raze2012's recent activity
-
Comment on US voter opinions about inflation and consumer prices look very bad for Donald Trump in ~society
-
Comment on US voter opinions about inflation and consumer prices look very bad for Donald Trump in ~society
raze2012 Link ParentThe people are looking much more closely than 2018, or even 2021. People are hungry and angry at Republicans this time aroun. Any senate who tries to defend Trump will risk their reelection. Even...The people are looking much more closely than 2018, or even 2021. People are hungry and angry at Republicans this time aroun. Any senate who tries to defend Trump will risk their reelection. Even for states you'd think are safe. It's that bad as of now.
Its a slow process, but if no one is willing to "speed it up" (so to say), then it's really the best shot at trying to reverse things civilly.
-
Comment on Her daughter was unraveling, and she didn’t know why. Then she found the AI chat logs. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentI think there's a difference between social media telling someone to kill themselves and a supposed AI on a server managed by a private company. The accountability is much clearer, for one. You...they always fail to mention that these kids have unfettered access to the internet.
I think there's a difference between social media telling someone to kill themselves and a supposed AI on a server managed by a private company. The accountability is much clearer, for one.
You should also note that this is a teen, not just any child. I feel at some point "unfettered access" is inevitable, and points before that is about teaching kids how to responsibly navigate the internet. I lean closer to 13 than waiting until 18 and simply throwing them to the wolves like we do with a lot of other topics in life.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentIt's more ubiquitous than just the US, or even just The West. So there's a point there. There will always been that human nature aspect of looking at a bard and saying "why are they making the...I think the lack of care about arts as your "job" is a ubiquitous or universal thing?
It's more ubiquitous than just the US, or even just The West. So there's a point there. There will always been that human nature aspect of looking at a bard and saying "why are they making the same QoL as I who tends my fields all day"?
I was a bit more focused on policy centered around the arts, however. The EU and even parts of Asia tend to give benefits to promote the arts in various ways. Maybe it's easier to loan money, maybe there's plenty of grants, they subsidize businesses, create huge initiatives to stimulate the industry, etc. It's the circus part of the "Bread and circuses"
The US really hasn't had any of those for decades. Probably because Hollywood culture is a national and worldwide phenomenon that surges demand for actors so that there's no more need to stimulate. And that spreads to every other kind of art and media. thousands upon thousands of people willing to travel the country and "suffer for their art". Why bother investing when they are so self-invested?
I've always seen artists in that unenviable position where you either do something you like, or you get paid better by working a job you dislike.
People can't get jobs they hate but keeps the lights on, and others are trying to get into creation spaces just to make a cheap hustle. It's all backwards these last few years.
So, progress I guess?
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentIs there? The takeover of short form content does give me a bit of pause to the idea that "we'd be better of if Youtube disappeared tomorrow". I'd still make due and find the valuable content, but...Is there? The takeover of short form content does give me a bit of pause to the idea that "we'd be better of if Youtube disappeared tomorrow".
I'd still make due and find the valuable content, but I don't have the same faith with most people.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentI think the conversation will talk past each other because this is orthogonal to what the other side is asking: "how much do you value content?". On the logistical side, the question of "are you...I think we disagree on a simple and basic premise, and without agreement here, we won't agree on anything else in this conversation. So, I want to bring it back to one simple question. Is a consumer obligated to view ads?
I think the conversation will talk past each other because this is orthogonal to what the other side is asking: "how much do you value content?". On the logistical side, the question of "are you obligated to watch ads" is silly, because yes. These trillion dollar companies do take into account that some people have adblock and other people will simply walk away or mute the feed or any other manual asking past the website's control. So it's a moot point at the end of the day.
It's like suggesting that "Is stealing groceries hurting the company"? Kinda... but not really. The pricing takes into account that X% of goods are stolen, defective, or spoiled. A huge change to this would impact it, but huge societal changes don't come out of the ether.
Now, "how much you value content" gives a spectrum and bigger idea on how and if artists can survive on their talents. And it sadly isn't a meriocracy; I'm sure I don't need to name the ways in which influencers succeed in ways that do not reflect how well they can serve their community past "look pretty and sell a dream, no matter how viable".
