4 ms·

> It’s as artificial and soulless as corporate style. Even if this is true (it's not, corporate style has much less soul because it has to comply with the clea

> It’s as artificial and soulless as corporate style. Even if this is true (it's not, corporate style has much less soul because it has to comply with the clean corporate image), so what? Who cares that it's soulless? Corporate image is used all the time, why can't AI be too? > You want a drawing of something? Learn how to draw. Sure, it will consume some time, money, and goodwill, but I promise you, it will be a billion times more valuable than something fabricated. I don't really think you understand: a) how lazy people are b) how worthless the time to do a task is if there is a machine that can do good-enough work for a fraction of the time and cost > Don’t get me started on searching for an image of something via a search engine. It’s filled to the brim with AI images if you don’t turn the filter on, and even if you do, it’s imperfect and still shows some. Seems like a different issue? > GPT-4 consumed tens of millions of water. You're gonna make me explicitly write that water can't be consumed? You should have put this article through chatgippity. > the amount of water used will soar persistently You did get one thing right here, the water is used, not consumed... > In the fourth generation, to generate a 100-word email, it consumed about 500ml of water (17 oz). So writing a 400-word email or re-doing a 100-word one will consume as much water as an average human needs per day ≈ 2000ml (½ gallon) Even if this is true, the common link is that both "usages" of water will eventually be returned. There is no permanent consumption here of water. > Even if there was some crazy optimisation reducing the use down to 50% it’s still approximated to be 300 people's daily water amount needed for some dumb AI video. One man's trash is another man's treasure. This article is very much man yelling at clouds. It really is true that even an atheist has a religion, and this person's religion seems to be a hatred against AI. Which is fine, but recognize that you don't have any actual reasons, what you have is just an unhappiness with the general climate of the world.

Marshferm 1y ago
Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity? This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity. The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity.
- love2read 1y ago
  > Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity? I think it's OP who is more terrified of the originality of letting anyone create with AI. > This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity. It's almost comical how opposite my read of this was. Forcing people to "learn how to draw" is embracing uniformity rather than letting them create with whatever tool is available to them. > The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity. Is creating tools to make it easier to create really the evisceration of creativity or the creation of new venues to create? In my mind it's the latter.
  - Marshferm 1y ago
    Learning to draw is fundamentally linked to creativity. These are direct connections to thoughts, which are action-syntax. (btw lack of uniformity is on display even in these very young sketchers) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187124001275 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187118712... While the use of words to be creative is lessening as an indication of direct access to the imagination. As prompts for creativity, the sciences increasingly tell us this is fundamentally impairing. “We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024
    - love2read 1y ago
      It doesn't matter. When I need to insert a screw I don't stick to a screwdriver because it gives me more exercise, I use a drill, because I can and I have access to one, and that's all there is to it. Any time you find yourself justifying people use a less powerful tool for a job you are probably in the wrong...
      - Marshferm 1y ago
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
ashfangz 1y ago
[dead]

Marshferm 1y ago

Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity? This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity. The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity.

love2read 1y ago
> Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity? I think it's OP who is more terrified of the originality of letting anyone create with AI. > This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity. It's almost comical how opposite my read of this was. Forcing people to "learn how to draw" is embracing uniformity rather than letting them create with whatever tool is available to them. > The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity. Is creating tools to make it easier to create really the evisceration of creativity or the creation of new venues to create? In my mind it's the latter.
- Marshferm 1y ago
  Learning to draw is fundamentally linked to creativity. These are direct connections to thoughts, which are action-syntax. (btw lack of uniformity is on display even in these very young sketchers) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871187124001275 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187118712... While the use of words to be creative is lessening as an indication of direct access to the imagination. As prompts for creativity, the sciences increasingly tell us this is fundamentally impairing. “We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024
  - love2read 1y ago
    It doesn't matter. When I need to insert a screw I don't stick to a screwdriver because it gives me more exercise, I use a drill, because I can and I have access to one, and that's all there is to it. Any time you find yourself justifying people use a less powerful tool for a job you are probably in the wrong...
    - Marshferm 1y ago

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

ashfangz 1y ago

[dead]