391–400 of 493 posts
If you're writing a personal blog (as opposed to a company blog), you should not care what people think. A blog is an expression of your own taste. Write about things that interest you . Write in a style that you like. Add whatever images you want. And don't let some random stranger on the internet influence your blog. Otherwise, it's not your blog anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you be able to pick out an example of "good photography as art" in the first 6 years of photography's existence, given generative media has been around for about 6 years? Does the lack of an existence proof for fine art photography in the first six years mean that photography will never be fine art? Obviously not for us living in the future. You'll need to propose a different, more honest test.
> Would you be able to pick out an example of "good photography as art" in the first 6 years of photography's existence "Self‐Portrait as a Drowned Man" is thought to be the first staged photograph and it carries a powerful artistic and political message. Literally everyone in the world with access to a browser can prompt chatgpt for an image. Billions of AI images have been generated yet you can't point literally to…
Not being familiar with the piece, so I looked it up. Seems like it was a protest correspondence aimed at a specific institution, not a public artwork. It doesn't appear to have been exhibited, reviewed, or discussed in print in 1840. Mostly circulated privately.
So I don't think it's a good test. Because you're asking me to point out an equivalent piece in the billions of generative art produced in these six years that would be judged by future historians to have great artistic value. If we were both back in 1840, we both wouldn't be able to point out "Self‐Portrait as a Drowned Man" either. It never posed itself as art at the time, and we'd have to know what future art historians thought.
Yes, I stand by the "lacking perspective" comment, because your judgements on photography and what's considered art are from the current modern point of view, rather than putting yourself in the shoes of those judging photography when it first came out--which is the shoes we find ourselves wearing when it comes to judging generative images, because the alternative (retrospectively judging it from the future) is unavailable to us.
Hence, my core argument still stands. In what way is photography different than generated images, where in photography is considered art because humans can exercise their creative judgement, but in generative images isn't because humans cannot exercise their creative judgement?
To argue against my own stance, the tact you should have taken could have been:
If one major component of art is the human judgement, how could humans could be credited for exercising any judgement at all when prompting, when LLMs are at the end of the pipe? And if they're at all intelligence, what's to say they're not superseding our intentions with their own?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're setting yourself up for a lonely life. What a ridiculous conclusion jump. It's the complete opposite of that. I prefer human things, human interaction, with human beings involved, which in some way reflect the human experience.
No. This anti-AI attitude is getting old and tired. I'm getting sick of people insulting the work that I do, calling it lazy (it's not), and saying I should do things in the manner they prefer. I'm also sick of the childish death threats. If you don't want to interact with me because of AI, good riddance.
Do you do it, or does AI do it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The tools are getting better and often that overproduced thing is the toupee effect, where you don't notice the better ones. The generic look can be avoided with more customized prompting. You can make much more natural songs with longer prompts, a bit of quickly self-sung melodies you add as references, even if you can't sing. Similarly for images, sketching something out in paint can make a huge difference or just…
> especially hard to explain it to the AI infatuated among us because they don't really want to understand why people dislike the tooling they're obsessed with Your comment is an example of what the parent comment is discussing; the reflexive "you can't really tell and anyway you can do it better to stop people being able to tell and also soon it will be better so no one will be able to tell" is a gallop like the nar…
> "People are telling you they can tell, and that they do care."
In the same spirit, one could argue that "AI Slop" is actually constructive feedback to a small degree. It's a short-hand for "this is sloppy/low-effort/unskilled work with obvious utilization of generative AI tools". It's not much different than using the same photography filter for every post on Instagram or picking the most popular Wordpress theme --- if you are expecting praise for that then you will be disappointed.
I use AI-themed images for the opener to my blog. It's typically a steampunk robot image that is not related to the topic of the post. The actual content is written by me. If there are any code samples that were AI-generated, I'll call them out as such.
that is exactly the kind of thing that makes me close the tab. like why? to me it just means "I'm an author that likes/makes AI slop and this article is probably half if not complete AI slop or not worth reading" I don't see how that would add any value or boost page visits
I am my target audience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This anti-AI attitude is getting old and tired. I'm getting sick of people insulting the work that I do, calling it lazy (it's not), and saying I should do things in the manner they prefer. I'm also sick of the childish death threats. If you don't want to interact with me because of AI, good riddance.
> I'm getting sick of people insulting the work that I do Do you do it, or does AI do it?
If I use an excavator to dig a ditch, it doesn't mean I didn't dig the hole.
To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…
This. If it's actually an illustrative part of the text, include it, even if it's AI generated. Not everyone who can write can do graphics. If it's only decoration, leave it out. No matter whether AI, stock or custom made.
To me there are different motivations to include imagery and some of them are just fine with AI generation. If the imagery actually goes to the substance of helping to illustrate or explain the actual content then it seems very superficial to reject it based on how it was generated. In fact it is kind of stupid to insist someone slavishly draw something by hand that could have been done an easier way. The problem com…
For every AI snob that's not reading an article because they see an AI image, there's 10 non-snobs who appreciate a decent usage. If you're creating complete slop, no one is reading your article in the first place. Full stop. The image doesn't matter. As with anything, it's about what you created, and creating at all - not the tool you used to create. The snobs and haters will continue to b!tch and moan. They always…
And now it's just another instrument and has whole genres of music dedicated to it. C64 SID chips are sought after for 8-bit music creation because it has a unique aesthetic. Same with TR-808 drum machines.
The AI complaints feel a lot like that.
I'm betting in about 15-20 years there's going to be a revival of terrible AI images and videos because people are nostalgic for 2024 when AI images were obvious and sit firmly in an uncanny valley.
And I think AI will inspire a massive artistic revolution, both because it becomes just another tool in the toolbox that makes creation easier like drum machines and synths, AND it takes over the pop-music space previously occupied by boy bands and pop queens - generic rehashes of inoffensive crap that so saturates the market entire counter-cultures develop. But someone will use it to make something uniquely creative and new. Rap and hip-hop wouldn't exist without cheap drum machines.
In other words, you're old enough to start disliking new stuff, but not old enough to have seen this happen multiple times and realize that this is just another generational cycle. The younger generations will absorb AI tools and continue to do what humans have always done, which is be creative with the tools at their disposal.