371–380 of 493 posts
So people should stop expressing themselves, however they see fit so you can read their blog? Ok!
I don't pick a book off a shelf and call it my own self expression. That's someone else's output. I also don't consider a machine's randomly generated output my own self expression. No actual person without financial incentive would.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a blog, real images signify you spent a lot of time creating the post, it was very important to you, and you likely made sure the details in the text were accurate. While AI images in a blog signify low effort high volume posting where the text likely was just copied from AI without any care.
It's not just about effort though. I prefer the authors terrible doodles over AI art any day of the week. Some of my favorite examples: https://hamberg.no/gtd https://learnyouahaskell.github.io/introduction.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but that’s exactly what the painters said about photography when it was invented. They said it was more chemistry than art because of the development process. Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it. https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ I don’t see how blanket labeling all images made wi…
Can you show me one AI image with artistic value?
But, to you? Apparently not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay but that’s exactly what the painters said about photography when it was invented. They said it was more chemistry than art because of the development process. Photography couldn’t qualify as an art in its own right, the explanation went, because it lacked “something beyond mere mechanism at the bottom of it. https://daily.jstor.org/when-photography-was-not-art/ I don’t see how blanket labeling all images made wi…
Can you show me one AI image with artistic value?
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/@merzmensch_kosmopol/post/DYUaBV2CbE...
Which is funny because that's how Monet and the Impressionists were originally received by critics. The comment about the light rendering being wrong, so clearly it couldn't be Monet is especially funny given the origin of why they are called Impressionists:
Le Havre, he called it Impression. The term, springing from the jargon used by painters, had been an artistic watchword since the middle of the century, reflecting the growing interest in capturing the atmosphere of a scene, or impression, rather than giving a painstaking description of nature
So give the above it's really futile to debate over whether any particular image is art. But yeah, drop a contact if you want recs!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Yesterday I encountered AI-generated food photos on a menu for the first time. I immediately felt grossed out before even realising why. Their generated focaccias didn't even look like food, just off-putting trypophobia triggers. Also, that's just misleading. When I see pictures of food on a menu, I expect them to be real pictures of an example of the actual dish I'd get (perhaps made a little more carefully with m…
> When I see pictures of food on a menu, I expect them to be real pictures of an example of the actual dish I'd get I don't get who would think that's a good idea. Like if I order something because the picture shows that the dish has carrots or something and the dish you bring doesn't I'm going to complain. But then again I can't tell you the number of restaurants that have a photograph of a menu on a website where t…
> I don't get who would think that's a good idea.
It's super helpful to the customer, because it gives you a much better idea of what you're going to get. That's especially true with ethic food, where the descriptions use unfamiliar terms or a lot of meaning is lost in translation.
> Like if I order something because the picture shows that the dish has carrots or something and the dish you bring doesn't I'm going to complain.
Seriously, what's the problem with that?
Are you, for some strange reason, taking the perspective of a restaurant that wants to behave in a very customer-unfriendly way? Randomly dropping or substituting ingredients is not something a restaurant should be doing.
AI-generated images discourage me from interacting with any entity AT ALL. Bar / restaurant posters, events, shops, anything. Because it makes the brand appear lazy. And in a weird way "anti-human". I don't have a better word than that.
AI-generated images discourage me from interacting with any entity AT ALL. Bar / restaurant posters, events, shops, anything. Because it makes the brand appear lazy. And in a weird way "anti-human". I don't have a better word than that.
Those restaurants that use AI menus now? They just used free templates before. Few mom'n pop restaurants could afford spending money on graphic designers to work out a nice menu.
Usually they'd just use a template, send to the printer (or print it themselves), and that's what you got.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you didn't create anything if you used Photoshop... You didn't create anything if you used synth and autotune... You didn't do any scientific research if you used a calculator. You didn't do anything if you just piped together two programs. I've heard it all before. Gate keepers wanna keep the gate as long as they can.
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…
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 a reference image, just like you're imaging is the basis for those other examples. So the argument isn't disingenuous, you're just not familiar with how AI artists work.
For example, if an AI artist wants an exact composition for a scene, they can first create that composition by taking a photograph, or arranging it in a 3D editor like blender. Then they can use AI to "fill in" some elements of it.
I don't see that as any different from an artist using autotune to make their voice sound different.
Moreover, what about the synth example? What goes into synth music is connecting a bunch of wires and adjusting a bunch of knobs to tune the generated output of the machine. That's the same mechanical process as AI art.