That's definitely the side of inflencing that make it muddy compared to the craftmen, the animators, and the mission-focused ones who genuinely want to make a better world. But they all live on the same platform and to be frank; we're in a very vapid world. I wish more were educated enough to avoid obvious clickbait and grifts, but I'd also not blame any "good" content that uses the same techniques to "trick" someone into building more awareness or empathy of the world.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link Parentin a creator's market, the creators are the ones being moralized. Whether you disagree with that or not probably says a lot about where you stand on how you value talent. You must not be aware of...You're trying to moralize about a market, which is not how people truly value things.
in a creator's market, the creators are the ones being moralized. Whether you disagree with that or not probably says a lot about where you stand on how you value talent.
People would often like to have knitted things, but nobody is willing to pay the cost of the time and materials for the product (paying minimum wage for the hours to make a knitted scarf would be wildly expensive). But people knit, because they want to...and there is where the lack of value comes from.
You must not be aware of the Etsy market if you think this. The hierarchy is the same
- most people will do something once to try it and leave
- others will stay and do it as a hobby, infrequent activity for one's own sake. Maybe they make a few things for family
- others do it more, and try to sell a few things. Albeit infrequently, but they may be open to professional work when the moment arises. Alternative
- you do it consistently and professionally, either as a side income or maybe later as a main income. You start to focus more around how to optimize monetization over personal desires. Alternatively, you're so skilled that you can do infrequent, specialized work to perform the same means
- You work professionally under a company who does the monetization for you, and pays you for your labor.
Now, I'm not sure how much of #5 is alive and well in the knitting scene (at least in the West), but there's plenty of #4's through similar scenes to youtube (or even a few youtubers themselves). The volume will inevitably be lower, but it's a different pipeline; the content you make is a supplement to your real income of commissions or products you have on hand. A bit less reliant on tech, but still there.
Similarly, it takes a lot of effort to dig holes, but we're going to pay someone the absolute minimum to do it, because plenty of people can. But we pay people an exceptionally large amount of money to do heart surgery, because very few people have the knowledge, practice and physical ability.
This used to be conventional wisdom, but I'm less sure these days. At some point, the minimum isn't enough and now you don't get enough people digging holes, and not enough damns to raise pay rather than move out of the hole business (or wait for a bailout when the government needs holes dug. Totally not making a metaphor to this year in the US...)
On the other end, plenty of specialized work is suddenly plummeting demand, so even specialists are pushed out. Everything's topsy turvy these days.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentThey changed it because the site changed hands. But at the same time, if people valued simply "making videos for the pasison of sharing", it was not the only site in town to do that with. Clearly...Do the creators deserve to be paid? Maybe? Are we obligated to pay them? I feel like no, because YouTube changed the terms of the contract unilaterally.
They changed it because the site changed hands.
But at the same time, if people valued simply "making videos for the pasison of sharing", it was not the only site in town to do that with. Clearly creators valued the monetization more, and the audience followed suit.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentI suppose by that definition, the entire industry of the arts is "Celebrity chasing", no? heck, maybe any B2C business period. Your pay is based on how many people value your services. The only...but it is why I used adblock with no reservation. I firmly believe that Celebrity is a privilege and not a right. For many, YouTube is the vehicle that makes them Celebrities. But it is the people that are what make them 'valuable'. Not YouTube, not advertising, and not their income.
I suppose by that definition, the entire industry of the arts is "Celebrity chasing", no? heck, maybe any B2C business period. Your pay is based on how many people value your services.
The only difference here seems to be the topic matter. People won't give as much friction over a farmer selling food, but someone trying to express their content is seen as "disposable".
And even if they have a concert show that evening, if they decide to busk that morning, I still don't owe them anything for listening in on them. This is the nature of the industry
I feel like this "it is what it is" culture is exactly why we've had decades of decline in the arts in the US. It is what it is, until the juice ain't worth the squeeze and being in a band is no longer an aspiration for the next generation. Easier to just look pretty and sell yourself on being a face for whatever brands want to shove into people's faces. Maybe not culturally valuable, but you "being pretty" has bonus perks in wider society in ways an artist doesn't.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentI had Youtube premium through a subscription to Google Play Music, back when they still called it Youtube Red. Still miss GPM. Since I was grandfathered that way I paid $10/month throughout the...I was actually a long term subscriber to youtube premium but I cancelled maybe a month ago. I was hesitant for a long time because I thought the value I got from it was so great that it was worth paying, especially since youtube splits the premium revenue 40/60 or 50/50 with creators. On top of that I also had youtube music. It felt wrong to do all these mental gymnastics and go the adblock route because of the creators. The author in the post touches on this point.
