pouët.net

We made a demo about it. Your turn.

The fact that you are complaining about it speaks otherwise. Go ahead, you do you.

So we are all represented. The smaller but very vocal AI-hater group that will say "Fuck AI" to anything and refuse debate, the larger group that realizes the inevitability of AI and are sad/scared/resigned, the actual AI-users (which includes some optimists) and the AI "get over it, everything will be made by AI"-bros...

Would be nice with a place without the extremes and with a more open debate, but it sure as hell is not pouet ;)

bye then!

AI bros definitely need new material. This is getting very tiresome after years of the same shitty talking points.

Great, you're leaving! I guess that's a start...

Ahh the nuanced and open debate culture we have all learned to expect from people who like using llms.

Imagine that you love swimming at your local public pool. You have a bunch of friends that you like to go swimming with. Maybe you have races occasionally, or you participate in water polo or some diving competitions or whatnot. Then a bunch of people decide to come to the pool and start shitting in it. Some of them shit only a little bit, while some make huge turds and exclaim how they're floating on the water. Some hold competitions for who makes the biggest turd while others throw shit in the pool and rejoice when the water turns brown.

My question to you is: is pool-shitting inevitable? Should it happen? Should it be allowed to happen? And, most importantly, what's a reasonable amount of shitting in the pool?

@uncle-x:

I think most of this revenue (esp. with the more expensive plans) comes from businesses. And these live in a world, where a part chooses to go this step and others have to decide.


One could think that rockets and space travel have a similar story (first small scale researchers like Goddard and Ziolkovsky, then the industrialization by the nazis, then taking over their work by USA and SU until it became a civil technology, to finally be heavily influenced by Musk and his Mars dream). And maybe nuclear physics as well. All this and AI (esp. GenAI like LLMs, stable diffusion etc.) has dangerous but also fasci.. I mean: fascinating sides.

So what are the shares of contribution of people to these efforts at each level and how much are these motiviated by what? Curiosity, taking part in modern research topics, feeding the family, having a career in some R&D, make money, control the world...

What is it and who is the enemy?

What does this have anything to do with what i wrote? I did not mention revenue anywhere.

As for the second half of your message. Why the whataboutism? In fact why are you even replying? The message wasn’t for you.

@uncle-x:
Sorry if it sounded like whataboutism. I was referring to your strict genAI=fascism stance by providing examples of other tech/research milestones, where one could argue the same but in hindsight we know more about it. And GenAI looks like being inmidst this trajectory.

It has it's bad sides. I think that not the most part of what happened was done in bad faith if I got the background infos right and didn't miss important parts. Ofc. the Trump support for the AI bros is a thing about the US. They are in an AI war with China.

The revenue part was related to the billion(s) of people.

I go back to the sidelines for now. ;)

Have a nice evening!

@dresdenboy: none of the technical advances you mentioned occured in an even approximately similar political and economical configuration like the one that can be observed in connection with AI today. most importantly, space travel and rockets were developed (more or less) outside the sphere and the laws of the market. while genAI in the form we currently have is 100% geared towards profit maximisation, without any concern for human welfare, with the owners of this technology holding political and financial power that not even someone like henry ford came even close to holding in his day.

however, more on point and moving away from the political economy of AI, i am surprised and shocked how many sceners fall into the AI trap without even noticing that, unlike all these talks about "scene being dead" in the previous decades, they are for the first time actually actively advancing the scene's death. the scene's trademark is technical skill. it has always been more craft than art. the switch from coding to prompting is conscious self-deskilling that will render the demoscene completely void of any purpose of existence. this shift is not comparable to any previous technological shifts during the scene's life course. the shifts from assembly to high languages, from coding-everything-yourself to demo frameworks, from software rendering to 3d acceleration etc. never involved such a total deskilling as the current shift.

another point: all this talk of "AI is here, you have to deal with it or perish" completely misses the point when it comes to a "useless" computer subculture like the demoscene. this is not work. we do this for fun. no one forces no one to adapt to anything. unlike some workforce pressured into AI usage by cost-squeezing management, the scene can absolutely afford to stay AI-free.

i am pleased that some of the scene's most important players are leading the resistance against AI, and hope this firm attitude will prevail. if the scene manages to keep the 100% hand-/humancraft approach, it will become even stronger and more relevant against the backdrop of total ai-fication of programming. if not, it will become meaningless and will ultimately perish.