6 ms·
I heard this argument 15 years ago when a photographer was making his photos nicer (nothing heavy) and another person objected to it. He said "it was always don
by locallost 3y ago
I heard this argument 15 years ago when a photographer was making his photos nicer (nothing heavy) and another person objected to it. He said "it was always done just not with digital tools". But it does feel different because the advertised possibilities make it so easy to create on paper a photo of something impressive. I worry about it because it can create unrealistic expectations of what is possible - how does a person wo wants do dunk a basketball, but can't, feel if everyone posts their dunking photos that are fake? On the flip side if everyone does it, it might devalue the whole wow effect, making it less impressive and less important.
Then again, it's always true that the world we'll die in will be different than the world we were born in, and we might not like it. Maybe that's how it goes.
- bryanrasmussen 3y ago>how does a person wo wants do dunk a basketball, but can't, feel if everyone posts their dunking photos that are fake? On the flip side if everyone does it, it might devalue the whole wow effect, making it less impressive and less important. reminds me of a meme I saw yesterday - "Before Auto-Tune there was talent", with a picture of Steve Perry back in the Journey days.
- rzzzt 3y agoWe only know that Auto-Tune exists because T-Pain and Cher's sound engineer set it to "snap to grid" mode as a deliberate artistic choice. This pretty much mirrors @locallost's story in the audio domain. Shaving off cents here and there to make someone's singing voice prettier does not hurt anyone.
- k__ 3y agoPretty much so. For some people music is an art form to express themselves, the skill/talent part is just an obstacle. There is still much work to do on the rest of the song writing and production.
- blowski 3y agoAuto-tune has done to singing what photography did to painting - if anybody can be in tune, then being tuneful is no longer impressive. So other qualities become important, such as timbre and authenticity.
- herval 3y agoAlso created entire new genres of music, and enabled artists that don’t have a good voice but can do cool music. I don’t know why anyone sees it as a bad thing
- 101008 3y agoI dont think anyone sees it as a "bad thing" per se. They just get mad when someone says X is better singer than Y, when X clearly uses auto-tune and Y doesn't (or at least not in the same amount).
- iinnPP 3y agoTaste is an opinion though. Getting mad about it doesn't help anyone, especially not yourself.
- lesuorac 3y agoTaste is an opinion but whether or not a singer can hit certain notes on cue is objective. Not using computers to assist with your artistic creations is largely foolish but measurable things aren't opinions. Somebody can be a better artist but also a worse singer.
- vintermann 3y agoMost of all it enabled artists who can't hold a tune to save their life but look good on TV.
- rzzzt 3y agoThey appeared before software support was available, the technique is called "someone else is singing".
- tecleandor 3y agoHa! They should do it with Lucille Ball too :) https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/68426/ https://www.britishpathe.com/asset/68426/
- zooq_ai 3y agoMost people mock the Metaverse, but at the end of the day, our entire humanity is prepared for the Metaverse. Everyone will spin their own universes in which they are the emperor and they will create stories in that Metaverse. You can visit someone's Metaverse if it's interesting or popular. Your avatar is your personality, appearance. We are close to simulating all our experiences. The only thing real will be a climate-controlled-with-plumbing 20 x 20 room and the food we eat. (We still haven't digitized taste, smell and some forms of touch). Given this scenario, Reality is over-rated. Why do you need "truth" anyway? Who cares if someone believes the earth is flat? or Trump is still the President or some esoteric grammar rules? As long as there is one another person (or even an AI assistant) who believes the story that's all that matters for our social well-being
- locallost 3y agoWell, a lot of progress we've made is based on science, which is based on rejecting the stories we tell ourselves. Our senses lie to us all the time in the real world too, so the stories you will tell yourself in the metaverse will be just stories. I think it matters, you can't build a rocket to outside the solar system if you think the Earth is flat. Will you be happy? Maybe, but the world we live in now has never been more connected yet people have never felt so disconnected. But like I originally said, the world you die in is always different. Maybe people get used to it and it's all they will know.
- mewpmewp2 3y agoPeople who believe earth is flat wouldn't have gone to build rockets even if they didn't believe so.
- hef19898 3y agoFlat Earthers absolutely do build rockets. And historically, everyone for whom the shape of the earth was of any importance, knew it was round. Everyone else didn't care either way.
- 3y ago
- sgu999 3y ago> Then again, it's always true that the world we'll die in will be different than the world we were born in, and we might not like it. Maybe that's how it goes. I don't think it's been true throughout history, things usually didn't change that much over the span of a single lifetime before the industrial revolution. The scale is dramatically different now, and we're kind of addicted to it.
- herval 3y agoThere’s very few places in history that remained constant for more than a single generation. Technology-wise, things obviously move faster today than a thousand years ago, but if you take in consideration the constant cultural shifts, wars, plagues that lasted a decade etc, and life might feel like that since the dawn of man
- mc32 3y agoI doubt this. After the war, people would go back to tilling land with the same oxen and plough and go fishing in the same kinds of boats their parents and grandparents did. The meals didn’t change, the beer didn’t change, the routine didn’t change. They didn’t get better ploughs or better boats, or better oxen. It was still about an acre per day before a war and after a war. Medicines and cures remained constant. That’s not to say occasional improvements didn’t happen, they did, but there were long breaks between improvements.
- herval 3y agoIt really depends on the pocket of people you choose to analyze, and their geographic location. That’s all true even today
- hinkley 3y agoNot with the same oxen, not with the same wheat. We’ve only been domesticating animals and plants for maybe 25,000 years, and that’s if you assume Gobleki Tepe means we have missed the actual cradle of civilization this whole time. There are certainly going to be times when transportation improvements accelerate this process, from ships to Roman roads to steam power, but every generation will be different, and most of our livestock have fairly short childhoods. For a single human to witness twenty generations of goat or pig is not unreasonable. Or fifty generations of grains. Add in all of their neighbors, and the odds of seeing something special in their lifetime jump considerably. You would probably see several.
- MonaroVXR 3y agoTo be very honest, this is already happening to me in my own experience, I'm always joining that I need a camera team to verify my actions..