What is your most "Fuck you, this is actually awesome?" take?
-
AI art (and AI in general). The amount of misinformed and outright wrong bullshit that gets levelled at me when I defend AI or point out something false is ludicrous. Almost every single argument against it was levelled at photography a century ago, much of that was levelled at pre-mixed paints before that, and what's left is either flat out wrong, or levelled at the wrong place
Agreed. Obviously mega corporations suck, but AI as a technology does not NEED to be unethical. It sucks that because people want to hate on mega corps (rightfully so) they feel justified in tacking on any flawed argument they want to against AI.
People have issues separating out complex bundles of issues into their separate threads and dealing with them individually. It's much easier to keep it all jumbled together and pass judgement on the whole lot. It's lazy thinking, which is ironically contrary to the virtues so frequently espoused in these arguments.
Furthermore, like you said, many people have strong opinions on the issue despite not really having any understanding of the philosophy of art, history of art, or the technology itself. It boils down to the same sort of layperson's gibberish that gives us other bad takes like "abstract art isn't art, my dog could paint that!" or "this performance art is just a tax evasion scheme!". It reveals the tastelessness of the accuser. It's extremely frustrating that these people always present themselves as true art enjoyers, when in fact they are not.
It reminds me of a time I was at the symphony, and the opening piece was a very avant garde one. It displayed wonderful chromaticism, really emotional chaotic passages, clever balancing of orchestral timbres...I study and compose classical music, I know music theory quite deeply, and for me it was a lovely piece. When it was over, this old lady next to me, all dressed up, complained that "that was just noise, not even music", and got all indignant about the bastardization of art. I'm sure she would have said the same thing at the debut of Rite of Spring, which she now undoubtedly "admires" and upholds as a masterwork. I would be surprised if she could name the notes of the key of C major. Yet it is precisely her lack of knowledge which gives her such a narrow view of the art she imagines herself to be a connoisseur of.
Same exact phenomenon as I've complained about before on Reddit, with its endless art-boner for any realistic "impressive" pencil sketch, over something that is equally technically impressive and more emotional, but in a way they are too unknowledgeable to appreciate.
It's just the way of art, I suppose.
-
Its a good point. However id argue that many things did require great skill and time commitments OR the people who created them were so above normal people with their gifts that it didn't take them as much effort as someone else.
Example, do you think Bach wrote all his best work in a day with no effort ?
Do you think a 3 minute song made of GarageBand loops by a 13 year old is on the same level of art ? No, its not. However, someone may enjoy the 3 minute looped song over a Bach piece. Thats fine. But if we have to ask which is higher art and which is timeless, its going to be the Bach piece.
I agree though to a point, metal for example. Just because dream theater puts out an insanely complex 20 minute song that only they can play proficiently doesn't mean its "better" than enter sandman. The areas get very gray at that point.
While I agree with your conclusion about the garageband loops vs the Bach, I think that the skill was coincidental, not essential, in the superiority of the Bach piece. It's not the fact that Bach was more skilled that makes his piece better. It's simply the case that his skill made it easier for him to discover a better piece. It's something useful for him, but as people who experience his art, it's not what the art is about. If a toddler happened to accidentally mash out the same piece on the piano at home (yes this is unfathomably unlikely), it would still be an equally amazing and timeless piece - despite the fact that no skill whatsoever went into it. All that the artwork is, is contained in the artwork. Everything else is extraneous context that we may derive some other additional value from, but it is not essential to the art in itself.
-
They're trained on plenty that's similar enough, as long as its Python or something in the dataset.
It's also been shown that LLMs are good at 'abstracting' languages to another, like training on (as an example) Chinese martial arts storytelling and translating that ability to english, despite having not seen a single english character in the finetune. That specific example I'm thinking of is:
https://huggingface.co/TriadParty/Deepsword-34B-Base
Same with code. If you're, say, working with a language it doesn't know well, you can finetune it on a relatively small subset, combine with with a framework to verify it, and get good results, like with this:
https://huggingface.co/cognition-ai/Kevin-32B
Someone did this with GDScript too (the Godot Game Engine scripting language, fairly obscure), but I can't find it atm.
