3 ms·

The camera did not kill painting. And how does comparing a camera to an LLM even make sense?

butlike 10mo ago
They're conflating the LLM to advancement by comparing LLM:Camera, when really cameras and paintings are two different things
breppp 10mo ago
Painting (portraits for example) as a profession largely disappeared, while art based on painting evolved (impressionism, cubism, etc) due to the camera. My point is that photography is essentially a simulacra of reality, yet it unexpectedly created its own art form and influenced existing ones. So will the use of LLMs for generation
- bopbopbop7 10mo ago
  LLMs will not do what the camera did. LLMs have no anchor to reality like the camera, they simply optimize for the average. A camera is a whole new medium, an LLM is a statistical construction. Sorry to burst your AI bubble. LLMs will not be the new camera, they won't be a new programming language, and they won't be the new compiler.
  - breppp 10mo ago
    I am not sure I agree, a camera on the surface of things is the most boring machine. It shows you what was already there. It is still can be the basis of several interesting art forms I don't see why this can't happen with AI, or at least I am not certain like you it can't happen
- metalman 10mo ago
  It might turn out that there are more portrait artists, brush in hand, working today than at any point in history, in real numbers. This is certainly true for riding horses, and most definitly for musicians. But as the sole sources of those services, that is no longer true, or as percentages of total's, but with 9 billion people, the internet, and a big of effort, almost anything is viable.
  - breppp 10mo ago
    I generally agree because the population grew, and music can be put aside has it never went through such a technological revolution (synth never really caught on) But from what I saw there are less living horses today than 200 years ago, and although that just a proxy for horse riders I believe the same applies for painters, especially non-hobbyists

They're conflating the LLM to advancement by comparing LLM:Camera, when really cameras and paintings are two different things

breppp 10mo ago

Painting (portraits for example) as a profession largely disappeared, while art based on painting evolved (impressionism, cubism, etc) due to the camera. My point is that photography is essentially a simulacra of reality, yet it unexpectedly created its own art form and influenced existing ones. So will the use of LLMs for generation

bopbopbop7 10mo ago
LLMs will not do what the camera did. LLMs have no anchor to reality like the camera, they simply optimize for the average. A camera is a whole new medium, an LLM is a statistical construction. Sorry to burst your AI bubble. LLMs will not be the new camera, they won't be a new programming language, and they won't be the new compiler.
- breppp 10mo ago
  I am not sure I agree, a camera on the surface of things is the most boring machine. It shows you what was already there. It is still can be the basis of several interesting art forms I don't see why this can't happen with AI, or at least I am not certain like you it can't happen
metalman 10mo ago
It might turn out that there are more portrait artists, brush in hand, working today than at any point in history, in real numbers. This is certainly true for riding horses, and most definitly for musicians. But as the sole sources of those services, that is no longer true, or as percentages of total's, but with 9 billion people, the internet, and a big of effort, almost anything is viable.
- breppp 10mo ago
  I generally agree because the population grew, and music can be put aside has it never went through such a technological revolution (synth never really caught on) But from what I saw there are less living horses today than 200 years ago, and although that just a proxy for horse riders I believe the same applies for painters, especially non-hobbyists