convince you to switch your sources to sources that employee real journalists, editors, etc (instead of simply regurgitating government claims), then I guess the accurate description for your case in particular would "sites that you want to just hear government claims repeated from"? (Although I do hope that I can convince you to switch away from your current use case.)
"they should be examining their life choices." based on your world view though. We became a very boring race only optimizing our lives for work. No alien race would look at us and think we are smart spending so much time doing things which do not add value to our society just because we can't organize ourselves better.
Just because we conditioned ourselves like this, doesn't mean its right or wrong.
And this article doesn't give us enough insight to even judge.
Birth control is not perfect. 99% is very little in comparision to the amount of sex happening in a population of 8 billion people.
I work in this field, and I've never seen a device that isn't dead simple be able to clear the FDA for $200k. I've definitely never seen a medical device with software anywhere near this.
The reason people don't switch to medical devices is because even a fairly simple device without software or electronics can still take between $750k and $1.2M to develop and clear the FDA. Adding software is a cost & time multiplier.
Meta: down votes here prove no such thing. If you are downvoted it's because you read the article that had nothing to do with politics, the comment on a vision of heaven and hell that had nothing to do with politics, and then you made it about something that is very politicized in the US.
Both the article and comment you commented on eschewed a trite political message and tried to say something real and human.
It’s not as simple as that and you know it. There are upsides and downsides to both systems.
Personally, I’d be fine with universal healthcare on the state level, but not the federal. The fact that I have thoughts like that shows it’s not as simple as “durr everyone deserves healthcare.” Of course they do, but a universal healthcare system implemented poorly means that everyone gets really bad healthcare.
But the parent wasn't doing that. He was just taking the opportunity to dunk on his outgroup, by insinuating that people who are opposed to universal healthcare are selfish people who would rather hurt themselves than help others (which you will see is patently untrue if you actually get to know those people, but I digress).
If the parent had instead chosen to give a thoughtful response focusing more on a positive message (say, exploring how we should do more to help others and how universal healthcare can be a facet of that), that would've been fine. But yet another post of "my outgroup is evil" doesn't teach us anything or lead to good discussion.
"please convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I have a very strongly held opinion that I consider to be an unshakeable fact, and by the way I'm asking you for evidence while providing none of my own. But it's a fact."
Just ask your favorite AI "How U.S. compares to others countries in healthcare metrics?" and you'll probably get a detailed list of how U.S. healthcare is more expensive than many other countries while ranking quite low in outcomes: life expectancy, maternal and infant mortality, chronic disease, ... (and also having part of the population out of the insurance network)
You are entitled to have whatever opinion you want on the matter, but that doesn't change the facts.
Sometimes people believe that if the US isn’t doing it already, there isn’t a better way, because somehow the best nation on the planet would be doing it already, it’s blind patriotism, rather than accept their might be better solutions. It why we care more about the flag or eagle than the US Constitution.
It seems to work fine on a scaled down desktop browser though, and the existing game UI should be suitable enough to fit on a standard phone screen, even if the text is a bit hard to read.
I think OP just made a small mistake with some of the CSS/JS that handles resizing the game window on mobile viewports. In some cases the buttons are outside of the game, and in some cases the game window isn't using up the full screen real estate.
Since this is idealogical, a business owner's choices are: * use AI and some people hate it on principle, don't use AI and don't pay enough and some people hate it because it looks cheap, don't use Ai and pay a bunch more and people don't hate it...maybe, depending on style and skill of the artist.
As a business owner, it's not an encouraging situation.
reply