I don’t think that’s true. It’s just another tool. Using it to get a good result takes more skill, practice, and patience than using it to get an okay result.
That’s not to say it is equivalent in terms of skill required to oil paint, for example. But it really does stink of being obstinately against change for no reason other than it being change.
I imagine similar complaints were made when photoshop first started to rise in popularity and use.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
@Risk@Prunebutt, the risk is when we lose our own capabilities and intelligence, becoming dependent on AI. This has already happened with previous technologies. Who still has the handwriting of our grandparents with the introduction of the keyboard and word processors? Who can still do simple sums mentally for purchases at the supermarket, without using a calculator? With the introduction of smartphones, our lives have become completely dependent on these gossips in practically every aspect, social as well as professional.
Seeing this evolution, I always think of the humans in the movie Wall-e as the end result of this path. It is not that AI is going to fight and subjugate humanity, it does not need to do so, since we subordinate ourselves to it voluntarily, even today we would be unable to survive a week without our technology.
It happens when we start using tools, not for what they are, but as crutches for our own inability and intelligence, instead of using them for our own development.
I say that because AI is creatively bankrupt.
And so is OP, if they think this is creative.
It’s just digitized monkeys throwing digitized shit at the wall. As in, that’s pretty much exactly how ML training works.
I don’t think that’s true. It’s just another tool. Using it to get a good result takes more skill, practice, and patience than using it to get an okay result.
That’s not to say it is equivalent in terms of skill required to oil paint, for example. But it really does stink of being obstinately against change for no reason other than it being change.
I imagine similar complaints were made when photoshop first started to rise in popularity and use.
I agree: it is a tool. And maybe you might at some point be able to create something worthwhile with it. But I’ve yet to see something wwrthwhile.
The main way “generative AI” is currently being used is by giving some idea some kind of form. If the original idea is just lame, or has been done to death (like a pixar poster of insert any atocricy here) : it will show.
If you think that AI is a shortcut to replace a creative idea, you will not be able to get any art from it.
You can also see that in the weird AI bro behavior, when they refuse to share their prompts: In any traditional art project people are glad to share their techniques. But AI bros realize that there’s so little effort involved that they are overly protective of their prompts so that people may not find out how low effort their “creativite” process actually is.
Stop being so dramatic and conspiratorial. The pushback is because it sucks. AI can’t be genuinely creative.
Conspiratorial? What?
Large Language Models cannot be genuinely creative; I agree. The people using them can. Why is that disagreeable?
The pushback against AI is not because artists are in a conspiracy to block progress.
@Risk @Prunebutt, the risk is when we lose our own capabilities and intelligence, becoming dependent on AI. This has already happened with previous technologies. Who still has the handwriting of our grandparents with the introduction of the keyboard and word processors? Who can still do simple sums mentally for purchases at the supermarket, without using a calculator? With the introduction of smartphones, our lives have become completely dependent on these gossips in practically every aspect, social as well as professional.
Seeing this evolution, I always think of the humans in the movie Wall-e as the end result of this path. It is not that AI is going to fight and subjugate humanity, it does not need to do so, since we subordinate ourselves to it voluntarily, even today we would be unable to survive a week without our technology.
It happens when we start using tools, not for what they are, but as crutches for our own inability and intelligence, instead of using them for our own development.