From Blender MCP to 3D-Agent... Anthropic partners with Blender, Claude AI connector now official

General Forums Blender and CG Discussions
21

They don’t need to be, they can be fought against, and I feel it is our moral duty to do so.

Thanks. :slight_smile:

I don’t see this as different, all of this is human creativity in one way or another. I want a world by humans, for humans. GenAI is actively against this, pretty much no matter in what way it is used, in my opinion.

There are of course better ways and worse ways, but the technology is built to regurgitate creative outputs humans have made. It doesn’t matter if this is text, image, video, or whatever else. It’s also made from hoovering up massive amounts of creative outputs by humans to be trained.

I do feel that using it to look up knowledge or using it as a dumb autocomplete might be the least harmful way to do so, but it is still very harmful and I do not want to support this technology in any way or form. In this specific niche, I also feel like, if the money used to train these huge models was used more intelligently, to create something ethical, it would have been much better. The amount of money poured into this technology is absolutely enormous.

I don’t know enough about auto-rigging to have a deep opinion, but what I am against is specifically GenAI, not machine learning in general. If this is trained on data where consent is given, and it has no goal of replicating human creativity, I don’t really care. Use it.

Personally, I also don’t think they would ever make programmers obsolete, but they have a lot of potential in killing all of the art in programming. These are also the same models wreaking havoc in other professions, where they have bigger effects. Best to just fight against them in general, than cherry-pick.

6 Likes
22

For a community of artists who often see all sorts of ethical issues in AI, for obvious reasons, as Ton has pointed out many times, and with the newer, younger management, this choice definitely looks controversial. It’s a bit like a charity that helps crime victims taking money from Al Capone. I get the guidelines, but this is more of an ethical matter. That said, AI also has positive sides and won’t be able to be ignored forever.

Anyway, out of all of them, despite the ethical concerns about AI, Anthropic is the least bad. That’s cold comfort, but at least it wasn’t some other one. Now I wonder; would Blender and the new management teams have taken money from Elon Musk, or from Sam Altman, or from Peter Thiel? That’s a question worth asking. :sweat_smile:

This was my comment on original post.

13 Likes
23

That’s my point, Martin. They don’t have to share it.

I have add-ons on my system, that are pretty freaking great for what I do and I haven’t shared them. And no one has any legal recourse to make me do it.

6 Likes
24

I consider that to be extremely normal. Have you used snippets of code from other GPL licensed add-ons when you wrote them? I certainly have… What’s wrong with that? I get that taking the whole add-on and reselling it would be extremely frowned upon in Blender communities, but is this the same with snippets of code?..

2 Likes
25

I really don’t see the big deal here provided they’re beholden to the same standards as the other contributors.

If people are outraged over this they should have been equally outraged over Google and NVIDAs presence in the fund.

10 Likes
26

People didn’t see the big deal when Mozilla started taking Google money either. It was viewed as a positive thing. Now look at where they are (so yes, the other named companies are worrisome too).

7 Likes
27

Well, first I agree that there is definitly a problem with using someone’s work without their consent. And in anycase I don’t see how things could be moving forward in the long run without this being adressed…

Well, these kind of arguments I can totally see them applied 60 years ago to computers. And more recently that was a recurring argument for 2D artists against 3D. And TBH all debates against AI on a 3D forum makes me put some stuff in perspective.

That said, I’m not here to say 3D, computer and AI is the same thing to shut down the conversation.
But at least now I’m grateful that these debates about 2D vs 3D make less sense. There is bad 3D just as 2D, you can mix them to do amazing stuff like Arcane, spideverse and many shows, and it’s more seen as 2 creative tools, rather than 3D as something where you send data to a computer and let it paint the image for you without any “human” feeling or action. But I can assure you this is how 3D has been seen by many 2D artist since it’s been introduced.

Again, currently it’s right to feel concerned about Gen-AI for various reasons.
To me for code generation it’s not going to replace programmers and it won’t be able to replace human creativity in a similar fashion even if it’s what AI fanatics tend to advertise for…

Anyway, I don’t think AI is a technology that is necessarely wrong. The question is more are we going to use that to improve our well being, to make better tools, better movies, or we’ll use them to make more money by exploting people ?

Well, I’m not sure what you’re talking about when talking about art in programming. I don’t see any issue here. What AI can bring is only some shortcuts, if you’re a programmer yourself I bet you spend some time looking for snippets on internet, reading docs and so on… AI in this case it’s just a tool that is good at that and providing you something you can start to work with…

Also I think AI is currently harming a lot of professions because of some lobbying. Since it’s sold as the next best thing you need to use now before it’s too late, I think a lot of people try to put it in every possible place. But I think we do need to cherry pick, assess where it’s doing something good and where it’s not. To me it’s the only way things will start to settle and we can face the situation with objective facts.
The real problem is people jumping on that bangwagon trying to sell it now because it’s going to do something cool tomorrow but they have no clue. It’s creating a bubble that is likely to explode at some point.
Anyway, a lot of points have been made during the conversation, it’s worth a read if you’re interested in different points of views !

