4 ms·

AI is just another form of automation that replaces more of the manual labor. Humans still driving it. How do you feel about photography that replaced portrait

AI is just another form of automation that replaces more of the manual labor. Humans still driving it. How do you feel about photography that replaced portrait paintings? Or photoshop filters? Or computer animation vs hand drawn? I don't see any difference with AI. You can indeed let the AI output stuff automatically but it's as interesting as stock photography. Do you disagree with Carmack's assessment? "AI tools will allow the best to reach even greater heights, while enabling smaller teams to accomplish more, and bring in some completely new creator demographics"

johnnyanmac 2y ago
Unlike a camera, these new automation still need require paintings. That why I don't consider generative AI as true iteration. It's literally stealing the town's paintingsand using it to mash together this collage that's called "art" . Why would I call that "progress"? You're making metaphorically uglier horses, but you're boasting about breeding them faster. We wee not worried about breeding more horses to begin with. >You can indeed let the AI output stuff automatically but it's as interesting as stock photograp Yes. And stock photography had agreements with the photographer. Much of the art scraped explicity said not to. It's not interesting and potentially illegal. The worst of both worlds. >Do you disagree with Carmack's assessment? I left a top level response somewhere, but overall, c. 2025 : not really. It feels like more hype generation, and this isn't the first time he's had to be a hype man. Maybe one day, maybe before or after we get convinent VR/AR hardware. It'll be a while. And no small team is touching this stuff whike the courts battle about this. Come back to me in 5 years when the ethics is settled and the tech might be more ready. It's pretty hard to even look 5 weeks ahead in these times, let alone 5 years.

johnnyanmac 2y ago

Unlike a camera, these new automation still need require paintings. That why I don't consider generative AI as true iteration. It's literally stealing the town's paintingsand using it to mash together this collage that's called "art" . Why would I call that "progress"? You're making metaphorically uglier horses, but you're boasting about breeding them faster. We wee not worried about breeding more horses to begin with. >You can indeed let the AI output stuff automatically but it's as interesting as stock photograp Yes. And stock photography had agreements with the photographer. Much of the art scraped explicity said not to. It's not interesting and potentially illegal. The worst of both worlds. >Do you disagree with Carmack's assessment? I left a top level response somewhere, but overall, c. 2025 : not really. It feels like more hype generation, and this isn't the first time he's had to be a hype man. Maybe one day, maybe before or after we get convinent VR/AR hardware. It'll be a while. And no small team is touching this stuff whike the courts battle about this. Come back to me in 5 years when the ethics is settled and the tech might be more ready. It's pretty hard to even look 5 weeks ahead in these times, let alone 5 years.