4 ms·
> People should not be dismissing other people's work at all, AI generated or not. It depends on what the nature of the work is. If it's a work where technical
by JohnFen 2mo ago
> People should not be dismissing other people's work at all, AI generated or not.
It depends on what the nature of the work is. If it's a work where technical soundness is the most important thing, then I agree. The criteria should be whether or not the work is sound.
But not everything is like that. Take fine art, for instance, where being human-made is a core part of its value.
- matheusmoreira 2mo agoIt's fine to appreciate human art for what it is. I can empathize with the idea that the art is an external expression of the author's mind. The output of the weights of the author's brain, if you will. I absolutely draw the line at thoughtlessly dismissing AI art as "slop" though.
- ModernMech 2mo agoIt's a thought-terminating cliche at this point.
- JohnFen 2mo ago> I absolutely draw the line at thoughtlessly dismissing AI art as "slop" though. Fair enough. I don't call it "slop" unless it is, and slop can certainly be made without involving computers. But genAI has without question made slop very easy to generate and so we're seeing quite a lot more of it these days. I'm just saying why genAI art, sloppy or not, is of no interest to me and why I get angry when I've been deceived about it. Watermarking, if it were possible to reliably do (which I think it isn't), would solve that particular issue by making deception impossible. Without a reliable signal, a lot of stuff made after a certain date will inevitably and necessarily be suspect. Not saying that's right or wrong, just that it is. Maybe think of it as the audience being self-protective. A reliable signal might even make acceptance of machine-generated art easier, by eliminating or reducing the chances that people will feel tricked.