Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.
To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.
Value in the abstract sense of “desirable thing” not necessarily monetary.
If I’m having a conversation within and ask them about a thing, I’d much rather an “I don’t know” than whatever the plagiarism engine’s facsimile of an opinion is.
Lot of people have strong opinions about ai, many of them very bad. Because what should be a novelty or maybe a part of a more sophisticated system instead of the half assed implementation that it currently is. At the low low price of stealing from artists and fucking the environment.
Who said it needs to add value? The article claims that showing AI-generated content to others without them explicitly asking for it is inherently bad - even when you tell them it’s AI. So basically: if you share it without mentioning the source you’re deceiving people, and if you do mention it it’s still bad… because reasons.
To me that just sounds like an ideological stance more than a logical one.
Value in the abstract sense of “desirable thing” not necessarily monetary.
If I’m having a conversation within and ask them about a thing, I’d much rather an “I don’t know” than whatever the plagiarism engine’s facsimile of an opinion is.
Lot of people have strong opinions about ai, many of them very bad. Because what should be a novelty or maybe a part of a more sophisticated system instead of the half assed implementation that it currently is. At the low low price of stealing from artists and fucking the environment.