Even without AI, humans are causing this and it’s getting much much worse. The far right is winning all over the globe, trump is president with his “drill baby drill” and recently opening up national forests for logging. The right is winning and gaining in numbers and they don’t give a shit about the environment.
A communist takeover of AI could eventually lead to it helping with environmental problems. But we ain’t getting anything commie any time soon. Everything looks like fascism is the only thing potentially on the menu.
degradation of the creation of art for the masses of people
Not sure what you mean by this. As a thought experiment, what if, decades to come, AI can produce art that is orders of magnitude better than any human being could ever create? Music, movies, sculptures, whatever… Anti-AI people will disagree, but I want to see what that would look like.
Art is more than a quality picture. It’s an innate human activity and an action of self expression. It’s a creation made by a living things, making choices in its creation, to express itself. Ai slop doesn’t do this. It’s like ordering a cheeseburger without pickles and saying that you cooked it yourself.
That’s not the point at all. As I said, it’s a thought experiment.
IF, a very big if, AI could create art objectively better than any human (by human standards), is that art less valuable because a human didn’t do it? No. Because it’s the art we’re judging, not the person/process by which it was created.
Additionally, what if humans controlling AI tools lead to the creation of art that is objectively better than art created without AI tools? If it’s better (judged by humans), then it’s better.
I want to see all the potential of these tools used by humans, in addition to whatever else they could provide by themselves, especially if it ever leads to anything like AGI.
“Ai slop” doesn’t to this yet, and maybe it never will, but maybe it will. I want to see what it might be able to do, preferably for the benefit of everyone, not just the billionaire class.
There is a big difference between the statue of David and a 3d printed figure of it. Even if it was the same size and even visually identical, the hand carved one is always more important to people, because someone put the effort and thought into it, and the other is a cheap replica.
So? That’s why it’s an opinion. If you want to subscribe to some postmodern definition of art and think finding a crumpled ball of paper on the street makes you an artist, go right ahead. I’ll think you’re wrong and foolish, but sure.
Ai slop isn’t art, and you can cope with people thinking that.
Even without AI, humans are causing this and it’s getting much much worse. The far right is winning all over the globe, trump is president with his “drill baby drill” and recently opening up national forests for logging. The right is winning and gaining in numbers and they don’t give a shit about the environment.
A communist takeover of AI could eventually lead to it helping with environmental problems. But we ain’t getting anything commie any time soon. Everything looks like fascism is the only thing potentially on the menu.
Not sure what you mean by this. As a thought experiment, what if, decades to come, AI can produce art that is orders of magnitude better than any human being could ever create? Music, movies, sculptures, whatever… Anti-AI people will disagree, but I want to see what that would look like.
@Yawweee877h444 @agent_nycto please stop calling it AI
PLEASE
Art is more than a quality picture. It’s an innate human activity and an action of self expression. It’s a creation made by a living things, making choices in its creation, to express itself. Ai slop doesn’t do this. It’s like ordering a cheeseburger without pickles and saying that you cooked it yourself.
That’s not the point at all. As I said, it’s a thought experiment.
IF, a very big if, AI could create art objectively better than any human (by human standards), is that art less valuable because a human didn’t do it? No. Because it’s the art we’re judging, not the person/process by which it was created.
Additionally, what if humans controlling AI tools lead to the creation of art that is objectively better than art created without AI tools? If it’s better (judged by humans), then it’s better.
I want to see all the potential of these tools used by humans, in addition to whatever else they could provide by themselves, especially if it ever leads to anything like AGI.
“Ai slop” doesn’t to this yet, and maybe it never will, but maybe it will. I want to see what it might be able to do, preferably for the benefit of everyone, not just the billionaire class.
There is a big difference between the statue of David and a 3d printed figure of it. Even if it was the same size and even visually identical, the hand carved one is always more important to people, because someone put the effort and thought into it, and the other is a cheap replica.
There is no consistent definition of what art is. You are trying to force your personal definition onto everybody else.
So? That’s why it’s an opinion. If you want to subscribe to some postmodern definition of art and think finding a crumpled ball of paper on the street makes you an artist, go right ahead. I’ll think you’re wrong and foolish, but sure.
Ai slop isn’t art, and you can cope with people thinking that.