3 ms·

>> It suggests the strident protests against AI art is just carbon chauvinism. > What do you mean by that? "Carbon chauvinism" is a stupid idea used by "AI" e

by tivert 3y ago

>> It suggests the strident protests against AI art is just carbon chauvinism. > What do you mean by that? "Carbon chauvinism" is a stupid idea used by "AI" enthusiasts to dismiss criticism and worry about the technology they're hyping. The basic (sloppy) idea is to evoke taboos around stuff like racism and sexism to shut down the conversation, with the implication that it is wrong for humans to object to being replaced by robots (and the unacknowledged bleakness of their perspective doesn't stop there).

exe34 3y ago
There's no right or wrong about it, only the march of history. Those who oppose it are having to come up with more and more contrived excuses. TFA talks specifically how the audience loves AI art if they don't know it's AI generated. It's mostly the carbon artists who seem outraged that it's now possible for somebody with a vision but not the skills to produce art that they can't compete with. And a few in the audience that really hate AI generated art seem to just want for there to be a meat bag with feelings involved, but not silicon beyond 90s level of Photoshop. It's not even a question of quality here, but a question of degree.
- tivert 3y ago
  > There's no right or wrong about it, only the march of history. That's awful nonsense right there. The awful part is the amorality, and the nonsense is the assumption that history has a direction and it will inevitably go your way. > TFA talks specifically how the audience loves AI art if they don't know it's AI generated. No. TFA talks about an online survey with 200 participants, and even the researcher says he "wouldn’t take this result too seriously." Not once did it use the word "love." > And a few in the audience that really hate AI generated art seem to just want for there to be a meat bag with feelings involved, but not silicon beyond 90s level of Photoshop. Come on, you're cherry-picking to make the point you already had in mind. TFA article you just cited for support says "The most important result of the study is...[p]articipants gave poorer ratings to images they thought were created by artificial intelligence," which directly contradicts you here. The audience wants that "meat bag with feelings involved." Personally, I expect the audience's default assumptions to change. Digital art will be presumed to be machine generated until proven otherwise (a near impossible task), and suffer for it. BTW, you're also proving my point about the bleakness of the perspective of "AI" enthusiasts who use terms like "Carbon chauvinism."
  - exe34 3y ago
    No it doesn't conflict with what I said - think about it, they gave poorer scores to images they thought were AI generated. And they were bad at telling them apart, and thus shot down genuine human art. The actual AI art, they gave high scores because they thought it was human art. There's no morality in profit. If there's a profit to be made, a bunch of rich people will make that profit. The only way to save human art will be to have an audience watch you create it and everybody signs it with their private key. This means that human generated art will be even more valuable for collectors, not less.

by tivert 3y ago

exe34 3y ago

There's no right or wrong about it, only the march of history. Those who oppose it are having to come up with more and more contrived excuses. TFA talks specifically how the audience loves AI art if they don't know it's AI generated. It's mostly the carbon artists who seem outraged that it's now possible for somebody with a vision but not the skills to produce art that they can't compete with. And a few in the audience that really hate AI generated art seem to just want for there to be a meat bag with feelings involved, but not silicon beyond 90s level of Photoshop. It's not even a question of quality here, but a question of degree.

tivert 3y ago
> There's no right or wrong about it, only the march of history. That's awful nonsense right there. The awful part is the amorality, and the nonsense is the assumption that history has a direction and it will inevitably go your way. > TFA talks specifically how the audience loves AI art if they don't know it's AI generated. No. TFA talks about an online survey with 200 participants, and even the researcher says he "wouldn’t take this result too seriously." Not once did it use the word "love." > And a few in the audience that really hate AI generated art seem to just want for there to be a meat bag with feelings involved, but not silicon beyond 90s level of Photoshop. Come on, you're cherry-picking to make the point you already had in mind. TFA article you just cited for support says "The most important result of the study is...[p]articipants gave poorer ratings to images they thought were created by artificial intelligence," which directly contradicts you here. The audience wants that "meat bag with feelings involved." Personally, I expect the audience's default assumptions to change. Digital art will be presumed to be machine generated until proven otherwise (a near impossible task), and suffer for it. BTW, you're also proving my point about the bleakness of the perspective of "AI" enthusiasts who use terms like "Carbon chauvinism."
- exe34 3y ago
  No it doesn't conflict with what I said - think about it, they gave poorer scores to images they thought were AI generated. And they were bad at telling them apart, and thus shot down genuine human art. The actual AI art, they gave high scores because they thought it was human art. There's no morality in profit. If there's a profit to be made, a bunch of rich people will make that profit. The only way to save human art will be to have an audience watch you create it and everybody signs it with their private key. This means that human generated art will be even more valuable for collectors, not less.