Duh. As these models get better they’ll become more widely used by enterprises to save costs. That’s why these tech companies spent so much developing them… to sell them. The solution isn’t banning AI btw, it’s providing UBI to those most affected
this post was submitted on 14 Jun 2024
250 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59422 readers
2897 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you're providing it to only some people, it's not very universal now is it
Providing income universally to those most affected. It’ll never happen anyways though let’s be real. Look at our current politics.
Unemployment already exists?
What's UBI ?
Universal basic income
Universal Basic Income
Universal basic income
Urinal ... Infection
... Butthole ... ?
thats why you shouldnt get your butthole peed on
They not going sell them, but lease them.
Making everyone using them on a subscription model then when AI replace nearly everyone so company are stuck with AI jack the price as high as possible for ever and ever and ever
Tomato tomato. They use them for sales and revenue
The same NY Times suing Open AI for copyright infringement. Rules for thee, but not for me.
If the NY Times’ case has any merit, then the art generated by AI is also based on copyright infringing models.
The winners of a system don't have an incentive to undermine the rules. Quite the opposite. The NYT wants these rules because it would benefit from them. There are at least 2 image generators that adhere to capitalist ethics. I don't know what Claro uses, but I see no indication that they are being uppity.
Damn, good point, forgot about their lawsuit
Per the software website (which the article links to), I don't see any mention of generative AI. Their "ai image intelligence" only makes mention of tagging images for SEO. https://www.pixometry.com/en/publishing/ai-image-intelligence/
Yeah, it's basically a smart photo filter for color-correction, object cut-outs, masking, etc:
https://www.pixometry.com/en/pixometry-the-new-name-for-elpical-software/elpical-claro-pixometry/
This feels more like consolidating positions in an art department post-Photoshop because you don't need photo editors to dodge and burn physical negatives in a darkroom any more.
They are just practicing using AI to help out with the workload
