You said something here that is pertinent, but also revealing. We all use technology everyday to make our lives easier, but does it? The automatic transmission cited above allowed anyone with a pulse the ability to get behind the wheel of a car rather than putting in any effort to acquire the skill to operate a motor vehicle. Great for the people who built our car-ciety, we have all suffered for it, including inaccessible essential services w/o one and getting stuck in traffic caused in the most part by people who should never be behind a wheel of a car. Do you want people writing books and creating art that have no business writing books or creating art? Cause we’ve got that now. Great…
I don’t think automatic transmissions are in any way responsible for car centric urban planning, Europe has plenty of it and the transition to automatics is very slow and quite recent.
I agree far too many people are allowed to drive when they shouldn’t but people dying on the road is more socially acceptable than stringent standards for being allowed to operate lethal machines at insanely high speeds (in terms of kinetic energy at least).
Yes, the automatic transmission is not solely responsible, but it was a means to an end. How can we get more people in cars? Make it easier to drive! Brilliant. Except now we have this… It’s irrational but it’s my brain and I can do what I want with it!
Too true. Cars and motorized vehicles make everything too easy. Lets go back to horses. But even that is making people less capable of walking long distance. Lets go back to the good old days of not technology at all!
Ohhh so edgy. Fucking daft loser can’t read, just like the rest of the idiots trolling the socials. If we didn’t have technology, I wouldn’t have to hear from idjits like your dumb ass, so at least there’d be that.
We all use technology everyday to make our lives easier, but does it?
🙄 Yes. If you disagree with something this obvious, please write me a lengthy letter explaining why and send it by horse & buggy mail carrier. I promise, I’ll read and respond just as soon as I’m able.
Do you want people writing books and creating art that have no business writing books or creating art?
🤮🤮🤮 Maybe we should require an intelligence test before allowing people to post their opinions on the internet too? Or have children?
If you actually think that disallowing some people to create art because they aren’t “good enough,” then you aren’t really defending art or artists at all.
The point is we value people who are at the top of their specific game for a reason. When the barriers to access are removed, that’s great, but it dilutes the end game product over all. Sorry not sorry. Easier lives makes dumber people I guess? Boy that’s so cool! I get it, busy people can use AI to make their days less busy, but people who aren’t too busy are using it and getting dumber for it. Prove me wrong. Yes technology has a myriad of benefits, but also a myriad of pitfalls too. Weird, eh? I’m not disallowing people from making art, but no one should or would buy it in a real world environment. I would ask, what value does it add to the world? Art is an expression of the artist interpreting the world. AI art is rubbish and it gives you exactly what you ask for. Cool? Maybe, but not art.
The point is we value people who are at the top of their specific game for a reason
Which is a fallacy in our society that we should be working to rectify. Being great at something can be valuable and helpful, but it is not the be all end all. This value argument is why you get people who get promoted to the point of their largest incompetency. Which then stiffles innovation and learning as you keep listening to the same ideas instead of learning to be critical thinkers who can vet new ideas based on the argument and research provided regardless of status from the person proposing the idea. Value should be in the idea and whether the solution can be tested and verifiable, not in the person proposing it.
When the barriers to access are removed, that’s great, but it dilutes the end game product over all.
Having more opinions, perspectives, and chances for people to interact does not dilute anything. It can make governance of that field more complicated as it means you actually need to learn to be a critical thinker who can review the research and ideas proposed but it also enriches the field by making sure their are counter arguments and different perspectives available so that ideas in that space dont become route and stale from the same tried vision and approaches.
Easier lives makes dumber people I guess? I get it, busy people can use AI to make their days less busy, but people who aren’t too busy are using it and getting dumber for it.
Making someone’s life easier doesn’t make them more dumb. Does creating handicap accessible infrastructure make people in wheelchairs dumb or does it allow them the opportunity to participate in areas that once were inaccessible. In addition, being busy or not has no correlation to how someone uses a tool or not. I can use a calculator to solve a myriad of equations, or i can use it to spell boobs regardless of whether I’m busy or not. But if you constantly shame those seaking to solve complex equations for using a calculator because some people will write boobs instead of using it to solve an equation all you do is push those who would use the tool productively away. All the while leaving those who could care less and will write boobs with it anyway around. That then leads you to a confirmation bias where only people who write boobs on calculators are the ones using them, so therefore, calculators must just make people write boobs on them. See how fucking dumb that sounds? Thats literally your whole argument here.
I’m not disallowing people from making art, but no one should or would buy it in a real world environment. I would ask, what value does it add to the world?
Why does art have to add value to world? It’s literally just a form of expression as you state below with:
Art is an expression of the artist interpreting the world.
So, how does using a tool to visualize your interpretation of the world diminish the artistic intent of expressing how an artist sees the world?
AI art is rubbish and it gives you exactly what you ask for.
So by this metric, any art which yeilds what the artist intends is actually rubbish and just not art then. Not to mention, if you have spent any time working with these tools at all, you would also know this is complete bullshit anyways. Will it make something from what you ask sure, but to get something meaningful, one needs to tweak their prompt and work around the pitfalls of the system through multiple iterations. Just because it takes less time than having to scrap multiple drawings before you settle on the version that you feel represents your expression doesn’t make it any less an expression of the world by the artist.
