>Ai have enough data to scrape that it wouldn't hurt them at all if artist's never drew again. Though eventually I think people will notice issues. (I think?)
There's a phrase commonly touted that describes this scenario: model collapse. Essentially it's the idea where continuously training a model on its own output results in it performing worse and eventually becoming useless.

This ignores the possibility that:
-A human is manually curating which output data is useful for training and which data is not to be used, and guiding the training process to specifically avoid collapse
-A human still needs to pick an image according to their wants and standards of quality (i.e. the AI images you see posted online are the ones "somebody" thinks is "good enough")
-Continuously training a model on its own output might not lead to it becoming "worse" (what is "better" or "worse" depends on the requirements of the end user)
-The end state of the model produces images unlike anything else, resulting in a novelty that retain interest
-Someone can revert the model to an earlier generation or use their own offline copy without the cumulative damage (subscription services, online-only, auto-updates: go to hell! )

Of course, this all won't be necessary if people don't notice the images getting "worse", or if they don't actually think the changes are "worse".

>I'm not even sure where to draw the line in morality.
>What do we even make of this event? It's very beneficial to all else.
>We follow morality because it creates a better society
A thought I generally think is important to consider is: Better for who?

How much are your wants aligned with that of "society"? I use the word "wants" here, because it's much easier to determine than "needs". If you don't mind, take a look at >>146586. Do you actually want the "same" ""thing"" as "everyone else"? It's probably sickening to hear this repeated over and over again: "Think of the future! Think of the children!" This line has been used for television, video games, the internet (>>151290)... With that in mind, if you truly enjoy these and put a greater importance on these over "the future, the children, the society", is that something worthy of shame?

Another point: If a group of people would shame and deride you for liking something, can you really say you "like" them? Do you truly, honestly, WANT to be included in their "community"? If they would actively oppose everything you want and ruin everything you hold dear in their goal to create a "better" society, is that "society" even something you want to live in?

>I think people online should be more encouraging about telling people to take on greater challenge. It shouldn't be "Cheater!! No-skill!!!", they should reply with a more positive way like "Nice job, a trick to that boss is to roll towards the slashes!" (dark souls example) or for Minecraft "Try leaving a special block or torch to never lose your way." To encourage players on navigation so they won't feel as afraid to lose their items on death.
>Yes I know people aren't realistically that nice or positive but I will dream
>Taking on greater challenges is very rewarding, (usually) I wish more people encouraged me when I was little to take on greater challenges.
You have a great deal of hope, Bishopu. Don't let it die out.
I've posted about this often before (see >>143018, >>145520, >>151332, >>151386), but it feels as though the "average" person on the internet (not here) has gotten more... "unpleasant". It's a bit like the difference in how even though early multiplayer chat would call you a "fucktarded inbred cocksucker", you know they weren't being serious and could count on them being fun to hang around (kind of like here, actually ). In contrast, I don't know if the same feeling can be found on the "common" internet.

>There was a time of Human computers that would take like a week to calculate complicated stuff (like at NASA). Now there's a computer to do that. Oh how they lament, their job that takes a lot of brainpower to do is obsolete and replaced. Sad but the world is (I think) a better place for it.
Yes, I've heard of similar stories: the typewriter, the loom, IKEA furniture... It's important (to me at least) that you avoid "moral justifications" for people losing their jobs. I say that mechanical and electrical computers replacing human computers enabled significant improvements in technology, but I would not say that the human computers who lost their jobs """DESERVE""" it. It is merely something that happened, not a result of some "moral failure" or "punishment" for not being "virtuous enough" (though I might wonder whether they saw it coming, and if they were unable to adapt to the changes in time).