I had Youtube premium through a subscription to Google Play Music, back when they still called it Youtube Red. Still miss GPM.
Since I was grandfathered that way I paid $10/month throughout the years until the end of 2023 (or 24?) where they finally increased my sub to $15 a month. I think it's still worth it, even in lieu of me cancelling almost every other sub I had as harder times fell upon me (including all my streaming services and all my patreon-style support), which narrowed me down to this and Discord.
But I long recognize the myriad of issues Youtube has had. I'm slowly leaning into my own kinds of content creation myself, so I can definitely resonate with some of the hypocrisy at play with people being indignant towards the only way a creator will get monetized from providing dozens of hours of content to them. But at the same time, I really can't blame people given Google's behavior, especially this decade when they abandoned their "don't be evil clause" and full on embraced pretty much ever Big Tech anti-pattern out there in the open.
Creators will be hurt, but there's no way to stick it to YT that also doesn't hurt creators in the process. ultimately, we need some sort of force to slowly erode this monopolistic force, because monopolies don't break down by continuing to support a company that clearly doesn't value you. I wish the creators the best of luck in this journey, though.
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 Link ParentI agree... but begrudgingly. There's still 2 big points which makes me hesitatnt to fully support this mentality The economy sucks, and the gig economy seems to be the big reaction to this on a...Maybe they should just… not use YT for profit?
I agree... but begrudgingly. There's still 2 big points which makes me hesitatnt to fully support this mentality
-
The economy sucks, and the gig economy seems to be the big reaction to this on a generational level. "Content Creator" as a job is quickly rising among the youth's dream job, something which simply didn't exist when I was a kid in the 90's. And as traditional employment gets murkier and murkier (with little recourse for labor reform), the U.S.'s hyper-individualist culture will react in a "I want to be my own boss" route rather than "I want to fix what's broken". If that closes off as an option... well, things won't end peacefully, that much is certain.
-
monetizing has definitely increased the variety of content creators out there. I've seen people rise from doing a silly little challenge run videos on a video game become a new sub-genre of community. I've seen what would have been small podcasters or news commentary become of large voices to push against and raise awareness against regimes that traditional media is paid to shut up about. I've seen some one off tutorials become a small, "free" course that can get other creators off the ground in a variety of careers.
The variety of downsides and utter greed that works against these creators makes me want to still prefer reform. But I understand that I gained a lot form how YT is right now. Feels like one of those issues that would be solved if my government gave any care for the arts.
-
-
Comment on YouTube is awful. Please use YouTube, though. in ~tech
raze2012 LinkWell, yes. Youtube is the definition of why a monopoly is bad. It makes bad move after bad move for the better part of a decade. But you can't leave. No one else is even trying to compete, and...Well, yes. Youtube is the definition of why a monopoly is bad. It makes bad move after bad move for the better part of a decade. But you can't leave. No one else is even trying to compete, and there isn't any other platform paying for long form content creation like it. Nebula is the closest competitor, but it's tailoring towards a specific kind of content.
So, creators are locked in, as are their fans, and most people in general who watch videos on the internet. Leaving room to do all the stuff in this article that would burn a more competitive medium.
And, err, we already knew that large language models are trained on YouTube videos, years ago. I wish we could stop looking so surprised when we "rediscover" widely known facts! But of course, his point still stands.
It not being a surprise doesn't mean we shouldn't repeat it. This is classic desensitization. Yes, it IS still bad that Youtube is taking your content and doing stuff with it with little recourse. Don't accept that.
There's a misconception that we only get a small portion of that ad money, but we get half; so, by using an ad blocker, you are damaging us creators, as much as you are damaging YouTube.
I'd like more data on this point. I've heard rates and seen other's rates, and it doesn't seem close to "half of that ad money". I imagine it varies immensely from topic, to time of year, to subscriber count. Maybe the nature of his channel being relatively small (33k subs as of this writing) and a very engaging fanbase (focuses on linux and FOSS... so a very sticky fanbase) means that his videos do pay out more than your typical channel.
Even worse, since I make videos about Open Source, and Open Source fans are more likely to use ad blockers, it means that making videos about Open Source is inherently less profitable.
Or more profitable per user. They may be more likely per user, but I also wager that (like me) more than your usual audience uses Premium. And a premium view is much more valuable than an ad view. That could explain the monetization. I wish he explained more about that aspect. But I'm not sure that vibes well with this thesis of "Youtube sucks, but I still want to make a living out of it".