Again, this whole idea that you need to make an argument about the tradeoffs of technology in general in order to make an argument against AI is weak and needless. Do you have a smart phone you use the calculator on sometimes, or do you write out all your long-form division? Is everyone who owns a microwave, uses tax preparation software, or switches to an electric toothbrush just a lazy dumb-dumb in your mind?
When the barriers to access are removed, that’s great
but it dilutes the end game product over all.
AI art is rubbish and it gives you exactly what you ask for.
Cool? Maybe,
This is just talking out of both sides of your mouth trying to sound fair and balanced instead of actually making a good argument. “AI art is rubbish” – yes!!! We don’t need vacuous, hypocritical hot takes on using technology to say that.
That’s not the only thing I’m talking about, but it seemed relevant to the post? Way to fixate on one thing I am saying instead of just agreeing with me? I thought an argument was supposed to be thought out? I’m not just talking about AI though. I really hate the automatic transmission if you really want to know. Like, it doesn’t rule my life or anything, I just think it has allowed stupid people to get in my way. AI art is slop and I’m not afraid of being replaced. Just so we are clear!
You are mad at automatic transmission too? Maybe you should also consider the method in which you are having this conversation before attacking types technology. Tech has always been about making things easier.
Damn people are stupid. See what I mean, you can’t even read that I am not against technology, only that it has consequences. People are fucking dense.
AI is literally just a tool. Just because it might have potential to replace certain tasks doesn’t make it something else. A robot can automate a task to allow for automated production lines but just because it can replace a previous task doesn’t make it not a tool.
Well, thanks to AI, art may soon die. Well, you’ve heard of AI agents. Those who control them will brazenly take over the market and push out real artists and writers, and then there’s this AI moderation. Damn, at this rate, authors will have to sell offline so their work doesn’t get stolen or banned, lol
This is not a fact, capitalism is a cruel thing, so real authors who write with pain and realism will be increasingly difficult to find among the AI garbage.
Who is gatekeeping?! Just cause I don’t feel the same as you doesn’t mean you can’t do a thing? Technology is great, but it can also be stupid, and dangerous, and misused and by golly, even detrimental.
By golly you are right we should stop people from using hammers too. Think about it people can misuse them and hit their thumbs or break things. They are so detrimental to society. If people dont try and hammer in nails with their thick skulls everyone’s life’s gonna get so much easier and less busy as they stop having to go to the doctor to get stitches all the time and as a consequence they are all going to get so much more stupid.
Ah so unlike some llms you dont understand context, look at their other comments and maybe you will understand. It’s satire based on them believing that making life easier makes people more dumb and that less busy people are also more dumb.
You said something here that is pertinent, but also revealing. We all use technology everyday to make our lives easier, but does it? The automatic transmission cited above allowed anyone with a pulse the ability to get behind the wheel of a car rather than putting in any effort to acquire the skill to operate a motor vehicle. Great for the people who built our car-ciety, we have all suffered for it, including inaccessible essential services w/o one and getting stuck in traffic caused in the most part by people who should never be behind a wheel of a car. Do you want people writing books and creating art that have no business writing books or creating art? Cause we’ve got that now. Great…
I don’t think automatic transmissions are in any way responsible for car centric urban planning, Europe has plenty of it and the transition to automatics is very slow and quite recent.
I agree far too many people are allowed to drive when they shouldn’t but people dying on the road is more socially acceptable than stringent standards for being allowed to operate lethal machines at insanely high speeds (in terms of kinetic energy at least).
Yes, the automatic transmission is not solely responsible, but it was a means to an end. How can we get more people in cars? Make it easier to drive! Brilliant. Except now we have this… It’s irrational but it’s my brain and I can do what I want with it!
Too true. Cars and motorized vehicles make everything too easy. Lets go back to horses. But even that is making people less capable of walking long distance. Lets go back to the good old days of not technology at all!
Ohhh so edgy. Fucking daft loser can’t read, just like the rest of the idiots trolling the socials. If we didn’t have technology, I wouldn’t have to hear from idjits like your dumb ass, so at least there’d be that.
🙄 Yes. If you disagree with something this obvious, please write me a lengthy letter explaining why and send it by horse & buggy mail carrier. I promise, I’ll read and respond just as soon as I’m able.
🤮🤮🤮 Maybe we should require an intelligence test before allowing people to post their opinions on the internet too? Or have children?
If you actually think that disallowing some people to create art because they aren’t “good enough,” then you aren’t really defending art or artists at all.
The point is we value people who are at the top of their specific game for a reason. When the barriers to access are removed, that’s great, but it dilutes the end game product over all. Sorry not sorry. Easier lives makes dumber people I guess? Boy that’s so cool! I get it, busy people can use AI to make their days less busy, but people who aren’t too busy are using it and getting dumber for it. Prove me wrong. Yes technology has a myriad of benefits, but also a myriad of pitfalls too. Weird, eh? I’m not disallowing people from making art, but no one should or would buy it in a real world environment. I would ask, what value does it add to the world? Art is an expression of the artist interpreting the world. AI art is rubbish and it gives you exactly what you ask for. Cool? Maybe, but not art.
