21–30 of 71 posts
(from listening a lot to artists, so might have some bias). I haven't actually attempted either ... I find the code generation not very useful and the artistic structures interesting, but something's missing.
I vilify code LLMs every time I review a colleague's code, ask them why they wrote something a certain way, and they can't explain. ChatGPT prose is even worse: it's like a corporate press release, only even blander and happytalker.
Also, I like AI art; I made a Lego model and then fed it into an image generator to kinda generate a "reverse" reference image. So it looks like the Lego model tries to look like the reference pictures, even though its look is more dictated by the very constraint parts list (it's an alt build of an existing model): https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-218657/RedNifre/31124-battl...
I could not have drawn these artworks myself and the use is so silly that I would not spend any money for paying for them: Without AI, these would not exist.
I'm not sure we can be certain everyone has that view. I get the impression many of the people who vilify art generators are also against coding copilots. > I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.” > Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel Aren't you worried people will skip your graphic novel?
It's largely driven by social dynamics. If your group generally expresses disgust for AI art, you subconsciously know you have to have the same opinion about it.
Your post is a bad example where you make an artificial distinction based on how you generate it in order to make it okay.
It's okay for what you are doing because it's incredibly convenient. It's not okay for other people because you know it's unpopular.
For videos also, you need to distinguish between that and images or other types of art. Videos are more challenging than still images and just starting to get to the point where the latest ones don't have a lot of weird obvious spatial temporal artifacts.
Personally, I have no time for gen-AI in pretty much any context, at least given the current landscape.
And plenty of people seem to accept, if not love, gen-AI art. I don't get it, but it's true.
> While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.”
My reflex whenever I encounter gen-AI output in any form: text, code, image, music, video, what have you. I find all off it mid in the best of cases, and usually think it's quite terrible. I regularly see posts of the form "you'll never believe this amazing AI generated picture/video/paper/program, and when I check it out I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because I just don't see the magic.
Just my $.02, not inflation adjusted. You (and many others) may well feel differently.
Code assistants are used by programmers wanting to be more productive. Things that claim to replace programmers entirely get dissed. (But it's more "that won't work" rather than "that's not allowed", because, well, it doesn't work. Yet at least.)
AI-generated content is probably cheap spam, even though it in theory could be made by someone knowledgeable using the AI as a tool.
Things generated by an AI are lower quality than things made by someone competent... but depending on what you're doing, that might not matter.
I don't. There is no "we," and it's a relatively small but extremely loud contingent of people that have meltdowns over AI-generated images and video. As for the why, it's primarily ego and fear. And you told your wife to skip the video because most AI-generated content is, quite frankly, garbage. It's not garbage because it's AI though; it's garbage because the person making it probably doesn't care much about quali…
Every single non tech person I know hates AI. Even my tech friends are turning against it.