Not that they can be trusted for whole implementations or anything, but for banging out tedious blocks? Oh yeah. Especially if its something local/open one can tailor, and not a corporate API.
Auto-writing boilerplate code doesn't change the fact that you still have to reimplement the business logic, which is what we're talking about. If you want to address the "reinventing the wheel" problem, LLMs would have to be able to spit out complete architectures for concrete problems.
Nobody complains about reinventing the wheel on problems like "how do I test a method", they're complaining about reinventing the wheel on problems like "how can I refinance loans across multiple countries in the SEPA area while being in accord with all relevant laws".
-
I was an early adopter of No Man's Sky (long before the shift in public perception), and I fucking loved it back then, and love it now as well. But admitting that in public a few years back was tantamount to saying that stapling your child to a rabid badger was a great alternative to hiring a babysitter.
I actually preferred the early days, I don't like most of the recent updates and I haven't played in probably a year. I can't really explain why except now it feels too busy.
-
Honestly I don't consider them plot holes. 'Don't try to understand it' was not only directed at the protagonist. The premise is pretty much what if we simply accepted this impossible mechanic.
-
You know we drink milk from COWS right?
Yeah but not raw milk straight from the udder (unless you enjoy salmonella), letting it dribble down your chin and get in your beard (unless that's what does it for you I guess, you do you)
-
Interstellar
Someone said interstellar was bad? Who said that?!!! Hold my beer.
-
Yeah but not raw milk straight from the udder (unless you enjoy salmonella), letting it dribble down your chin and get in your beard (unless that's what does it for you I guess, you do you)
LOL. RFK.
-
Everytime a Targaryen is born, the gods throw a dice
If she didn't like a system that existed, she wanted to burn it to the ground, a person, burn them alive.
Surely putting that person in charge couldn't go wrong.
-
The Force AwakensThe Last Jedi was the freshest and most creative star wars movie since Empire and Rian Johnson is a hero for trying to take the franchise in a new directionwrote last edited by [email protected]Ooh that is one I vehemently disagree with lol. It was a ok movie if it was its own thing, but it wasn't a good star wars movie, it was worse for being in the sequel trilogy as opposed to a stand alone star wars movie, and it was even worse for being the middle of that trilogy. The more context you add the worse it is imo
-
What's cool about an energy slurping vehicle that's a danger to children and adults alike? It only serves to trick men into thinking their fragile tiny tick gets bigger with that car.
The bigger the car, the smaller the ego, generally. Better to just work on themselves and bicycle. That's truly good.
Maybe they just like how they look
-
Are you paid by some truck company? Vans absolutely better carry. They also have cover, so the stuff you carry doesn't get wet.
There's covers for trucks too
-
Owning a pickup truck is pretty awesome, and I don’t think I’ll ever buy a different type of vehicle again.
Mentioning it online gets hate, but in real life people keep coming up to me, complimenting how nice it looks, asking questions about it, and kids give me thumbs up when I drive by. All of that is just a bonus on top of the fact that I love driving it and the way it looks - and that’s all that really matters.
I like these answers that are actually divisive
-
Agreed. Obviously mega corporations suck, but AI as a technology does not NEED to be unethical. It sucks that because people want to hate on mega corps (rightfully so) they feel justified in tacking on any flawed argument they want to against AI.
People have issues separating out complex bundles of issues into their separate threads and dealing with them individually. It's much easier to keep it all jumbled together and pass judgement on the whole lot. It's lazy thinking, which is ironically contrary to the virtues so frequently espoused in these arguments.
Furthermore, like you said, many people have strong opinions on the issue despite not really having any understanding of the philosophy of art, history of art, or the technology itself. It boils down to the same sort of layperson's gibberish that gives us other bad takes like "abstract art isn't art, my dog could paint that!" or "this performance art is just a tax evasion scheme!". It reveals the tastelessness of the accuser. It's extremely frustrating that these people always present themselves as true art enjoyers, when in fact they are not.