There's no good answer to this that doesn't also hurt the creators in the process, because while money rarely trickles down, failures do. And while I'm of the lens of "Google needs to be taken down a peg", I recognize my bias in that my career isn't dependent on Google. We never made progression in society without some people hurt in the process, so I don't think "minimizing harm" is the right attitude towards this.
-
Comment on AI isn’t replacing jobs. AI spending is. in ~comp
raze2012 Link ParentThe Bureau of Labor Statistics? https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm it's no secret (at least, until October tried to hide the numbers) that unemployment...The Bureau of Labor Statistics?
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-unemployment-rate.htm
it's no secret (at least, until October tried to hide the numbers) that unemployment has been inching up in the US for the past few quarters. It's what's causing the feds to start slashing rates again.
Digging into the monthly reports, you see pretty much all industries are down as well. Here's August's job reports before Trump fired the previous statistician reporting the numbers. "Professional and business services", which tech is under, is down 17, 000 in a single month. "Computer systems design and related services" specifically was down 3.3k that month (heck, it's down even more in September, surprisingly. which was an overall more positive jobs report).
-
Comment on Indie Game Awards rescinds Clair Obscur's GOTY wins over use of generative AI [for now-removed background assets] in ~games
raze2012 Link ParentOkay. We can have a discussion about that too. But the point here is that the rule exists and that's what they are using as criteria. Calling it unfair when it's being put in effect is working a...the rule is unreasonable and unenforceable
Okay. We can have a discussion about that too. But the point here is that the rule exists and that's what they are using as criteria. Calling it unfair when it's being put in effect is working a tad too late IMO. It's an awards show, not national policy, so I'm going to be more lax in what some private organization decides to do in terms of their rulings.
Whether the artificial neural network is trained on text to generate text or trained on images to generate images is not a relevant distinction.
It is for this ruling. I'm simply giving you more context on why they made it this way.
If the entire industry is built on top of the forbidden technique, time to pack it up or loosen the restrictions.
Or we be more subtle and define proper lines. Like we did here.
I'm sorry you do not like the lines here, but your arguments break down to "I don't like this", and mine are simply "the rules are there". I don't have much to say to sway your opinion, I just want to illuminate that this isn't some grand revelation that came out of nowhere.
We can change it for next year if people feel strongly. But I feel more like this will blow over in a week and the rule will stay until the next AI controversy. So I don't know what to say to that. Again, this is just some organization giving recognition to games, so I'm in the camp of "they can rule how they want, as long as it is consistent".
-
Comment on AI isn’t replacing jobs. AI spending is. in ~comp
raze2012 Link ParentYes, that's the tricky part. They only need to say their hiring numbers overall. Not the breakdown by region. All these come more off of inferences, between the job numbers in the US being down...Yes, that's the tricky part. They only need to say their hiring numbers overall. Not the breakdown by region.
All these come more off of inferences, between the job numbers in the US being down for all sectors except hospitality and healthcare (from what we still have of the Labor Statistics), but job numbers from earnings reports in tech seemingly still going up. It's not hard proof, but it's definitely smoke that I'd hope someone else could investigate more deeply into.
-
Comment on AI isn’t replacing jobs. AI spending is. in ~comp
raze2012 Link ParentOutsourcing isn't the same as contracting. They aren't mutually exclusive, but I was talking about people hired into Google proper (but also not in the US). Yes, and my argument is that Google is...Outsourcing isn't the same as contracting. They aren't mutually exclusive, but I was talking about people hired into Google proper (but also not in the US).
But employees aren't all in the US either; Google has offices all over the world.
Yes, and my argument is that Google is reducing headcount in the US and expanding in places with lower costs of living. That's how you can say there's a job crisis in the US while still seeing Google's hiring numbers actually rising overtime.
We've been through this already with manufacturing in the 90's.
-
Comment on Indie Game Awards rescinds Clair Obscur's GOTY wins over use of generative AI [for now-removed background assets] in ~games
raze2012 Link Parentwell of course not. That's why people making pitches make vertical slices. That just means you need to replace placeholders even earlier than usual. Epic hired artists to make those assets, and...Purple blobs do not sell an idea.
well of course not. That's why people making pitches make vertical slices. That just means you need to replace placeholders even earlier than usual.
If they truly only used AI for placeholder purposes I think we should consider engine assets to be in the same vein.
