4 ms·

it's impossible to answer to this line of reasoning without wasting time so I'll just start right away with the ad hominem. you just don't like art, you don't

it's impossible to answer to this line of reasoning without wasting time so I'll just start right away with the ad hominem. you just don't like art, you don't understand it and you want slop, admit it and don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset

spiderice 2y ago
You're conflating the reality of the situation with me. I didn't say I wanted AI generated content. Just that it seems like it will inevitably win. All the insults in your comment just stem from an imaginary and inaccurate picture of me, a stranger, that you created in your head. > don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset Then why respond?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > You're conflating the reality of the situation with me. … I mean, you’re the one talking about a hypothetical future rather than what actually exists.
  - spiderice 2y ago
    The hypothetical future where AI continues to improve? Jesus, so hypothetical.
stego-tech 2y ago
Literally this. Ben hits the nail on the head that these tools can “write convincing Elizabethan language but can’t write Shakespeare”, along with his metaphor about craftsmen vs artists. These tools can never create art because art is the imperfection of reality transposed from the mind’s eye using the talent of the artisan and their tools. Writing a convincing enough prompt to generate an assortment of visual outputs that you “choose” as the final product can never be art, because your art skills ended with the prompt itself - everything after was just maths, and not even maths you had a direct hand in. Even then, you cannot really shill your prompt as art either, because you wrote tokens to ingest into a LLM to generate pseudorandom visual outputs, not language to be interpreted by other humans and visualized on their own accord. Art is one of those things you cannot appreciate until you make it, and generating slop is not creating art. A preschooler with a single, broken crayon and a napkin makes better art than anything generated via tokens and math models - and to really drive that home, I’d argue that the teenager goofing around with math formulas on their graphing calculator to create visually beautiful or interesting designs is also superior art than whatever the LLM can spew forth using far more advanced maths. If you really want art, then make it. Learn to draw, practice photography, paint some scenery, experiment with formula visualizations, layout a garden, or heck, just commission an artist to bring your idea into reality. Learning to articulate your vision with language in such a way others can illustrate or create it is a far more valuable skill than laying out tokens for an LLM.
- danielmarkbruce 2y ago
  I never created a movie. I can appreciate a good one over a bad one (Argo, Gigli). Statistically speaking, the number of people who have created a movie rounds to zero. And yet, to suggest basically no one appreciates a movie or the difference between a good movie and a bad one is obviously very dumb.
omikun 2y ago
Plenty of mass media are just uninspired derivatives. It seems to entertain a lot of people. I see AI can take care of the mind numbing work of making uninspired bullshit so real creatives can be freed to pursue actual, meaningful art. Lots of people will lose jobs working on stupid bullshit, of course. That is an economic issue, not a technology issue.
jfactorial 2y ago
Alice, an incessant painter with passion for it but zero natural talent, learns about stable diffusion. She teaches herself how to use this new tool and creates imagery she never could before. She tweaks settings and prompts, iterates for hours, and ultimately generates imagery she is pleased with. She shares this creation with others and many of them appreciate what she has created. Except Bob. Bob looks at the imagery and, thanks to his up to date technical knowledge, recognizes that the work may be generated. So Bob rejects the imagery, he refuses to allow it to affect him at all. He insults it, calls it slop, insists it cannot be art, insults Alice, and insults the people who were moved by Alice's work. If one of these two people "doesn't like art" and "doesn't understand it," which one is it more likely to be: the one who is creating, or the one who is criticizing the creation?

spiderice 2y ago

You're conflating the reality of the situation with me. I didn't say I wanted AI generated content. Just that it seems like it will inevitably win. All the insults in your comment just stem from an imaginary and inaccurate picture of me, a stranger, that you created in your head. > don't feel compelled to enter the discussion with your growth oriented bullshit mindset Then why respond?

rsynnott 2y ago
> You're conflating the reality of the situation with me. … I mean, you’re the one talking about a hypothetical future rather than what actually exists.
- spiderice 2y ago
  The hypothetical future where AI continues to improve? Jesus, so hypothetical.

stego-tech 2y ago

Literally this. Ben hits the nail on the head that these tools can “write convincing Elizabethan language but can’t write Shakespeare”, along with his metaphor about craftsmen vs artists. These tools can never create art because art is the imperfection of reality transposed from the mind’s eye using the talent of the artisan and their tools. Writing a convincing enough prompt to generate an assortment of visual outputs that you “choose” as the final product can never be art, because your art skills ended with the prompt itself - everything after was just maths, and not even maths you had a direct hand in. Even then, you cannot really shill your prompt as art either, because you wrote tokens to ingest into a LLM to generate pseudorandom visual outputs, not language to be interpreted by other humans and visualized on their own accord. Art is one of those things you cannot appreciate until you make it, and generating slop is not creating art. A preschooler with a single, broken crayon and a napkin makes better art than anything generated via tokens and math models - and to really drive that home, I’d argue that the teenager goofing around with math formulas on their graphing calculator to create visually beautiful or interesting designs is also superior art than whatever the LLM can spew forth using far more advanced maths. If you really want art, then make it. Learn to draw, practice photography, paint some scenery, experiment with formula visualizations, layout a garden, or heck, just commission an artist to bring your idea into reality. Learning to articulate your vision with language in such a way others can illustrate or create it is a far more valuable skill than laying out tokens for an LLM.

danielmarkbruce 2y ago
I never created a movie. I can appreciate a good one over a bad one (Argo, Gigli). Statistically speaking, the number of people who have created a movie rounds to zero. And yet, to suggest basically no one appreciates a movie or the difference between a good movie and a bad one is obviously very dumb.

omikun 2y ago

Plenty of mass media are just uninspired derivatives. It seems to entertain a lot of people. I see AI can take care of the mind numbing work of making uninspired bullshit so real creatives can be freed to pursue actual, meaningful art. Lots of people will lose jobs working on stupid bullshit, of course. That is an economic issue, not a technology issue.

jfactorial 2y ago

Alice, an incessant painter with passion for it but zero natural talent, learns about stable diffusion. She teaches herself how to use this new tool and creates imagery she never could before. She tweaks settings and prompts, iterates for hours, and ultimately generates imagery she is pleased with. She shares this creation with others and many of them appreciate what she has created. Except Bob. Bob looks at the imagery and, thanks to his up to date technical knowledge, recognizes that the work may be generated. So Bob rejects the imagery, he refuses to allow it to affect him at all. He insults it, calls it slop, insists it cannot be art, insults Alice, and insults the people who were moved by Alice's work. If one of these two people "doesn't like art" and "doesn't understand it," which one is it more likely to be: the one who is creating, or the one who is criticizing the creation?