4 ms·
On the contrary, this is performative. I've been in the media space, so I've seen artists do this for years now. It's fucking bullshit. It's like handmade goo
by echelon 6mo ago
On the contrary, this is performative.
I've been in the media space, so I've seen artists do this for years now.
It's fucking bullshit. It's like handmade goods (some of which turned out to be sweatshop produced anyway).
At the end of the day all code is ephemeral. It provides value in the here and now. It doesn't doesn't last forever.
Make the thing do the thing and stop worrying about how it was made. None of your code will be around in 200 years.
- bigstrat2003 6mo agoIt's not bullshit to me. I'm interested in seeing what a human made, not what a clanker made.
- sevenzero 6mo agoCareful there, you're going to make all the AI "artists" real mad with this one.
- perching_aix 6mo agoYou reminded me to the delicious grin my art teacher let out when I brought up digital painting to her. Learned a lot about people that day. Also electronic music, now that I think about it. Or sorry, electronic "music", as it used to be written.
- echelon 6mo agoThis thread was hilarious: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1tcsjsg/someone_on_x_posted_a_real_monet_and_said_its_ai/ https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/comments/1tcsjsg/someone_on_...
- DaiPlusPlus 6mo ago> You reminded me to the delicious grin my art teacher let out when I brought up digital painting to her. Learned a lot about people that day. Can you elaborate? I’m honestly unsure what you’re suggesting she said, because I can imagine entirely contradictory scenarios.
- perching_aix 6mo agoShe followed it up with dismissive remarks about how much easier it must be. I'm very curious what you think the alternative might have been given all this extremely on the nose context.
- DaiPlusPlus 6mo agoWhen I was in middle-school (in the UK about the turn of the millennium) I had asked my school art teacher more-or-less the same question (I asked why, for the 3 years we'd be required to take art classes, we would only ever use physical media; and that it'd be doing students a disservice by excluding digital-painting (e.g. in Photoshop with a Wacom; or the then-much-hyped paint simulation in Corel Painter). She wasn't dismissive of digital-airbrushing; instead, the reasons for us not doing any digital-art in art class are the ones you'd reasonably expect: 1. The #1 reason is cost: in money, time, training, et cetera: physical hardware purchases, Photoshop or Painter licenses - and needing to keep those renewed - sending all the art teaching staff away for training on the software and digital-painting technique themselves - and more besides. 2. Art, as taught in middle-schools/lower-secondary-schools to children - not working professional adults - is concerned with breadth, not depth: digital-painting is a specific and narrow technique when compared to the applicability of teaching art-theory things like perspective, shading, etc. 3. The practical and technical aspects of producing visual-arts, including on a computer, are already taught in the elective graphic-design class in upper-secondary (while our lower-secondary art class was mandatory); she could probably tell that I was motivated more by my ego-driven need to demonstrate my own 1337 Photoshop skillz to others than any actual belief I had that everyone in the British economy needs exposure to Wacom and Photoshop and receives training so they can all have their own DeviantArt account. ----------- So now, in the event that some kids' art teachers or others are being broadly dismissive of digital-painting then they're likely pointing to the impracticality of it being a taught subject in mandatory education in public schools - and not that it's any "less" of an artform. Instead, I think it's worth comparing digital-painting to its own predecessor in (real-life) airbrush painting: just like digital-painting it requires its own hardware (think: expensive); while it can produce unique eye-catching results doing-so requires extensive practice; and is just as impractical to teach to large (25-30+) sized groups of kids en-masse; and won't help you appreciate a Monet or Renoir any more than a semester learning Photoshop would.
- iamkrazy 6mo agoMe too, but the question is how do we prove it's human made? Maybe we need a certification authority. Anybody can claim "human written code" and people like you will drool all over a clanker written code.
- bigstrat2003 6mo agoYou're not wrong, but then again this isn't high stakes stuff. I'm ok with vibes and trust in someone's character as a measure, imperfect as those things are. The cost of being wrong is some minor annoyance that I wasted time looking at someone's AI slop, which isn't so dire that it merits a ton of effort on avoiding.
- perching_aix 6mo agoCan't wait for the saga where people will start bikeshedding about whether a manually written bit of code was actually manually written. I can already envision the contribution guidelines. You must install cameras all around you, like when taking a certification exam, and have them record you typing it all out, eye tracking included. Only to then still get accused of "cheating" through I don't know, doing it all head of time with AI help, practicing the solution, and then just re-enacting it all.
- dspillett 6mo agoIt is already happening. I know someone who was contracted for some art work, and they wanted to see work in progress as various stages as well as the final pieces, not as a check-in where they might ask for changes before completion but as⁰ part of the final submission as evidence of how the work was done. Of course if you are going to mostly GenAI-generate the final result you can GenID-generate wip samples too, so videos of work in progress will be the next step. Or maybe in some places it is already the current step… -------- [0] Now, who thinks I wrote that “not as … but as …” part fully by hand and who thinks an LLM wrote it for me?!
- bigfishrunning 6mo agoI hope that everyone performatively produces high quality software without resorting to some statistical model.
- deleted 6mo ago[deleted]
- slabtickler 6mo agoputting aside the lack of quality of most LLM-written code (even the big scary tech demo-y stuff), there is more to life than this pragmatism of "value adds." you can just write code because you want to. this sentiment is also very funny considering the subject matter is reimplementing coLinux, which no one uses anymore, except as a toy, for an operating system no one uses anymore, except as a toy.
- swetland 6mo agoActually it's quite useful information. As soon as I see another useless "ai coded" project I immediately stop reading/caring about it. Fuck your slop code. Nobody wants that shit.
- echelon 6mo agoThis is exactly the attitude I'm talking about. I'm getting really sick of this. I've had to deal with it in the AI art world for three years now (where actual practitioners are using the AI tools - big surprise, right?) Now it's finally seeping into software engineering. This is a useless opinion. Most employers will only hire for AI coding now. Most code will be AI generated. You need to start focusing on how you can create value in the new world. We aren't dealing with punch cards anymore. If "junk code" pisses you off so much, you ought to look at your own DNA.
- swetland 6mo agoI create value the same way I always have. Meanwhile people are creating garbage with "ai" tools. I wish them the best of luck with their shit.
- jatora 6mo agoYoure already using it in countless applications, and enjoying the fruits of it. You and everyone else wants it and will have it and will be better off for it, despite your performative chafing.
- swetland 6mo agoFuck off. No, I'm not using it. No, I'm not enjoying it. The only thing performative around here is all you assholes evangelizing this worthless shit.
- jatora 6mo agoHaha. Half of the apps you use are being coded by AI now. Get over it and calm down. You should keep emotions out of your technological opinions.