441–450 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How are they not in good faith?
They are logical fallacy and deliberately do not engage in the actual argument. It's an inauthentic engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What other people have said about other, unrelated things has no bearing on what I'm saying about this particular thing. The illogical conclusions of nameless "others" are not an argument against my current conclusions. You're treating me as guilty by association. You're also making an assumption that AI's acceptance WILL follow, just because the others were later accepted. You can't make that assumption at all. Neit…
How are they not in good faith?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not political. You disrespect me by insisting I spend my personal time and attention on something you couldn’t be assed to do on your own. You clearly think you’re above me and that your attention is worth more than mine.
They're creating for you. They don't owe you anything, they presumably don't have the same feelings about using generated content as you do.
If you create something AI generated and post it in spaces where people expect to engage with other humans by way of human-created artifacts, then at best you’re dishonestly wasting everyone’s time. At worst, using AI generated responses to substitute for discourse assumes that other peoples’ time and attention are worth less than your own and direct communication is beneath you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah if you want recommendation of things I like, drop a contact and I'll send you some. But I don't really want to get into a public debate about taste in art, because that's all posting anything would come down to. It's a losing battle, because the bias is so strong you can post an actual Monet but say it was generated by AI, and people will come out to tell you how it's clearly not art: https://www.threads.com/@me…
Just post a link bro it's not rocket science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Diagram-wise I had better luck in telling it to make a text version for diagram generator, not only AI edits tend to be more correct, it's easier to fix any errors too. As a bonus you can then prompt AI to validate whether the diagram matches article and vice versa, I've caught some small bugs like that when we migrated our docs
> you can then prompt AI to validate whether the diagram matches article and vice versa No repro with Nano Banana with an infographic prompt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are logical fallacy and deliberately do not engage in the actual argument. It's an inauthentic engagement.
Right now your actual argument is just really your opinion. You can avoid actually examining it closely by claiming logical fallacies, but again we're just talking about your opinion, you're not making a logical argument.
But a meaningful discussion requires good faith, not dismissal to disingenuous argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
I mostly agree but here my analogy was reversed compared to yours. In my analogy the nicely dressed church lady is the professional, politically correct, climate conscious, anti AI redditor. The torn clothes punk hobo is the lazy rulebraking AI shoveler who makes the shared spaces dirty, and the smart iconoclast contrarian rebel artist poet ignoring schoolmarm rules is the person who uses AI but also makes otherwise…
AI is the establishment
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Charles Baudelaire argued photography could not be considered a fine art because it merely produced mechanical replicas of reality without input from human imagination. He called photography "art's most mortal enemy" and the "refuge of all failed painters" who lacked artistic talent and training. And if he's to be believed in 1859, photography isn't art. But today, it's widely accepted that it is. And in all likeliho…
Putting aside your desire to debate whether photography is art or not. AI jpegs are not photography, because no photons were involved in the AI halucinations.
The AI debate will be settled the same way and for the same reasons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These statements are factually untrue or overly broad to the extent of being nonsensical. Hopefully, you can see how that would come off as incredibly disingenuous. [E.g. what did they autotune? What did they Photoshop? Probably some creative work that they or somebody else made.] [Edit: Further, these don't really line up with what the comment you're responding to is saying. If all you did was write a prompt for an…
> What did they Photoshop? Probably some creative work that they or somebody else made.... If all you did was write a prompt for an image Most serious AI artist are not just writing a prompt for an image. They usually have their own process and can describe it in the same detail any trad artist would. But to your point about Photoshop/autotune, the basis of most AI artwork pipelines is some other creative work, like…
> you didn't create anything in this case. Not the images at least. Which then casts doubt on the rest of the writing in said blog post.
The topic is "AI-generated images" in blog posts. Which, no, most of those aren't being generated with any of the more sophisticated techniques you're listing. And if they are, they're less likely to be the images people are complaining about and that are being discussed here.
People are complaining that search engines are overwhelmed by AI-generated writing and images. Several people in this thread are stating that they click-off when they see it. It may be developing similar to banner ad blindness, where people saw the pattern of spam and low quality output and developed a reflexively mental filter and stronger dislike of them. What number of potential readers is an acceptable loss? Most blogs are small, so probably not many. But even worse, as many have said here, it also harms their perception of the blog.
Outside of the many outright spam blogs generating tons of images, a lot of people creating the "AI-looking" art that people say looks "bad" or "obvious" are actually also putting time and energy into it too. Those things don't automatically equal quality or trust. In some cases they consider themselves the serious AI artists. These creators don't always know that their images "look like AI," which is part of why it's becoming a perceived quality signal. They'll say it doesn't, but people mistake some of my pieces (not AI) as AI. Art is in the eye of the beholder. (Incidentally, if you're reading this, ensure you're actually getting meaningful, critical critique and feedback. That's something that's an important cultural component in many creative communities.)
I take issue with how poorly phrased the comment's arguments are. Saying that people "didn't create anything if they used Photoshop", they didn't create with whatever "synth" is supposed to be, or that scientific research isn't real because of calculators are bad comparisons and inaccurate.
The author may be trying to make a point similar to the photography one mentioned elsewhere or something like "Well if AI generated art isn't art, art must not exist?" I'm literally confused by the post and honestly can't make out the point with how hyperbolic and outright wrong it is. It just reads as mud-slinging to me.
> What about the synth example
Does "synth" mean synthesized music? What about it? A synthesizer is generally deterministic and the musician is making a decision about exactly what nodes are being played. The use of something like an arpeggiator is predictable and deliberate choice (I'm not going to go into the artistic integrity tier list of every synthesizer module.) Text prompt-based generation is a much higher level of abstraction which often makes several compositional and stylistic decisions for the user, even with advanced prompting.
Comparisons like these are unconvincing, which is part of why the other comment isn't good.
For some group of users, images they perceive as "AI" now carry a spam association. So, is your music actually rising above the cacophony? Do people even see your banner ad? Do they instantly get a bad taste in their mouth?
Go ahead and use AI-images in your blog post, I'm not gatekeeping or going to stop you. If they're so great, use a bunch of them everywhere. But, I (and people in this thread or that I know) will assume it's blogspam and click away. And, if it's commercial setting and I'm your competitor, I'm going to view that as potential opening for differentiation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mostly agree but here my analogy was reversed compared to yours. In my analogy the nicely dressed church lady is the professional, politically correct, climate conscious, anti AI redditor. The torn clothes punk hobo is the lazy rulebraking AI shoveler who makes the shared spaces dirty, and the smart iconoclast contrarian rebel artist poet ignoring schoolmarm rules is the person who uses AI but also makes otherwise…
I get what you're going for, I just don't think there's anything remotely punk, contrarian, or rebellious about using AI AI is the establishment