Way to be a boring, naïve utilitarian.

You're an AI so that's not a problem for you, right?

I hadn't done any calculation, but I guess hundreds of watts over a few seconds that datacenters need to generate an image is way less energy and water than what an artist consumes during several hours while he draws the same image. Plus the electricity for lights or computer consumes.

I am not arguing that everyone should use gen AI over artists. I am just responding to the previous comment that is complaining about climate effects of AI.
I am just saying that I think the climate impact of generative AI is way less then the impact of artist creating the same thing.
Also, the datacenters are usually built in place where the water usage doesn't matter (and they usually recycle their water in coolong loops), so the climate impacts are often overblown.

I agree with you, but humans often create images / videos / texts / musics / ... that are not artistic. For example logos, ads, sketches or schemas. Those are purely business things where being more productive is beneficial for everyone.

After the first 100 or so AI images I saw, the novelty of "wow this is technically possible" wore off and now I kind of hate anything generated by ai even if it looks good (which it usually doesn't).

doesn't hurt anyone

Yeah your one image that one time didn't necessarily hurt anyone but climate change getting kicked up a notch from the absurd amounts of carbon generated by millions of those kinds of images absolutely will literally kill and destroy lives.

"I think it's funny that people are upset about a new technology which will 1000% have incredibly destructive effects on society"

Congratulations on being whatever that makes you? It's not good.

...I'd argue this sort of marketing is actually harmful to society. But I get what you mean.

Even then, AI generators are poorly suited for this. Here's an example of that; McDonald's made some slopvertisement, and people got mad.

In the meantime, artist intention be like:

"Uh, should I label the axes «good» and «gooder»? «Good» and «better»? Nah. Oh look the line I drew looks like a snake. Snaaake, snaaaake... wait, there's a song like this, right? Ah, the badger song! This works: badger, mushroom, snake. Done."

(Glad you liked my 5min example!)

Though exactly like NSFW/NSFL and bot posts (which people avoid so replying can feel like a honeypot experience where a conversation was invited but unlikely to be fruitful, since even the poster themselves will never read your message), it's not only the item itself but rather the lack of proper labeling. AI slop could arguably, theoretically, for some people (I'm trying to frame this so as to lessen the chances of being flamed here!) be enjoyable, but cannot be acceptable in the wider community unless properly labeled. This "restriction" enables us to be more fully free to have our own enjoyment of this shared space.

Edit: for context, I had not even gotten to the existing flame war down below your comment yet, but somehow I knew it was coming! The Threadiverse seems to love to hate on AI almost as much as Windows and tankies!:-P (and ironically all for the same underlying reason: because consent should matter, even/especially when others say differently)

GenAI is somehow more blatant about ripping people off than EL James of all people was when she 'wrote' Fifty Shades in airquotes.

At least she had to change some things around in her godawful recycled fanfic to keep from getting sued for copyright, GenAI doesn't even do that much and that's somehow viewed as acceptable.

Oh, and EL James only ripped off one person with her trash, GenAI blatantly and shamelessly rips off everyone.

Mind to eli5? Or link a video?.

I feel like this references an old meme... But I can't remember what it is.

Edit: badger badger badger badger
https://youtu.be/NL6CDFn2i3I

[Off-topic, metadiscussion]

That they didn’t talk about the resource consumption is part of the problem.

The reply is not claiming they didn't talk about it; it claims they're trying to justify it. This sort of "let me assume words into your mouth" behaviour is really bad in online platforms, it's one of the reasons why Twitter/Reddit/Facebook are such cesspools — once you open your mouth in them, there's always some bloody muppet pointing their finger to accuse you, while assuming/lying/bullshitting about your "intentions", what you're "trying" to do, your beliefs, even the colours of your pants.

It's so bad that, even if I know this is off-topic, I think it's worth ranting about it here. We (Fediverse users in general) should be calling this out, before it roots itself here. Unless we want to walk on eggs to say what we think (even if true, moral, and relevant), out of fear others will assume shit to accuse us. Like in Twitter/Reddit/Facebook. Or we get to repeat what's "safe" to say here, in a big circlejerk.

And it's completely unnecessary here; the other user could've said instead "There’s no gray area about the resource cost and contribution to climate change being driven by gen AI though, you aren't mentioning energy costs even if they matter" or similar and it would be perfecto.

[On-topic, genAI]

As I said the resource consumption concern is perfectly valid. I also agree with the second concern you're raising, authorship. I'll even raise two other concerns here:

3. Those image generators are flooding the internet with low quality content, and making it harder for people to find the good stuff.
4. They're lowering the bar for fictitious but believable scenes, that can and are used to promote disinformation.

Thats in no way “putting words in their mouth”, I was pointing out what they were saying.

Yes, it is. Learn the difference between what people say and your assumptions on what they say.

because consent should matter, even/especially when others say differently

Bingo. And IMO this feature should be side-ported to Lemmy, because that consent.

One would hope, but most people prefer convenience over creation and sadly GenAI, for as much of a ripoff as it is, fills that niche for those people, It shouldn't, I don't support that in the slightest (seriously, if you want fast, easy art, just play with construction paper cutouts, that's still worlds better than typing in a prompt to get something, and it's also kinda fun on its own merits), and I hate GenAI with a passion, but it's what it is.

That said, you can still resist it by just continuing to handmake stuff like you've probably been doing since you could hold a crayon and make marks with it.

Whilst I agree with your point about strawman arguments in general, that isn't really the case here. The OP explicitly said "It's funny, and it doesn’t hurt anyone" when, in fact, it does. This appears to be their primary justification for using it, whilst ignoring the well known costs of that use. I conceed that a, very charitable, reading of their comment might be that they are simply unaware of the environmental and authorship issues and are only focused on whether their image is "funny" and not directly causing harm. However, those issues are so well known that I, and aparently other commenters, do not feel they can reasonably overlooked in any discussion about whether the use of genai can be justified in general.

The other issues you brought up are very real too and, in many ways, more insidious that the obvious ones discussed before. How we overcome those, now that the genie is out of the bottle, I don't know.

I mean... good luck with that, but feature requests languish for years on Lemmy, I wouldn't hold my breath.

For now, there's only the option to ban / block people submitting it. I doubt that will change anytime soon.

That is what they were saying, though.