3 ms·

I thought that's what you were saying here? "The goal is of course to make this unnecessary, because adjusting a single element doesn’t benefit much from ai."

I thought that's what you were saying here? "The goal is of course to make this unnecessary, because adjusting a single element doesn’t benefit much from ai." (And re AI also doing fine-grained yeah addressed that above: Just showing up isn't impressive, it needs to be absolutely amazing at fine-grained control to be a real creative tool in my opinion.)

jncfhnb 3y ago
Ugh. Ok 1) you can go as fine grained as you want. This is not a limitation. 2) going fine grained beyond a certain point is stupid. You don’t edit individual pixels in high resolution art. The tools allow it, but it is not a part of practical workflows. 3) the goal is of course to make fine grained adjustments not needed, because the fine grained details are well executed with high level executions. Same as experienced in (2). If you still think this is worth debating I’d request a specific example of a practical detail that you think is fine grained and not servable by AI. A frame of a film is just an image and is easily handled. A decibel is not a thing.
- robenkleene 3y ago
  This of course all comes down to a philosophy of creativity and art. In my philosophy of creativity and art, fine-grained details is where the art gets made. You can disagree with that, but I'd point to as evidence the design of the software and other tools that creators use are designed to facilitate fine-grained edits. So if you think that fine-grained edits aren't where the creativity and art comes from, then I'd ask why do you think all the tools are designed to offer that level of control? (E.g., DAWs, NLEs, 3D modeling/rendering, photo editing, vector editing, etc...). There are also "coarse" tools, and a market for them, e.g., iMovie and Canva, and I'd put AI tools in that same category of course. There's nothing new about coarse tools, but those are general for a different audience, and for a different production level. I.e., another way of saying this is that important thing is not "high-level of execution", Steve Albini didn't become a sought after producer by being technically great. In high-level creation, technical excellence is usually table stakes. He became sought after by having a particular vision for his music production, and that vision was executed by having fine-grained control over every single audio element of what he was working on. You can believe AI will negate the need for all this, but my point is simply that would be a mighty large coup to how high-level creation works today, ergo extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Blah blah blah. Please point to a specific example. Ideally for art or video so we have ai reference points

jncfhnb 3y ago

Ugh. Ok 1) you can go as fine grained as you want. This is not a limitation. 2) going fine grained beyond a certain point is stupid. You don’t edit individual pixels in high resolution art. The tools allow it, but it is not a part of practical workflows. 3) the goal is of course to make fine grained adjustments not needed, because the fine grained details are well executed with high level executions. Same as experienced in (2). If you still think this is worth debating I’d request a specific example of a practical detail that you think is fine grained and not servable by AI. A frame of a film is just an image and is easily handled. A decibel is not a thing.

robenkleene 3y ago
This of course all comes down to a philosophy of creativity and art. In my philosophy of creativity and art, fine-grained details is where the art gets made. You can disagree with that, but I'd point to as evidence the design of the software and other tools that creators use are designed to facilitate fine-grained edits. So if you think that fine-grained edits aren't where the creativity and art comes from, then I'd ask why do you think all the tools are designed to offer that level of control? (E.g., DAWs, NLEs, 3D modeling/rendering, photo editing, vector editing, etc...). There are also "coarse" tools, and a market for them, e.g., iMovie and Canva, and I'd put AI tools in that same category of course. There's nothing new about coarse tools, but those are general for a different audience, and for a different production level. I.e., another way of saying this is that important thing is not "high-level of execution", Steve Albini didn't become a sought after producer by being technically great. In high-level creation, technical excellence is usually table stakes. He became sought after by having a particular vision for his music production, and that vision was executed by having fine-grained control over every single audio element of what he was working on. You can believe AI will negate the need for all this, but my point is simply that would be a mighty large coup to how high-level creation works today, ergo extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Blah blah blah. Please point to a specific example. Ideally for art or video so we have ai reference points