Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.
Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.
The speaker clarifies that they are using the terms “parasite” and “cancer” in a precise way to describe generative AI.
● Generative AI is parasitic because it relies on human communication and creativity for training data but simultaneously erodes and destroys those very things. The speaker compares it to a parasite that drains resources from its host without offering any benefits in return.
● Generative AI is cancerous because it spreads rapidly, replacing authentic human content with AI-generated content, and dealing with it will likely be difficult and have unintended consequences. The speaker acknowledges that addressing this problem, much like chemotherapy for cancer, might inadvertently harm “healthy cells” as well.
The speaker chose this title to emphasize their serious concerns about the negative impact of generative AI on human creativity, communication, and the internet. They believe generative AI is harmful because it deceives users by presenting AI-generated content as human-created. The speaker clarifies their word choice to preempt potential criticism and ensure their message is understood.
Thank you for that. Having read it, I stand by my previous assessment that it is fucking stupid. That’s utter bullshit and belies a complete failure to understand art or art history (which is kind of refreshing I suppose because the luddites are usually vocal about their lack of understanding of the technology and subtle about their lack of understading about art history)
A description of the decision to choose the words is contained within the video. 1:05:18
Over an hour into the video. Not going to be seen by anyone who doesn’t already buy in to the headline.
Ironically, I just asked an AI to tell me what the video’s justification for the title was.
Thank you for that. Having read it, I stand by my previous assessment that it is fucking stupid. That’s utter bullshit and belies a complete failure to understand art or art history (which is kind of refreshing I suppose because the luddites are usually vocal about their lack of understanding of the technology and subtle about their lack of understading about art history)