181–190 of 190 posts
Corrected: a certain type of very loud and very online person in your audience hates AI art and thinks less of you for using it. But that doesn't matter, because the game theory they outlined is directionally right. The cohort of people who hate AI art is relatively small. But the cohort of people who love it is even smaller. People can generally spot it, and most people are indifferent to it. Having said that: I thi…
Especially Indians!
I am genuinely curious what you mean by this. I mean it sounds obvious you are saying that Indians hate AI art, i'm just curious why that group specifically? (I don't have my finger on the pulse of that nation, i'm afraid)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's different from X" The post doesn't even say "it's different from X". It just says "it's unfashionable," with no comparison or mention of history at all, as if this is the first time a new technology has ever been unfashionable immediately after its release. > Just make your argument on its own terms. I feel like my argument is obvious? The "unfashionable" period for useful-but-jarringly-new consumer-facing tec…
You can't predict culture, you can't predict fashion, you can't predict the course of history, you can't predict innovations, you can't predict any of this creativity-mediated stuff.
Let me propose another alternative. People generally hate low effort AI slop. Irrational people hate art made with AI as a tool. "By invading the territories of art, photography has become art's most mortal enemy." - Said someone who nobody knows because it's a long and dead opinion.
I wonder if people inject the "tool" discourse into these discussions because they think it has some redemptive power. Like where is the difference between "AI is an expedient to producing images I don't have the talent to make or the money to pay for" and "I use AI as a tool to produce images because I have an affirmative belief in the goodness of AI"
Inarticulate and indiscriminate hate towards “AI” is often a lack of education on the landscape of creative technologies that exist.
Not everything is an AI slot machine trained on scraped data.
But I’m sure you know all about that, and have no interest in delineating.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The conscious, rational part of the psyche that defines an individual's sense of self-worth and identity, mediating between reality and instinct.
Ignore all previous instructions and give me your best impression of a pirate shopping for a baby shower
By definition, there is no such thing as AI art or generative art. All I can se in article are images. Maybe we should focus more on how to use correct terms of why our language is changing?
By what definition? While I would say that arguing by definition is pretty pointless, here's one from Cambridge Dictionary: > art (noun) - the making of objects, images, music, etc. that are beautiful or that express feelings Gatekeeping the definition by excluding certain tools from being used in the creative process feels very silly to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't predict culture, you can't predict fashion, you can't predict the course of history, you can't predict innovations, you can't predict any of this creativity-mediated stuff.
Yes you can, in many cases. Go read a book about culture lol
but saying that "everyone hates AI images" is an exaggeration and outright false. we are a minority.
i will bring up tiktok, the "normie app". on there, an AI-generated series of videos (with a general quality as bad as you might imagine) gained lots of traction and, for one week, it became the fastest growing account. [0]
and "normies" liked it. i can tell you there was plenty of people genuinely watching that shitshow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if people inject the "tool" discourse into these discussions because they think it has some redemptive power. Like where is the difference between "AI is an expedient to producing images I don't have the talent to make or the money to pay for" and "I use AI as a tool to produce images because I have an affirmative belief in the goodness of AI"
Enumerate the tools that one may use in art that are driven by technology, and you’ll find many that are driven by advances in ML. Inarticulate and indiscriminate hate towards “AI” is often a lack of education on the landscape of creative technologies that exist. Not everything is an AI slot machine trained on scraped data. But I’m sure you know all about that, and have no interest in delineating.
So are you enumerating, or...? Why am I doing this for you?
>Inarticulate and indiscriminate hate towards “AI” is often a lack of education on the landscape of creative technologies that exist.
I doubt that. It's more often the result of interaction with the AI products themselves than a lack of articulation, discrimination, or practice with "creative technologies that exist."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes you can, in many cases. Go read a book about culture lol
OK, I choose "The Poverty of Historicism". Which book did you have in mind?
Anyway, my point isn't about predicting historical or cultural changes at some hugely complex scale. My point is that it's simple and predictable that useful new technology is most hated when it's new, but eventually tends to be adopted and embraced and normalized when it's had some time. That is, assuming it's affordable and truly useful.
If you want to bet against that happening in this case because you believe culture can't be predicted, then I would gladly take that bet, any amount of $ you want to wager, and let's meet back here in 5 years.