•

EA execs say generative AI is "not merely a buzzword for us, it's the very core of our business," then pretend to tell a computer to generate buildings live on stage

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/ea-execs-say-generative-ai-is-not-merely-a-buzzword-for-us-its-the-very-core-of-our-business-then-pretend-to-tell-a-computer-to-generate-buildings-live-on-stage/

The demonstration "depicts early-stage concept only"

60 comments

See all comments

skulbuny

•

I'm a socialist. I understand market forces and I wish more people did. Technology itself can help the lower class. Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.

lowering the barrier to entry without protecting the elite will bring about market forces necessary to defeat corporations—small sizes can move and adapt faster and try new things than those with institutional bureaucracy, who just follow the money and don't innovate. Corporations learned this, and now use government protections (copyright, patents) to prevent these new, necessary, market forces. I don't like the "economic" terms myself, but it's not rocket science that corporations benefit from cops (aka law enforcement aka laws).

We can remove the restrictions on new market forces by reducing IP protections, prevent corporations from mucking with newbies by preventing them from getting uncompetitive protections, or by stealing from corporations without regard for the law. I think we should steal more, honestly.

Stopping technology has never worked, though. I understand the plight of artists, but I'm extremely excited for the new human artists that dream up art that AI can't create because it hasn't been fathomed before.

athairmor

•

Government protection of technology (patents, copyright) will always hinder them.

Good luck inventing or creating something that a person or corporation with more money won’t immediately copy and then push you out of the market.

Patents and copyright, as originally conceived, are the lower classes only chance to compete.

skulbuny

•

Then steal from those corporations. It's not hard. Copyright and patents were to benefit the public domain, not anything or anyone else. It does not do that. The public domain has done nothing but perish as more and more "protection" has been applied. Now it is all intellectual "property" to be owned and measured and controlled and regulated, unless you opt out of it with open source.

We have tools like the GPL and AGPL. Corporations hate those. Turns out when you start giving away and "taking", everyone benefits. Open source hasn't made the world worse the more it's been growing — maybe choosing to forgo most protections of copyright and IP is actually good. Maybe.

frezik

•

In a capitalist context, sure.

The idea of a socialist society is that there isn't a burning need to work beyond what's needed to keep life going. You can focus on art, or writing, or anything else creative. There's no particular need to legally protect what you create, because you're doing it for the pure enjoyment of creativity in the first place. Your livelihood isn't threatened by someone else copying it. If anything, you're delighted that someone else takes enjoyment from it.

And if someone wanted to feed your art to an AI model, that's fine, too. Who cares? That machine can't replace your personal creative drive. This is only a problem now because capitalism forces artists to make money off their art or do something else to make ends meet.

taladar

•

AI isn't so much technology to create stuff as it is technology to scam people out of their money though, much like cryptocurrencies or the Hyperloop.