It reminds me of a time I was at the symphony, and the opening piece was a very avant garde one. It displayed wonderful chromaticism, really emotional chaotic passages, clever balancing of orchestral timbres...I study and compose classical music, I know music theory quite deeply, and for me it was a lovely piece. When it was over, this old lady next to me, all dressed up, complained that "that was just noise, not even music", and got all indignant about the bastardization of art. I'm sure she would have said the same thing at the debut of Rite of Spring, which she now undoubtedly "admires" and upholds as a masterwork. I would be surprised if she could name the notes of the key of C major. Yet it is precisely her lack of knowledge which gives her such a narrow view of the art she imagines herself to be a connoisseur of.
Same exact phenomenon as I've complained about before on Reddit, with its endless art-boner for any realistic "impressive" pencil sketch, over something that is equally technically impressive and more emotional, but in a way they are too unknowledgeable to appreciate.
It's just the way of art, I suppose.
Yeah, spot on. Also The Rite Of Spring is one of my favourite pieces of music ever
-
you’re gonna get endlessly downvoted here on lemmy for this but if it makes you feel any better i work in ML/AI and feel the same way as you and the other guy here comparing it to computerized art.
people are really anthropocentric, short-sighted, and reactionary.
i’m not convinced by weird capitalist myths of “originality” or “the human touch” or whatever weird fetishizing they wanna do…
all art is predicated on that which came before, human or not. AI art is no different. artists shouldn’t be subject to the economy in such a way that something like generative art inspires such societal rage… in china genAI is popular with the youth and generally bc artists and artisans in china aren’t exploited the way they are in the west and are free to view genAI as a tool rather than a threat. why western commission artists direct their anger and rage at the machines putting their oppression on full display and not towards their oppressors and handlers themselves fucking confounds me. maybe people really are just, on average, kind of dumb. i keep looking for alternatives but nothing ever shows itself.
People are kinda dumb, but the level of wilful ignorance displayed by the anti-ai crowd is equalled only by trump cultists
-
The fact you think all art is predicated on what came before is absolutely stupid.
If thats true, there would never have been anything new created. Ai slop generators CANT make anything new because they are limited on their (massively) illegally scraped input.
Also thinking that originality and human experience are capitalist myths is quite humorous, that is a new take.
Uh... all art is influenced by what came before. All of it, except maybe the very first cave paintings. And claiming that ai can't make anything new is as as clear an indicator that you don't know what you're talking about as is calling it "slop"
-
I’m not even sure what you mean precisely, but men’s expressiveness through fashion is a bit squelched, yeah.
My point is that the same people who bemoan the lack of expressiveness in men's clothing are at the same time defining masculine coding as being utilitarian in the context of trucks.
This incongruity is frustrating to me.
-
Wait but why would someone defend ai art...
Like the only reason I can think of is it maybe makes someone who is lazy feel good about themselves because they make a computer generated picture with zero effort (while stealing from real artists and feeding the megacorp machine) ?
Sorry, this is on the same level of saying "well they denied electricity at first and this is just like that!" Braindead take.
Carry on. (Yes im reinforcing your comment by even replying here, ha!!)
Yeah that's a damn fine example of a really stupid take. Thank you.
Lets start with the amount of effort it takes not being related to artistic value, otherwise your pictures would be worth more than Picasso's doodles, wh9ich is clearly bullshit. Plus the fact that's ableist as fuck - I recently suffered nerve damage and so can't actually control a pencil properly, and trying get painful, soi are you really saying disabled people can't and shouldn't create art?
Now theft - it; not theft. No artist is denied their work, no copies are made, and it can't reproduce their work. It can mimic a style but most of the people who complain about that are the most derivative anime-style furry porn artists (no offence to furry porn, but what they create is no high art!)
Oh, and I agree that the best ai, like most software, is run locally and is open source. Disliking megacorps is not a criticism of ai
So yeah, thanks again for illustrating my point
-
Yes GD and ML are entirely different. I agree with you. I just dont understand why you would support llm based art.
That's because you are as wilfully ignorant as trump cultist and refuse to understand how this new tool works. You've been told it's bad by luddite youtube influencers and that's good enough for you.
-
Wait but why would someone defend ai art...
For the same reason that we defended computer-aided art back in the day after people had the exact same reaction to it.
And photography before that, and pre-mixed paints before that (the media dragged J. M. W Turner of all people for it!). I imagine many of the same arguments were used against pencils and brushes when they were first invented too!
