I don’t see how I’m overlooking it, I’m simply not criticizing or endorsing that point either way in my previous post. I’m focusing on the component of the argument that an important problem with image generation AI is it being “low quality” output. There are valid criticisms of generative AI and the slop is a real problem, especially as it relates to online problems and content mill spam. But framing image generation as useless on the grounds of it being “low quality” is not solid ground to stand on. Hell, a point I didn’t mention in the other post, but is also relevant to the question of its usefulness and “quality”: Already some artists are using it to assist in their artwork in one capacity or another, though how many are disclosing it publicly is a whole other question, so it may be difficult to tell in the numbers how rare it is. And as long as the environment around generative AI is hypercharged hostility, there is little reason for them to be honest about it.
Not criticizing or endorsing (in 4 paragraphs) the main point (of 2 sentences) is by definition overlooking it.
At least one of us is misunderstanding the original comment.
It seems to be missing some punctuation, so here’s my understanding with punctuation added and superfluous bits removed:
AI doesn’t […] make art[.] [W]ithout human art to train on and remix[,] it[']s […] nonsense.
which I understand to mean it can output quality only by training on human made art. Which is backed up by the 2nd sentence about legalizing plagiarism.
So your characterization “AI sucks because it’s shitty art” at best strikes me as a misunderstanding, fixated on “horrific,” which is why I commented without downvoting. At worse it seems like a straw man that misdirects the conversation. “AI sucks because it has to take from artists to output anything but nonsense” strikes me as a more accurate summary.
But your arguments against multiple things that were never said and how you use “hostility” lead me to believe you’re not commenting in good faith, or here to steel man the original comment.
Of course there’s hostility. It was hard to make a living as an artist before AI. It can take decades to develop your style and name. If a company takes your work, gives you no credit or compensation, repackages it and sells it- undermines your entire industry and livelihood- that is a hostile act, and hostility is a completely reasonable reaction.
Ya you were right on the money with that understanding of my original comment. Guess i could have worded it better, but i really dont see how they took my comment to mean “AI art is bad cuz i dont like how it looks”
I don’t see how I’m overlooking it, I’m simply not criticizing or endorsing that point either way in my previous post. I’m focusing on the component of the argument that an important problem with image generation AI is it being “low quality” output. There are valid criticisms of generative AI and the slop is a real problem, especially as it relates to online problems and content mill spam. But framing image generation as useless on the grounds of it being “low quality” is not solid ground to stand on. Hell, a point I didn’t mention in the other post, but is also relevant to the question of its usefulness and “quality”: Already some artists are using it to assist in their artwork in one capacity or another, though how many are disclosing it publicly is a whole other question, so it may be difficult to tell in the numbers how rare it is. And as long as the environment around generative AI is hypercharged hostility, there is little reason for them to be honest about it.
Not criticizing or endorsing (in 4 paragraphs) the main point (of 2 sentences) is by definition overlooking it.
At least one of us is misunderstanding the original comment. It seems to be missing some punctuation, so here’s my understanding with punctuation added and superfluous bits removed:
which I understand to mean it can output quality only by training on human made art. Which is backed up by the 2nd sentence about legalizing plagiarism.
So your characterization “AI sucks because it’s shitty art” at best strikes me as a misunderstanding, fixated on “horrific,” which is why I commented without downvoting. At worse it seems like a straw man that misdirects the conversation. “AI sucks because it has to take from artists to output anything but nonsense” strikes me as a more accurate summary.
But your arguments against multiple things that were never said and how you use “hostility” lead me to believe you’re not commenting in good faith, or here to steel man the original comment.
Of course there’s hostility. It was hard to make a living as an artist before AI. It can take decades to develop your style and name. If a company takes your work, gives you no credit or compensation, repackages it and sells it- undermines your entire industry and livelihood- that is a hostile act, and hostility is a completely reasonable reaction.
Ya you were right on the money with that understanding of my original comment. Guess i could have worded it better, but i really dont see how they took my comment to mean “AI art is bad cuz i dont like how it looks”
Which says more about you than it ever will about me.