If we’re talking artistic credibility (as opposed to job security, plagiarism, and environmental impact), I want anti-AI people to uninstall their desktop graphics applications like Photoshop and GIMP. If you depend on buttons, value inputs and algorithms to get the art you want out of the machine, as opposed to using an easel and scanning your work into the PC without minimal touch-ups after the fact, then you’re no better than the person typing book-length prompts to get what they want. If you animate with key frames instead of hand-drawing every frame, you’re likewise just as credible (or not) as the prompt jockey. Hell, if you at any point use CTRL+Z, CTRL+C, CTRL+X or CTRL+V, you’re as artistically incredible as Paulie Promptnuts.
Just to be clear, I don’t think any of those things. But if you’re dismissing art on the basis that AI was used at some stage in its development, you should be thinking those things.
Hot takes are good when they’re like a campfire: other people gather around and start talking. This, though, is more like lighting a pile of used toilet paper on fire.
With the shit in the TP being false equivalence. It compares two situations (AI usage vs. the usage of other tools) as if they were the same for the sake of artistic credibility, when they obviously are not.
As I am replying, you got 9 upvotes and 9 downvotes; looks like the perfect “storm” to put my hot take too.
We got psychotic people on both side, when you get this grade of polarization people usually lose the perspective.
AI is a technology, an human logical entity like math: AI works on very advanced (probabilistic) math. Math is not the evil… but an actual evil does exist.
There’s a difference between a LLM chatbot that runs on your local GPU… and one in the cloud.
The chatbot on your GPU is “trapped” by your questions, your needs, your choices.
Today the chatbot on the cloud will tell you that Elon Musk is a controversial person, tomorrow it will tell you Elon Musk is the savior of the Earth and you’re not worthy to kiss his feet.
People seeing absolute evil in AI, are against you running your chatbot locally, on your PC.
People enthusiastic about AI will accept any “gift” (or AI GF) Elon Musk will give them.
I used autocorrect to write this sentence, which is a language model trained on copywritten works. It just so happens to have been developed in the 2000s instead of the 2020s.
There are definitely lines being arbitrarily drawn around AI, and there’s not a sensical flow to what any individual might believe is an acceptable AI use case. Nobody has really sat down and made a full documentation of every modern AI use and weighed the benefits and detriments they have on society. I think many of the outward haters of AI are likely just as ignorant as the blind defenders of it.
The Hottest of Takes:
If we’re talking artistic credibility (as opposed to job security, plagiarism, and environmental impact), I want anti-AI people to uninstall their desktop graphics applications like Photoshop and GIMP. If you depend on buttons, value inputs and algorithms to get the art you want out of the machine, as opposed to using an easel and scanning your work into the PC without minimal touch-ups after the fact, then you’re no better than the person typing book-length prompts to get what they want. If you animate with key frames instead of hand-drawing every frame, you’re likewise just as credible (or not) as the prompt jockey. Hell, if you at any point use CTRL+Z, CTRL+C, CTRL+X or CTRL+V, you’re as artistically incredible as Paulie Promptnuts.
Just to be clear, I don’t think any of those things. But if you’re dismissing art on the basis that AI was used at some stage in its development, you should be thinking those things.
Hot takes are good when they’re like a campfire: other people gather around and start talking. This, though, is more like lighting a pile of used toilet paper on fire.
With the shit in the TP being false equivalence. It compares two situations (AI usage vs. the usage of other tools) as if they were the same for the sake of artistic credibility, when they obviously are not.
As I am replying, you got 9 upvotes and 9 downvotes; looks like the perfect “storm” to put my hot take too.
We got psychotic people on both side, when you get this grade of polarization people usually lose the perspective.
AI is a technology, an human logical entity like math: AI works on very advanced (probabilistic) math. Math is not the evil… but an actual evil does exist.
There’s a difference between a LLM chatbot that runs on your local GPU… and one in the cloud.
The chatbot on your GPU is “trapped” by your questions, your needs, your choices.
Today the chatbot on the cloud will tell you that Elon Musk is a controversial person, tomorrow it will tell you Elon Musk is the savior of the Earth and you’re not worthy to kiss his feet.
People seeing absolute evil in AI, are against you running your chatbot locally, on your PC.
People enthusiastic about AI will accept any “gift” (or AI GF) Elon Musk will give them.
I used autocorrect to write this sentence, which is a language model trained on copywritten works. It just so happens to have been developed in the 2000s instead of the 2020s.
There are definitely lines being arbitrarily drawn around AI, and there’s not a sensical flow to what any individual might believe is an acceptable AI use case. Nobody has really sat down and made a full documentation of every modern AI use and weighed the benefits and detriments they have on society. I think many of the outward haters of AI are likely just as ignorant as the blind defenders of it.