MrSlongDong
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2025
That's entirely up to you. Do you watch goyslop more or do you watch YouTube / alternative media more? Personally, it's the latter and that's also most people's experience. There is a reason why movie theaters are "dying". Nobody wants to watch generic corporate slop anymore.
Most people watch media content on social media platforms and most of it is generated by users of these platforms. It's not a matter of optimism, it's just the objective reality. These big media companies are dying. Just like big music producers are dying. Media production - whether it's a video or a song, or whatever you want - will become much more decentralized in the future and way less profitable. More decentralized because more people will be able to make art because you won't need a big studio to help you and less profitable because (1) you won't be able to charge people ticket fees to see it and (2) there will be a lot more products available so people will be able to switch to something else if you gate-keep your creation.
AI is not a poor innocent puppy. It's a tool. What you do with it is up to you, the human behind the controls.
Would you call a computer a poor innocent puppy? That's something I observed with a lot of people who are seething at AI technology is that they anthropomorphize it. It hasn't got a mind of it's own. we are referring to machine learning technology... it's weird to approach it like this. It's not funded and pushed. A lot of it, is free, you can download your own UI and start creating things with it. Most of the software is open-source. The open source software culture is something that is unique to the US and Europe and has to do with the fact that the Internet and computer technologies were founded on this idea of free access in the 80's.
Now obviously as it becomes more profitable, it will progressively become more expensive to access this technology, just like you have to pay to obtain a windows license but I don't see it ever becoming prohibitively expensive.
It's a disruptive technology, so how it will impact big Internet companies remains to be seen. Companies like Google and Microsoft are competing to be at the front of the race, but you also have a lot of new businesses that are emerging to challenge them on it.
The coom is just because men are unable to control themselves. Big porno websites are not operated by google and microsoft and disney. It's easy to always shift the blame for our impulses on some big evil force but there is a point where we need to take individual responsibility for things being the way they are.
You are in control. Big corpos are not wiring coom and porn inside your brain. We can debate all day long whether sex is used to sell product, because that's a thing too, but that's not the reason for the coom. We all know that the reason for the coom, is the coomer and especially coomers getting high on weed or crack. The fact that these drugs are so widespread is a contributing factor to the increase in coom in the general population. These drugs make people insanely horny, and horny people who are high, spend their time cooming on the Internet. These are bad individual decisions that could be prevented by the individual choosing to act differently (and more rationally).
I really don't see how AI technology would be responsible for "having no culture". When I used AI, I have always used it to assert my own cultural identity. If you're are going to make art using AI tools, what you make will depend on your own taste, experience and culture. You can use AI to make Renaissance art or music that is based on things that you know.
The fact that art is more accessible and the fact that more people can make art is a good thing for the culture. It means that art is not just for the elites or upper middle class people, which it was until now. You can now make art even if you didn't go to art school. You can make art even if big studios don't approve of your art.
EDIT: I'm adding this manually to my response. The law doesn't work like this. If AI generated content can be copyrighted, then the standard required to enforce copyright will apply to all AI generated content. It doesn't apply to Disney and not to you. The question will still be whether the content that you create is genuinely transformative / substantially different or covered by fair use. Either you can apply the legal standard or not. If a company can apply a legal test to their creation to enforce a copyright, you can also apply the same legal test to your creation to enforce a copyright.
The point is that AI technology is by definition, very transformative. If you are trying to copy a copyrighted product for example, nothing is preventing from using AI to generate successive iteration of it until you have achieved a sufficient degree of "transformation" in order to make it substantially different from the original product. The issue is simply to determine where the bar is. This is the reason why I think AI technology will disrupt copyright laws, because it will give us the ability to transform things endlessly, until you can systematically evade legal challenges
Last edited:
!
