Like understand to me that this reads like arguing against phone cameras being ubiquitous because “photos taken with a professional camera by a professional photographer look better and are higher quality and will be better art”. Yeah, sure, but phone cameras are still super useful!
1 Like
ie
re:zero
1 Like
I have no idea what that is
Predictable
1 Like
oh dear
that’s exactly how I see things
please for the love of god don’t tell me my thought process is a mix of may and arete
3 Likes
good time to learn!
1 Like
(this is a joke)
Phone cameras MASSIVELY increased the amount of shitty-ass photos out there. So easy for any dumb fucker to pick up a phone camera and call themselves a photographer. But it lowers the barrier to entry for a very common modern human desire, “I want to have a photograph of that thing” (or “I want to have a picture that looks like (XYZ imagining)”) and that’s still fundamentally good to me.
every “this will inundate the market with shit quality” argument against ai art could be easily repurposed to be against the internet in general
5 Likes
and I don’t like social media either
welcome to the internet
have a look around…
2 Likes
it’s never been easier for people to make bad points and have them reach a mass audience. oh well. guess we have to throw out the internet forever
5 Likes
Utuu has 5 girlfriends because he’s social, confident and charismatic. women find him appealing
1 Like
it did have countless useful applications but we can’t let just anyone make use of tools. too many bad things! back to caves for us
1 Like
I think that the percentage of people interested in using generative AI to produce art that have enough drive and creativity to refine into something that’s good is only a vanishingly small slice of the people who use it. It’s like fucking drop shippers who see what looks like an opportunity to make a quick buck so they just throw out endless piles of slop and garbage because the barrier to entry is zero. They clog up social media feeds that make discovery of what we might both consider to be good AI art difficult and just good human art more difficult because neither can compete with the sheer volume of trash. This means that you have to start discriminating against AI art categorically to get an acceptable signal to noise ratio.
@notblackorwhite (when you’re around, don’t wanna pull you back lol)
I’m actually gonna say this phone camera comparison is probably closer to explaining how I feel about AI art than any of the textwalls about how it can still be creative: it’s still good for art to be more accessible to more people. Barriers to entry are still bad. People should be able to make stuff, even if it means it lowers the average quality of that “stuff”.
Shitty phone camera pictures are less good than professional camera photographs, you have fewer dials and knobs to turn to make something beautiful, but it is still good for humanity that any shmuck can pick up a device they have already and call themselves a photographer. Sucks for professionally-trained photographers’ incomes but that doesn’t mean the technology is bad that’s a societal issue around the technology.
uh. uh.
[insert joke about some authoritarian regime restricting access to the internet in very specific ways]
1 Like
I don’t agree at all. I don’t think that “we” as a society are ever going to stop AI art from existing by “discriminating against it”. People who don’t care if their art is good don’t care if you comment “ew AI slop” on it. All it does is throw the baby out with the bathwater. And the bathwater doesn’t go anywhere anyway, so you’re not even getting rid of it.
it says the image generation is free but it doesnt let me generate any more free images. i might not understand where to click