Epic hired artists to make those assets, and they are actually of decent quality. You can break down a tree and see good modeling principles you can learn from.
I say Engine assets are fine, they are there specifically to help either with prototyping or common boilerplate texture/props. The issue is that these assets are not meant to be cohesive; they are there to provide examples for a variety of environments and genres of games. throwing them all together haphazardly does give the same low quality feel, but not because the assets are low quality. The art direction is.
-
Comment on Indie Game Awards rescinds Clair Obscur's GOTY wins over use of generative AI [for now-removed background assets] in ~games
raze2012 Link ParentWell it's based on disclosure and includes development, and CO33 got caught. People are free to dig through the other nominees as well (and odds are with the internet, that they have). That point...I'm sure at least some of the other winners and nominees also used AI in some part of the development process, even if none of it made it into the released product.
Well it's based on disclosure and includes development, and CO33 got caught. People are free to dig through the other nominees as well (and odds are with the internet, that they have).
This company actually admitted their mistake, stated clearly that it wasn't intended to be present in the released product, and corrected it almost immediately
That point doesn't matter. https://www.indiegameawards.gg/faq
Games developed using generative AI are strictly ineligible for nomination.
Not released, developed. It was clear at the time they submitted that they were using it. So they lied (or if you are really cynical, they managed to get caught lying). This is less about AI stances and more about sportsmanship and integrity. So it makes sense to punish someone caught to be defying both.
Not to mention how ubiquitous gen AI is becoming in programming
In the gaming space, we tend to use "generative AI" to refer to assets seen in game, not code. if "code generation" is a form of AI then no game since the 90's counts as "not using AI". This is especially because most games these days are made on top of engines, and developers cannot control what code Epic/Unity/etc. chooses to make under the hood. But devs do choose what artistic assets to include in their game.
How is fairly innocent intended-for-internal-alpha-only use in any way a detriment to artists?
glad you asked, I read this piece a few days ago that gave me a different light on concept art: https://thisweekinvideogames.com/feature/concept-artists-in-games-say-generative-ai-references-only-make-their-jobs-harder/
I never considered how having generated concept art could mean clients push back harder against other potential designs for their world. I was always thinking that it could help provide something easier to communicate with than "well I want to have this cool looking gruff dude in dirty gold armor with a beard". But this perspective makes sense.
-
Comment on Indie Game Awards rescinds Clair Obscur's GOTY wins over use of generative AI [for now-removed background assets] in ~games
raze2012 Link ParentSeveral issues here: We kinda did back in the day, It's cool but when most your game is proc gen'd it does start to blend in as a variety of blandness. proc gen will always lack something compared...I'm surprised people haven't jumped on "procedural generation" yet
Several issues here:
-
We kinda did back in the day, It's cool but when most your game is proc gen'd it does start to blend in as a variety of blandness. proc gen will always lack something compared to a hand crafted level.
-
It takes a lot of time to tweak a proc gen so it doesn't create impossible levels or weird hitches or bad interactions. And you need to tweak it for each game. It's not some oracle that creates infinite content. It will in fact take more time to develop that way unless you are a truly skilled engineer: https://xkcd.com/1319/.
-
proc gen is only using existing assets, not ones of dubious copyright origins. Its infringement depends on the input. And humans still needed to make that input. Ai meanwhile has scraped the internet and has several challenges in court ongoing.
-
-
Comment on Indie Game Awards rescinds Clair Obscur's GOTY wins over use of generative AI [for now-removed background assets] in ~games
raze2012 Link Parentwell the game is very trippy, but cohesive in its theme and mood. That's great. Clearly the author didn't just generate randomg text by itself and took time to adjust it for the game feel needed....well the game is very trippy, but cohesive in its theme and mood. That's great. Clearly the author didn't just generate randomg text by itself and took time to adjust it for the game feel needed. If most AI generation took that care, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
but right now, we're trying to defend one A-student who was going to succeed with or without AI tools and arguing if they got more productive. Meanwhile the rest of the class is turning in slop and is in danger of failing. It's one good apple in a barrel of rot.
We'd need more states to adopt voting systems that aren't first past the post. The voting system as of now is simply an inevitability of basic game theory.
Change the incentives, change the outcome. Now when will more states do that? Hard to say. It'll certainly the people fighting against bipartisan opposition. The only thing the 2 parties can agree on is keeping their current power.