Which is a fallacy in our society that we should be working to rectify. Being great at something can be valuable and helpful, but it is not the be all end all. This value argument is why you get people who get promoted to the point of their largest incompetency. Which then stiffles innovation and learning as you keep listening to the same ideas instead of learning to be critical thinkers who can vet new ideas based on the argument and research provided regardless of status from the person proposing the idea. Value should be in the idea and whether the solution can be tested and verifiable, not in the person proposing it.
Having more opinions, perspectives, and chances for people to interact does not dilute anything. It can make governance of that field more complicated as it means you actually need to learn to be a critical thinker who can review the research and ideas proposed but it also enriches the field by making sure their are counter arguments and different perspectives available so that ideas in that space dont become route and stale from the same tried vision and approaches.
Making someone’s life easier doesn’t make them more dumb. Does creating handicap accessible infrastructure make people in wheelchairs dumb or does it allow them the opportunity to participate in areas that once were inaccessible. In addition, being busy or not has no correlation to how someone uses a tool or not. I can use a calculator to solve a myriad of equations, or i can use it to spell boobs regardless of whether I’m busy or not. But if you constantly shame those seaking to solve complex equations for using a calculator because some people will write boobs instead of using it to solve an equation all you do is push those who would use the tool productively away. All the while leaving those who could care less and will write boobs with it anyway around. That then leads you to a confirmation bias where only people who write boobs on calculators are the ones using them, so therefore, calculators must just make people write boobs on them. See how fucking dumb that sounds? Thats literally your whole argument here.
Why does art have to add value to world? It’s literally just a form of expression as you state below with:
So, how does using a tool to visualize your interpretation of the world diminish the artistic intent of expressing how an artist sees the world?
So by this metric, any art which yeilds what the artist intends is actually rubbish and just not art then. Not to mention, if you have spent any time working with these tools at all, you would also know this is complete bullshit anyways. Will it make something from what you ask sure, but to get something meaningful, one needs to tweak their prompt and work around the pitfalls of the system through multiple iterations. Just because it takes less time than having to scrap multiple drawings before you settle on the version that you feel represents your expression doesn’t make it any less an expression of the world by the artist.
Again, this whole idea that you need to make an argument about the tradeoffs of technology in general in order to make an argument against AI is weak and needless. Do you have a smart phone you use the calculator on sometimes, or do you write out all your long-form division? Is everyone who owns a microwave, uses tax preparation software, or switches to an electric toothbrush just a lazy dumb-dumb in your mind?
This is just talking out of both sides of your mouth trying to sound fair and balanced instead of actually making a good argument. “AI art is rubbish” – yes!!! We don’t need vacuous, hypocritical hot takes on using technology to say that.
That’s not the only thing I’m talking about, but it seemed relevant to the post? Way to fixate on one thing I am saying instead of just agreeing with me? I thought an argument was supposed to be thought out? I’m not just talking about AI though. I really hate the automatic transmission if you really want to know. Like, it doesn’t rule my life or anything, I just think it has allowed stupid people to get in my way. AI art is slop and I’m not afraid of being replaced. Just so we are clear!
You are mad at automatic transmission too? Maybe you should also consider the method in which you are having this conversation before attacking types technology. Tech has always been about making things easier.
Damn people are stupid. See what I mean, you can’t even read that I am not against technology, only that it has consequences. People are fucking dense.
I may say you are right, but AI is not just a tool…
AI is literally just a tool. Just because it might have potential to replace certain tasks doesn’t make it something else. A robot can automate a task to allow for automated production lines but just because it can replace a previous task doesn’t make it not a tool.
Well, thanks to AI, art may soon die. Well, you’ve heard of AI agents. Those who control them will brazenly take over the market and push out real artists and writers, and then there’s this AI moderation. Damn, at this rate, authors will have to sell offline so their work doesn’t get stolen or banned, lol
It doesn’t do that at all. People creating great art isn’t going away. Stop being a dumb gatekeeper too.
This is not a fact, capitalism is a cruel thing, so real authors who write with pain and realism will be increasingly difficult to find among the AI garbage.
Who is gatekeeping?! Just cause I don’t feel the same as you doesn’t mean you can’t do a thing? Technology is great, but it can also be stupid, and dangerous, and misused and by golly, even detrimental.
By golly you are right we should stop people from using hammers too. Think about it people can misuse them and hit their thumbs or break things. They are so detrimental to society. If people dont try and hammer in nails with their thick skulls everyone’s life’s gonna get so much easier and less busy as they stop having to go to the doctor to get stitches all the time and as a consequence they are all going to get so much more stupid.
Jarvis, explain what the hell this means.
Ah so unlike some llms you dont understand context, look at their other comments and maybe you will understand. It’s satire based on them believing that making life easier makes people more dumb and that less busy people are also more dumb.
Oh, I understood the sentiment just fine. I’m asking why it’s unintelligible. We’ll ban hammers so that people won’t need head stitches…?
So long as we’re doing petty jabs, maybe you should have run this run-on sentence through an AI grammar checker.