• araneae@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    Regular, non-expert internet users find it interesting, or even amusing, to generate images or videos using AI and to send that media to their friends. While sophisticated media aesthetics find those creations gauche or even offensive, a lot of other cultures find them perfectly acceptable. And it’s an inarguable reality that millions of people find AI-generated media images emotionally moving.

    You’re describing the internet equivelant of ignorance and figurative poverty, where people don’t have the knowledge or the resources to make better choices (fast food deserts, faith healers, the PowerBall) because they are institutionally deprived. This is the same class of users/consumers that big companies look for those exact same qualities in to shill the exact same AI garbage to because they don’t know anybetter. This article is suggesting Mozilla flood the streets of a poor neighborhood with their own crank because their crank is cut less. I see the argument as bad, I see the premise as evil, and I see the rhetoric as manipulative. Respectfully, no.

    • frozenspinach@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Superbly well said! And essential for understanding and unpacking what “the people want it” really means when leveraged in arguments.

      Now for the but - by the sake token, there are applications of LLMs that can step in to do grunt work we don’t want to do (e.g. an on-the-go greasemonkey replacement that can change pages in some customized way in response to natural language requests), or engagements with art and creativity that, to the satisfaction of everyone, is something other than slop. But it shouldn’t be used to advocate for constantly lowering the lowest common denominator.