2 ms·

> "what is the actual use case of the art?" Not much. Low quality over-saturated advertising? Short films made by untalented lazy filmmakers? When text prompt

> "what is the actual use case of the art?" Not much. Low quality over-saturated advertising? Short films made by untalented lazy filmmakers? When text prompts are the only source, creativity is absent. No craft, no art. Audiences won't gravitate towards fake crap that oozes out of AI vending machines, unrefined, artistically uncontrolled. Imagine visiting a restaurant because you heard the chef is good. You enjoy your meal but later discover the chef has a "food generator" where he prompts the food into existence. Would you go back to that restaurant? There's one exception. Video-to-video and image-to-video, where your own original artwork, photos, drawings and videos are the source of the generated output. Even then, it's like outsourcing production to an unpredictable third party. Good luck getting lighting and details exactly right. I see the role of this AI gen stuff as background filler, such as populating set details or distant environments via green screen.

eddd-ddde 2y ago
> Imagine visiting a restaurant because you heard the chef is good. You enjoy your meal but later discover the chef has a "food generator" where he prompts the food into existence. Would you go back to that restaurant? That's an obvious yes from me. I liked it, and not only that, but I can reasonably assume it will be consistently good in the future, something lot's of places can't do.
- exodust 2y ago
  So you'd forgive the deception (there's no "chef" only a button pusher) and revisit the restaurant even though you could easily generate the food yourself. You don't care about the absence of a lifetime of hard work behind your meal, or the efforts of small business owners inspired by good food and passion in the kitchen. All that matters to you is that your taste buds were satisfied? Interesting. Perhaps we can divide the world into those who'd happily dine at "Skynet Gourmet", and those who'd seek a real restaurant.
  - eddd-ddde 2y ago
    I think it's more complex than that. At least to me food in particular is nothing special, I truly eat just for substance, so if it doesn't taste bad, I'm happy. I still believe that there's place for creative work, I just don't see why something created by something other than a human is inherently bad.

eddd-ddde 2y ago

> Imagine visiting a restaurant because you heard the chef is good. You enjoy your meal but later discover the chef has a "food generator" where he prompts the food into existence. Would you go back to that restaurant? That's an obvious yes from me. I liked it, and not only that, but I can reasonably assume it will be consistently good in the future, something lot's of places can't do.

exodust 2y ago
So you'd forgive the deception (there's no "chef" only a button pusher) and revisit the restaurant even though you could easily generate the food yourself. You don't care about the absence of a lifetime of hard work behind your meal, or the efforts of small business owners inspired by good food and passion in the kitchen. All that matters to you is that your taste buds were satisfied? Interesting. Perhaps we can divide the world into those who'd happily dine at "Skynet Gourmet", and those who'd seek a real restaurant.
- eddd-ddde 2y ago
  I think it's more complex than that. At least to me food in particular is nothing special, I truly eat just for substance, so if it doesn't taste bad, I'm happy. I still believe that there's place for creative work, I just don't see why something created by something other than a human is inherently bad.