|
· Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 20:44:58 The negative reaction to lots of non-artists getting the chance to make something they find aesthetically nice and imitating a style they admire is insane. No person who types a few words into ChatGPT is going to start thinking of themself as better than Miyazaki. I can understand criticizing the way OpenAI is profiting from this, but please don't call regular people trying out a new tool barbaric and dystopian. |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 21:12:58 @satchlj “Getting the chance to make something”—don’t be ridiculous, there is no bar to making art except effort. Pick up a pencil, look up tutorials online and start drawing. And the idea that telling ChatGPT to produce some slop for you is “making” it is delusional. Are you a cook because you pick ingredients for your sandwich at a fast food place? |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 22:08:36 @Gargron You're not a cook because you picked ingredients for a sandwich someone else makes, just like you're not an artist because you chose the subject matter of low effort AI-generated pictures. But you can still have fun picking out good ingredients and enjoy the result! |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 23:49:32 @satchlj @Gargron I've written about this in other places, but the accessibility argument here also really fundamentally misunderstands what art is. Who told you that you weren't an artist and that this AI slop is better than even the most basic scribbles you put down on a page? "Non-artist": what does that even mean? Do you express things? Do you have emotions? Want to communicate them? You're an artist. |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 23:51:02 @satchlj @Gargron The accessibility argument is based on tearing down beautiful things because they're not standardized enough. It's based on dividing people up into artists and non-artists, and then frames this like the critics are the ones gatekeeping. I'm angry at OpenAI for robbing the world of things you might otherwise create, and I don't care whether those things would have looked perfectly like another artist's art style. |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 23:53:24 |
|
Föderation EN Fr 28.03.2025 23:56:29 I fully agree there's no quality bar to making art. And you can turn that the other way to apply to AI - even if it's low quality, it's still a valid form of expression! If you're angry that AI image generation might stop people from becoming 'actual' artists, maybe get angry at camera technology for stopping photographers from becoming painters? This is one more step in the same direction. |
|
Föderation EN Sa 29.03.2025 00:00:16 @satchlj @Gargron this is exactly what I mean when I say that people don't understand art at all. The "quality" is not the problem, the problem is that you have robbed yourself of artistic intent and that the choices and information in the final thing don't reflect you or communicate anything about your original idea. |
|
Föderation EN Sa 29.03.2025 00:23:44 @satchlj @foxyoreos This is a common tactic among AI advocates and it is disingenious. Photography as an art form revolves around documenting reality, which immediately puts it at odds with generative AI, which has no concept of reality and can only regurgitate amalgamations of stolen artworks. Furthermore, the camera does not make the photo. The camera does not make the choice of where the photographer goes, where they point it, how they arrange the composition. It is a learned and honed skill. |
