• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: January 17th, 2024

help-circle



  • I think the statement “then photography took over” is doing a lot of work here. It’s incredibly inaccurate to say that photography took over as the primary means of visual creativity.

    Photography took over as the primary means of capturing a moment. Sure it’s used artistically sometimes, but primarily it’s used for subjective reality. I would argue that painting, and especially digital painting, is at an all-time high due to the ease and relatively low barrier to entry.

    I think that most artists would still prefer to paint something that they can consider “their art”, over typing a sentence and getting back a result. Sure, it’s neat, but it will never be anything more than a novelty, or a shortcut to generic results. The process of creation is only really 50% the final result, and the process itself is an important aspect and not just a means to an end.

    Using AI just feels like a weird commodification of art - like using only pre-made Unity assets for a game and nothing else, and then having someone else make it for pennies.

    I’ve seen so many bizarre “AI artists” cropping up, especially online, who legitimately try to sell AI art online for hundreds of dollars. I think the reasons people buy art can usually be put into three buckets: they appreciate the process that went behind it, they like the style of the artists or that painting in particular, or they find some meaning in it. If you wanted to buy AI art why not just prompt it yourself. What process, or artistic style, or meaning is even in AI art?

    It’s not even like AI can be trained on an artist’s own works. It takes millions of samples to train AI, which a singular artist would never be able to produce. So, at some point, that model will have had to have stolen the content of its results from something.














  • Unfortunately, jackass conservatives don’t believe in such a thing. If they did, there wouldn’t even be a need to “meet in the middle” over actually banning literature.

    Meeting people in the middle works for things like “what should we spend tax money on”, because those are things that are not zero-sum - you can actually divide the pie up and make everyone reasonably happy. Conservatives are not happy until they have it 100% their way, as you’ve seen time and time again. You give them an inch, they take the whole damn yardstick.

    First it was “you can’t say gay”, then it was “you can’t ask what people want to be called”, and now it’s escalated again to “if you ask, you’re a literal sex offender”.