101–110 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is there is a mindfuck dynamic the arena of taste brings. Popular taste can overwhelm all other taste. A society may not even know they’ve lost taste for a significant amount of time.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How do consumers discover new products By looking them up when they need them
Sometimes sure, but more often than not they ‘realize’ they need x thing because recently they were told they need x thing. It’s a big oroborous.
Eh, kind of. In a way, AI does not change at all the problem of having taste. There are more books you'll ever read, movies you'll ever watch, games you'll ever play, software you'll ever use. I remain completely unconvinced that "dead internet/dead youtube" is a problem: you had to filter before, you have to filter now. What AI does, being highly weird technology, is that it destroys heuristics. Good English used to…
Yes. Oddly, for once, English majors may actually benefit, because they may be better prepared than most to prepare prompts for the jobs of tomorrow ( mild sarcasm, coffee didn't kick in yet ).
I have zero idea how the tools work, I'm just really good at communicating in a clear and concise manner when I need to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rephrased: Any artistic direction done in the interest of creating or increasing profits is overwhelmingly likely to be tasteless. I don't think that's particularly controversial. Profitability doesn't imply tastelessness, but profit motive certainly does.
I would argue that if you can't make a profit you have shown you are tasteless. If other people don't enjoy it enough to pay you, that says a lot about how out of step you are.
not sure if that's a popular opinion. In which case it would be tasteless.
That's the interesting part I think. To the next generation of humans the smell of chatgpt text _may_ actually be the smell of good writing. Wouldn't that be a really interesting tragedy of the commons 2.0?
I very often hear from developers at clients I work with that code they (not me) generate with AI is not of enough "quality". So I ask them what quality means. So far, I only get the most basic feedback: it should be in X style, pass Y linter, have N% coverage, have documentation... At the same time, most, if not all manually written repositories do not pass the newfound quality metrics that must apply to AI code to…
Yes, there is an objective reality there. That's basically why some of us are artists and some aren't (that and self-confidence I guess).
It's what guides us when there aren't any obvious signposts around. Good artists, scientists and engineers use this faculty all the time.
Those who lack the faculty just stick to areas with lots of sign posts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that if you can't make a profit you have shown you are tasteless. If other people don't enjoy it enough to pay you, that says a lot about how out of step you are.
aren't you then equating taste with popularity ? not sure if that's a popular opinion. In which case it would be tasteless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would argue that if you can't make a profit you have shown you are tasteless. If other people don't enjoy it enough to pay you, that says a lot about how out of step you are.
This would make a number of great artists of history "tasteless".
“The loudest voices preaching about taste and AI are often the ones who never demonstrated taste before AI.” Yes, and if even these people can tell that AI generated stuff is godawful and tasteless, that tells you everything you need to know about AI.
AI stuff is tasteless in a different sense: It's like food that has no flavor. It "lacks salt" in some non-literal sense. And I think that is not all that surprising, because much of what it was trained on was corporate-speak, which has the same problem.