This is a tool for creation. So if it's giving one party a competitive advantage over another, that suggests it gives people creative powers. This is very much unlike a weapon where another party having a more effective weapon imposes only negative costs on you. Another party having more creative powers has significant positive externalities that benefit you.
I don't think you understand the value that people actually look for in creative media.
First, people seek authenticity. In written content, people want to know there is a real human author thinking about every word, and in photos, people do not want to be deceived by deepfakes. It's much harder to tell in a world of AI slop, hence the rise of apps like Pangram. This is a significant negative externality.
Second, people who invest their time learning creative fields seek recognition for all the hard work they have put in. Now their skills are devalued, again because of slop. This is another negative externality.
Having more pictures and videos is nice in some ways but your head is in the sand if you think it's all roses.
My initial statement might not have been clear: when I use the word creative, I do not mean it in this narrow sense of creative arts. I meant in a sense of creation, producing valuable goods and services for others.
Even if we're talking about creative arts, if people cannot tell the difference between AI-generated content and human-generated content, then how are they being harmed by the AI-generated creative content?
Assuming they value them equally and they prefer to have more content, AI is strictly a positive for people.
It harms people in any area that values authenticity because it creates a market for lemons. People will get halfway through a substack post before they realize there is no human behind the words. Again, this is why apps like Pangram are becoming popular. The end result is that people end up paying a tax to find the same value as before.
"Strictly a positive" is also a strange choice of words when the technology is ripping out the livelihoods of so many creators. I would accept "it has tradeoffs, but is a net positive over the long run". But the former is objectively false.
Someone argue this is fine since there used to be no OPT long time ago and US is doing fine. But the key is here is NOT if there is OPT or H1B but rather about that 100K cost. It is much better to cancel the OPT/H1B than charge this fee. Because for the former you do not lower the bar, but the latter doesn’t stop the people coming through the program but you only get low tier of talent, which is the least you want in the competitive world. Also it does not reduce spying but rather make it easier.
The really problem of iPhone camera is not these benchmark things. The problem is that the photo captured by the “Modern iPhone” simply does not look nice , let say, compared to iPhone 4S.
I think we're fighting against the modern world here. My 4S did and still does take the last great iPhone photos, before the processing pipeline ruined it for me, with over-sharpening, smeared noise-reduction and color flattening.
Thankfully we have access to raw DNGs in phones after the 4S, so we can create our own image processing pipeline.
But for "out of the camera" JPGs, the 4S is still supreme.
reply