4 Likes
28

I was not fully aware of mozila and google issue until now

1 Like
29

Yes, but the difference is human involvement. I think AI has been driven by the idea that we need to push people out of technology rather than augmenting and working with us. Look at vehicles; pilots are being pushed out of flying their planes in place of computer assisted automation. Lorries and cars are having more and more technology packed in and law-makers are trying to push more limitations and automation in them (speed restrictons being the biggest push atm.) Look at desktop computing; we’re seeing less and less control over peoples own computers and software packages (looking at you Microsoft.) It’s crazy. I think we’ve reached a point where people just want to click a single button and everything is just handed on a silver platter and AI is a manifestation of that idea.

To address your point more specifically; the difference between 2D/3D is that both 2D and 3D both fundamentally involve a high degree of skill to develop and use. Both 2D and 3D have common ideas; an understanding of spacial awareness, timing (if animated,) lighting, shape, color theory, the concept of gravity, time, space… AI strips away all of that knowledge and “gives” you a product you’ve “asked” for by means of a single prompt. A 3 year old could do that.

I look at some of the better AI images and think, “this has been pulled from somewhere. The original image and artist will be out there somewhere and it’ll probably be so much better.” It’s not unusual to still come across odd things like double tails on animals or that odd AI glow that seems to have become so common.

I do agree re your point about the “Pixar” look. That did get tiring looking at everything having that Pixaresque vibe and I do believe threads did pop up on here about it from time to time.

12 Likes
30

How to tank your reputation in 1 easy step.

12 Likes
31

Any sources to support those claims? :laughing: Because the way I see it, it might as well be from your dreams. Pilots? Really? What are you talking about?

1 Like
32

Speak for yourself. They definitely aren’t part of mine. I seriously can’t stand when people try to argue that generative-AI is inevitable, or just start using it because it’s here to stay. It’s not. There are plenty of people who’ve done just fine avoiding this tech for years now.

Yeah, about that:

image
image1241×139 10.1 KB

These LLMs definitely contain copyrighted code and is a legal minefield. Like, Sam Altman has gone on record saying things like ChatGPT literally wouldn’t be able to exist if OpenAI actually abided by copyright law. He straight up admits this technology couldn’t be ethically made without the mass theft of countless people.

This is projection to try and justify using it. It doesn’t work.

7 Likes
33

Pilots? You know, the people that sit in a cockpit and fly big objects that soar through the sky when you look up…? You may have been in one when you went on a holiday.

A simple Google search gives the start:
https://medium.com/faa/the-dangers-of-overreliance-on-automation-5b7afb56ebdc

There are Air Crash Investigation videos where they’ve attributed automation to be involved in a crash - where a computer has done something but the pilot did not know how to respond. No. I do not know off-hand which one it was. If I happenstance on it, I will happily let you know.

4 Likes
34

…Or it’s someone’s personal account of their experiences talking to other human beings in the real world… how is that supposed to work?

What is “working” in that context?

The conference is certainly a selected audience of mostly professionals. ($400 tickets and needing to travel doesn’t make it super accessible to a lot of amateurs) There is probably a higher percentage of professionals using AI than enthusiasts. so there is definitely a statistical bend to that sample pool, but I don’t think I met anyone at that event that had never used any AI for some aspect of their work.

4 Likes
35

It’s an insanely gross generalization to make it seem like using it is acceptable because everyone’s doing it anyway.

That’s depressing.

1 Like
36

Now those articles are a good point against generative AI, because they are probably written by it :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

1 Like
37

Well I’m glad you figured out what a pilot was, at least. Never let it be said that AI doesn’t have a tiny bit of educational value.

38

image

Something I learned long ago: There is no right living under capitalism.

We’re all doing the best we can to navigate a messed up world. Pointing the purity finger at other people who are making different decisions on how to navigate the world isn’t the moral high ground you think it is.

We are all making depressing decisions every day, and unless your name is sam altman or elon musk, none of us really have that much sway to stop the biggest injustices that surround us. So we all make the decisions that we need to make to survive. I’m glad that you don’t have to dirty your hands with AI, that’s great. I want there to be people out there who fully step outside of the dominant narrative and I know that isn’t easy.

But you cannot look down your nose at people who made a different decision than you and expect them to be grateful to receive your disdain.

14 Likes
39

Don’t worry about pilotless planes. That’s not happening. That’s just not how it works. It’s not really about technology. Even if the technology existed it would take 15-20 years to certify such a plane. Those articles are for entertainment. And they work. I am entertained. :laughing:

2 Likes
40

I’m not worried about pilotless planes. The mere idea feels ludicrous - but that’s the point I was making in my original post. There is an attempted push happening in that direction - which ties into this whole AI conversation.

1 Like