General Discussion

trained on stolen IP as everyone here should - to be unethical, unless you're forced to do so by your job or school.

There's nothing "fun" about playing with generative AI that's built on theft, as the head of the American Federation of Teachers found out on Bluesky last winter when she foolishly posted AI slop there:

American Federation of Teachers president thought AI slop would be "fun" to share on Bluesky. Big mistake.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220895596

If you support unions (DUers should) but still think it's OK to post AI slop, see the hundreds of Bluesky replies
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100220895856

Using genAI tools built on theft is a slap at everyone whose work was stolen to train the AI, and it looks especially bad in a forum for liberals who are expected to support workers against exploitative corporations.

It isn't patronizing to point out that there are forums specifically for people to show off what they generated with AI. Those forums are the best places for it, and if AI users are determined to keep using it and want feedback from others who use it a lot and can give helpful suggestions, that's where they'll get that feedback.

Anyone using genAI and posting everything they generated could fill up an entire 30-page forum on DU in a day, because it requires little or no effort or even thought. But no matter how much they post, what they have AI generate doesn't represent their own work, or communicate much of anything about them except that they enjoy using genAI and don't care about all the harm it does, or about the fact it was trained illegally on stolen intellectual property.

That's why what's AI-generated is inappropriate on a board for human communication. Individual AI users and fans might think it's okay for them if there aren't a lot of others currently posting AI slop, but if even a small group did, this board would quickly drown in it.

As YouTube and Facebook are now drowning in AI slop and AI misinformation, making it harder and harder for people who put real thought and work into what they create and post to get any attention.

I'm not going to pretend that there's any real creativity and artistry in using AI. I have too much respect for real artists.

And I have too much respect for research and facts to think posting AI-generated text here, including AI overviews, is a good thing.

If I pretended that people using genAI were actually being creative and expressing themselves - their own creativity and thoughts - THAT would be patronizing.

As I posted here before, AI users don't have to know anyrhing about what AI generates for them. They could give a music generator the name of a type of music someone else gave to them, a type of music they'd never heard of, and if it's in the training data, the AI will spit something out. Same thing with the Latin name of a plant or animal that means nothing to the AI user. Same thing if they requested an essay about a historical event or figure they'd never heard of.

The main "work" most people using genAI do is sorting through what are often lots of AI-generated options to find one that seems most appealing, and then posting it as "their" work. When it's much more like shopping online with keywords than real work and creativity.