311–320 of 493 posts
Fair enough. I dislike word-expansion AI text so I get it. When I write on my blog, part of it is as memory like a diary for myself and I find that I can create these images that help remember the scene well. As much as I'd like people to read my blog, I get that they have preferences, and if many decide against then that's their prerogative. Here are two examples with AI images from Nano Banana: https://wiki.roshang…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, including some AI generated things is becoming a costly signal that you're not bound by the neoluddites and the online anti-AI mob / redditor hivemind. I'm starting to like this signal, but it has to be distinguished from the simply being-lazy signal that indicates the content may not be all that interesting of valued by the author. If you have an otherwise high quality site where you aren't afraid to use AI…
> It signals not playing by midwit pearl clutcher rules. Pre-torn jeans signal being a poser, wanting the torn jeans look without having the lifestyle that results in torn jeans, or even having the agency to tear your own jeans So it's an apt analogy for AI users I guess. People who want to build creative works without ever putting in any effort to learn how Modern society rewards taking shortcuts way too much
(don't get hung up on the climate thing - I'm not arguing on the object level. A Christian believer can also be annoyed by the Karen-like peal clutcher no-fun-allowed church lady archetype).
I use AI-themed images for the opener to my blog. It's typically a steampunk robot image that is not related to the topic of the post. The actual content is written by me. If there are any code samples that were AI-generated, I'll call them out as such.
A. If it's unrelated, it doesn't add anything to the post except aesthetics. B. On the aesthetics dimension: I don't think people are very impressed by the AI aesthetic, and tend to be annoyed by it. C. It seems that most people now assume that AI-generated image == AI-generated text.
I personally do not care about AI images or not, but it seems that a portion of people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand I believe they used to call that "art."
No, they used to call that "illustration." The belief that we were living in a golden age of hand-made visual beauty before AI arrived is obvious nonsense. The golden age of illustration ended when Illustrator arrived. After that, everything became a mess of cliches and clip art, culminating with Google's Material Design, where everything looks simultaneously soulless, heartless, and bland. AI brought some colour bac…
Yes. That's why it's called slop. And now we're absolutely swimming in it. I guess a small number of people like it, but then there's no accounting for (bad) taste.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is an artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. The film director doesn’t design the sets or give the performances or do the makeup, but they place an authorial stamp on the production by selecting what will and will not end up in the frame.
There is artistry in assembling other art into a single cohesive piece. A film is a collection of the work of artists and performers. Combining AI imagery and AI text together does not make art, because none of the constituent parts are art. A few prompts do not make art.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your quick take lacks perspective. Photography wasn't always viewed to be art. Critics called photography "slop" in its infancy for a long while. See Charles Baudelaire for his 1800's take on photography: > As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbeci…
> Hence, I think there will be a role for AI generated images and video to be elevated into the fine art in the next couple of decades, and we'll see them in museums and exhibitions Show me one example of AI "art"
Does the lack of an existence proof for fine art photography in the first six years mean that photography will never be fine art? Obviously not for us living in the future.
You'll need to propose a different, more honest test.
It's a lie. It tricks the reader looking for deeper meaning.
Though hastily chosen non-AI images may do this too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To summarize, this is a "you" problem. Just because YOU do not think there's anything special about art, it does not mean there isn't. Your lack of respect for art does not undermine the thing itself. You cannot have your GenAI products included with "art" simply because you want to. You aren't entitled to having your prompt outputs held in the same esteem. > If somebody spends hours prompting various resources and c…
I mean sounds like it's a your problem if you are saying that certain tools, no matter how they are used or the effort put into using them can't qualify as art. You're right, I don't gatekeep art that same way. I don't lack respect for art, I lack respect for your standards which I think are artificial.
Someone that pretends prompting is "effort" will always just be that, regardless of how you, personally, set your standards.
So much this, blogs add an image for the sake of having an image. At this point it would be much better to just have a random dog or a cat pic, it is as relevant to your blog post as your random generated thing, but I'd prefer seeing a random happy pup. And if you generated a pic I suppose you also generated your post, so I'm way less likely to pay attention to it.
if cybersecurity blogs replaced AI hacker images with dog pics the world would be a better place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it signifies any of those things. This is all new stuff. Some people have decided to offload image-creation to machines because what they care about is the text. This stuff you say it signifies, it says more about you than them.
Some use of hero images by bloggers is a deliberate style choice, to emulate the norms of professional journalism. A lot of traditional news outlets have a style rule that every article must have an image. Look at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news https://www.nytimes.com/ https://www.economist.com etc - every article has an image. Even a report on something highly abstract - "BP reports record profits" - will be illustrated…
I seem to recall many instances of the use of incorrect photos, and the earliest I heard of was in the The Guardian in the 1980s before the general decline in media quality and standards.