• BabaIsPissed [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I just don't understand why we have to moralize the subject like this, it makes the thing feel more threatening than it actually is.

    Researchers used AI art generation to demonstrate how well they could model images+text (plus it pairs nicely with how these models are trained). They were not trying to replace artists because that's stupid on the face of it. Guillermo points the core reason why pretty eloquently, the model doesn't feel anything, it isn't conscious, how the fuck is it gonna make art that resonates? I'll go one step further: you can never make it spit out what is in your mind's eye, that can only come about with you putting in the effort to bring it to reality with your own hands.

    Of course, porky want money and some idiot is gonna try to make a movie generated entirely by AI in the next like 5 years or something. But it is going to suck, obviously. So, IMO the best course of action is to recognize that the tech is neat (because it obviously is) and laugh the idiots that want to SOLVE ART out of the room when they are inevitably proven wrong.

    TL;DR: It's not an insult to life itself, it's a stupid techbro pipedream, don't make them look cool

    • UlyssesT [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Critical support for your take, even if I don't necessarily agree with all of it. :order-of-lenin: