Comments by "clray123" (@clray123) on "Drew Gooden" channel.

You can still get a yummy microwave dish without calling yourself anything. Which is what 99% of people do. The straw 1% he whines about are his fellow wannabe artists.
6
@Nguyen_The_Hoa So in conclusion your art and drawing is even crappier than a mediocre AI.
5
@austinbrooks2982 lol am I supposed to be impressed?
4
Ehh? What is so hard in reproducing a fake cake?
3
But nobody except "artists" give a shit. Most people want to drink a beer, not brew it. These AI tools are supposed to let you have a beer without having to pay the brewery. That's really all there is to it.
3
@austinbrooks2982 Well, some people shit on a piece of paper and call it abstract art. Surely art is in the eye of the beholder, not some YT chump.
3
@Shiralkian If u can deliver the cake for 1/10 price of the baker, sure, I will hire you to do my baking!
3
@metaldude4563 If you are such a creative crafts master, surely you will find a creative way to imitate a poor imitation... and still make it taste half-decent.
2
@heavenseek Oh, but actually the scraping is not unauthorized. It's authorized. You either authorize the companies when you agree to use their services (nobody forces you to) or they buy licensing rights for their training material outright (e.g. from stock photo sites, to which the creators sold their rights = authorized them previously). If you can prove that your work is being reproduced without authorization, go ahead and sue OpenAI, they have a lot of money.
2
@hauntedsunsets Ehh crappy art is crappy, quite regardless of who or what produced it.
2
@xxzavier42 He implied it very strongly by giving advice to his fellow creative prodigies about having to practice their passion for 10 years.
2
@hedgehog3180 You do that, darling. I will buy your cakes. (In fact, I already do, except the frozen cakes available in the supermarket are not at all shitty.)
2
@Shiralkian Ah, you see, that is just a baseless accusation/fantasy. Because the AI bakers are NOT stealing and selling your cakes. Rather, they are just selling cakes they made according to a recipe they reconstructed after BUYING your cakes. In most cases they even paid you for that recipe (by purchasing copyrights/licenses to the training material). And guess what, you can do that, too. Buy a cake, learn the recipe, produce a cheaper, better cake.
2
You should thank your woke politics for it, not AI. There is nothing which keeps you from training an AI model on a bunch of ugly mofos. If there is demand for it, it will be made. But not if the platform operators proactively censor phrases like "ugly people" or remove content labeled as such.
1
@metaldude4563 Nothing prevents the cake expert to set the price for their imitation of an imitation masterpiece.
1
@IcarusTyler For me the opposite development seems just as likely - people bringing real images of cakes, getting accused of them being AI-generated by some lazy ass Marxist baker who would rather do boring shit or better yet get money for free rather than make any effort. After all, "the rich" are going to take all of "his" money anyway, so why bother.
1
@mdoterlin Do you really want to consume food made by a machine? Because unless you are a farmer, you most certainly do. Same for clothes, furniture, etc etc
1
This guy sounds like he has not discovered the concept of opportunity cost (or cost of labor), but to be fair he's made a decent amount from morons like myself watching this YT video.
1
The dorky generic text that you generated at the end of the video only proves that you, yes you, cannot use the generator tool properly. Instead of "just asking the computer to generate the video ending" you are supposed to train that computer on YOUR video endings first, or at the very least give it multiple examples of what you are looking for. Then it will generate something similar. And it will sound much less dorky. And much more like you.
1
There's absolutely no difference between your "good" vocaloids and your "bad" generative AI, and the "problem" solved in both cases is the same, as you named it: "artists being paid too much". Which incidentally is the very same problem that industrial automation aimed to solve and solved over a hundred years ago ("manual laborers being paid too much").
1
@grandgibbon2071 It may not be "great" for the person who is out of job, but it sure is great for everyone else. Unless you want to go back to plowing the fields and spending your life toiling on hand-crafting goods instead of using the industrial products (some of which can be inferior to your hand-made masterpieces, but cost 100x less and as such are affordable for people who would not be able to get the hand-made version to begin with).
1
@grandgibbon2071 You're literally typing your shit on equipment created by the industrialists.
1
@ran_red You go use AI and we'll see what you make with how much effort. And how well it will sell. Maybe then you will understand that even using AI tools it takes some skill and time to produce a good result. Especially while you are competing with a million other unskilled AI users who produce poor quality AI crap, kinda as shown in this video. And if no good result is required, just a mediocre result, then maybe you should start blaming the consumers rather than the tool vendors or producers.
1
The AI marketers are tasked with the impossible task of selling a shit product to an unwilling market which is full aware that it is shit. The only solution they can resort to at this point is let the AI generate the ads (and let another AI watch them).
1
@calzoneyyy it's just a sauce
1
It seems the AI comment generators were trained on minutes from Google's corporate meetings.
1
What ppl don't seem to understand is that the AI slop is not really targeted at people, it is targeted at advertsing companies like Google which pay for content/views. The goal of the "AI scammer creator" is to milk said corporations from their money, just like the companies love to milk their regular audiences by piling up crap advertising. The exploit of the business model is that it used to be the case that fakery did not work well because the payoff from crap content was minimal compared to the effort to create it. But now the creating process has gotten much cheaper, so there is an incentive to flood as much as you can. Even if there is a small non-zero return, it will attract investment, that is simply how market forces work. So the main loser here is Google/YouTube who are under assault and increasingly alienating their own sponsors (because advertisers are not likely to keep paying if nobody watches their ads once everyone has left for a less spammed platform). Sooner or later YouTube will have to introduce ToS which explicitly forbids uploading generated crap (and obviously also remove it from their own tools).
1
@barbaistun629 The companies "hosting images" (stock photo repositories) are not "thieves". They pay royalties to the authors who sell copyrights or license their works to them. The AI companies are well aware of the threat of getting sued and therefore they cover their ass by training on licensed content only (even the results of "Internet crawls" are filtered to make sure that they do not contain copyrighted material). It is also why all the big AI companies include in their terms of service special clauses to indemnify them in case someone else (e.g. their users) finetune the models using stolen content. In that case, they want you to go after the people who did the illegal finetuning - not themselves as the original model makers.
1