Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure they're the same people?
They asked about general trends so it doesn't matter if it's the same people or not as long as the average sentiment has changed.
How have you measured the average?
I Am An AI Hater
501–510 of 515 posts
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
They asked about general trends so it doesn't matter if it's the same people or not as long as the average sentiment has changed.
How have you measured the average?
I haven't, although I'm sure there exists a way to do. The point is that if one were on HN and reading the threads on AI in 2021, they'll see dissent as being nothing new.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or perhaps your initial premise ("AI without real art as input is noise") is simply wrong. By "get it," I'm trying to understand why you'd believe such a premise, yes even after 33 comments, because there is no underlying rationale to it, or rather, you never state it in a direct manner.
This is where you might be "not getting it". A human can carefully weigh every word, every swipe of a brush, or every tone... weigh it for the emotional expression and connection it produces (frequently subconscious). Whereas AI as a tool simply can't. This is a difference between using a gradient in Photoshop, which is still a tool, and generative AI which will make "decisions" you as an author can't explain or conn…
How is this different from an electronic music producer? They similarly arrange notes without having played them physically. So too with people generating an image as a rough draft then editing every part of it, which is mainly what I'm talking about, not someone who types in a prompt and accepts whatever comes out.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethicall…
You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful . Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard. > It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be hi…
It's more that I reject your premise of "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." because there is no backing behind that statement except your opinion and so I provided counter examples, but I did not need to do so because your statement has no rationale itself and can thus not need to be heeded.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
And that's my point. It was never about the philosophy, it was always about the economics. That's what frustrates me, why lie? If it's money you want then ask for it, don't make up some bullshit.
But are philosophy and economics so neatly separable in this case? Say you hold the philosophical belief that humans creating art is important but the economics don't allow it. In that case the root of your argument is philosophical and the economics factor into it but are not the single argument itself.
Well, the trope of the starving artist exists for a reason. One does not need to be employed as a full time artist to create art, and thus art can come from anywhere, the value of economics is an entirely separate issue because no one should expect to be able to do a leisurely activity as an economically viable occupation indefinitely. Does it happen, yes of course, but it shouldn't be expected to always continue.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#506I appreciate seeing this point of view represented. It's not one I personally hold, but it is one a LOT of my friends hold, and I think it's important that it be given a voice, even if -- perhaps especially if -- a lot of people disagree with it. One of my friends sent me a delightful bastardization of the famous IBM quote: A COMPUTER CAN NEVER FEEL SPITEFUL OR [PASSIONATE†]. THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER CREATE AR…
> A COMPUTER CAN NEVER FEEL SPITEFUL OR ...
Can other humans (aka NPCs)? They seem like they do so I treat them as such, but as far as I know other humans and a sufficiently emoting AI both act equally like they feel emotions.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
The day I see AI generated art and it moves me in the same way that human generated art does I will concede the point. So far all I've seen is more, not novel. Art never was about productivity, even though there have been some incredibly productive artists. Some of the artists that I've known were capable of capturing the essence of the subject they were drawing or painting in a few very crude lines and I highly doub…
I still don't get why you don't see it as a tool and not the creator itself. The human sitting behind the desk is the one attaching their emotions to what they send, because they control what image they want to send, otherwise they reroll or redo their work flow. These days they can even edit the image with natural language so they can build it up just as one does in Photoshop, only using words instead of a mouse.
>> The human sitting behind the desk is the one attaching their emotions to what they send
natural question: to you draw? Even a simple thing, even a doodle of a cat would count. A particular emoji drawn for a joke. Have you ever drew a line, and then smile to yourself "yes, that is what i want other people to see?"
People can draw poorly or make collages, and come up with pretty expressive art. Those who say "well I can't express myself with stick figures" coincidentally can't express anything without stickfigures too. They just never payed enough attention to the subject to express it.
Personal anecdote: when I ask people why X is in the art they send me, they answer happily. When I ask people with AI art that, they say "oh, you nitpicking". As if some details don't and shouldn't influence art expression. As if all details that weren't in a prompt, shouldn't express anything.
AI art is a concept muddled. It's a grave for intentionallity. It's not easy to decipher creators intent through a cacophony of other intents mixed in because almost none of art choices were made with the intent to convey.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#508Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was. My parents had first versions of analog cell phones and they were truly live savers no one ever complained about how they will destroy society.
From the start, people complained about how cell-phone users felt entitled to talk on them in public libraries, movie theaters and on public transportation.
I don't think that has changed? Everyone would still complain about someone Talking loudly in a public library or a movie theater.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tend to get flagged; there's a minority here who react to any open criticism of our benevolent future robot overlords badly.
On this site they're the majority. You can find much more nuance anywhere else, in here is just mostly fervent AI- and techno-optimism.
I think AI boosters may be in the majority here, but I do think that the "they most not speak ill of our robot gods; mass-flag them to hide the heresy" tendency is a minority.
Re: I Am An AI Hater
#510Yet it is here to stay, won't go away and even if it won't get any better at the useful things it does, it is useful. The externalities are real, some can be removed, some mitigated. If you're a hater and a human, then you don't have to mitigate anything, of course. Me, I hate the externalities, but I love the thing. I want to use my own AI, hyper optimized and efficient and private. It would mitigate a lot. Maybe so…
> the useful things it does It's weird how AI-lovers are always trying to shoehorn an unsupported "it does useful things" into some kind of criticism sandwich where only the solvable problems can be acknowledged as problems. Just because some technologies have both upsides and downsides doesn't mean that every technology automatically has upsides. GenAI is good at generating these kinds of hollow statements that mimi…
It's just a summarizing search engine. Instead of you manually looking up multiple pages and reading them and coming to some conclusion that allows you to move to the next step in the process, you can let the AI do that manual work for you.
But you shouldn't expect it do take over your actual thinking, because it doesn't actually think. So it's just another tool in the toolbox that can be useful for some applications, but not for all. If you use it for the appropriate tasks, it can be very helpful. If you try to do everything with it, you'll be disappointed.