Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Good thing that this isn’t what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that “pro-lifers” use to reframe the argument about abortion and women’s rights.
It’s always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren’t compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn’t even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they’d rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That’s what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.
Is it not possible that how something is made also elicits emotions and thoughts?
Sure but I don’t think it should be the line between garbage and good. It can add value and push the overall piece, but that isn’t what the person is implying.
There are probably some really fine paper napkin art out there, and having it on a paper napkin most likely adds to it overall, but it’s different then saying all paper napkin pieces have more value then all generated images.
Some of us value authenticity. Plagiarism-powered hallucination engines have exactly none of that. The disturbed individual (or individuals) that painted the bathroom of my primary school with feces created something more artful than any AI slop could ever be.
“Authenticity” is a myth. Everything is “plagarized”. There’s no major difference between someone creating art with a computer or with a paint bush.
Ok weirdo. Enjoy your literal poop!
Good thing that this isn’t what the argument has ever been about, then. This is the exact same tactic that “pro-lifers” use to reframe the argument about abortion and women’s rights.
It’s always been about the fact that the people who create the art used to train the AI aren’t compensated for their work. The criticisms of the objective quality of Gen AI have always been about how people support the orphan crushing machine for such low quality garbage, and the OP isn’t even about that.
Imagine if the Yankees started using a modified howitzer and fired their pitchers, and somebody said that they’d rather watch 8 year old kids play baseball than a game with the Yankees. That’s what OP is talking about. AI bros and people like you would be arguing that the howitzer is the same as any other pitcher and that they just hate change.