What is your most "Fuck you, this is actually awesome?" take?
-
What I mean is like, what do you think is unironically awesome, even if people now think its cringe or stupid?
Twinkies. The perfect dessert.
-
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!!)
wrote last edited by [email protected]Here's my reason for it. Let's suppose that I have set a xylophone up outside near a rocky cliff face, and one day, some rocks fall loose from the top of the cliff and strike the xylophone in such a way as to coincidentally produce the melody of Bach's Prelude in C Major from the Well-Tempered Clavier. Is this melody any less beautiful, less artistic, because it was not produced by a human? Does it really matter whether the xylophone event happened before or after Bach's writing of the Prelude? If the xylophone event happened first, would we say Bach's authoring of the melody was superfluous?
Consider this: there are 8 notes to a major scale, and so this means that there are only 32,768 possible 5-note sequences within one octave to make a melody out of (more if you count the timing of the notes, but the point remains). The possibility space of melodies is already implicitly formed by the medium. When Bach writes a 5 note melody, we say that he has created a melody - but we could just as well say that he discovered one of the pre-existing 32,768 melodies of 5 notes.
This paradigm is true in visual arts as well. We can start with a small example: imagine a community of pixel artists making black and white pixel art images on a canvas of 32x32 pixels. Or you could imagine them as weavers of rugs with up to 32 weaves in and out in both directions, if you'd rather a low-tech example. There are a HUGE number of possible ways to choose to color in these pixels even just black and white. But the number is still finite. Now let me ask you this. Have you ever made visual art before? If you have, you probably know how the blank canvas full of possibilities quickly narrows down to constraints as your composition comes along. "If my figure is posed like this, I can't show both the elbow and wrist, unless I use a strange perspective...", "if I give them black hair, it darkens the composition too much and doesn't look as good, but maybe if I add more light it could work..." Etc. What is it that you're doing as an artist? You're narrowing down the possibilities, from the HUGE possibility space of the blank canvas, to narrower and narrower "acceptable" configurations according to the criteria of the goal you have in mind.
Now suppose instead that I was doing really constrained pixel art - black or white only on a 3x3 grid. In that case there are only 512 possible artworks to be made. In that case, we COULD lay out all 512 of them, and just pick the one we like best. But if we were not very smart people, maybe we couldn't figure out this trick, and we'd have to use our artistry to explore the 512 possible canvases one by one. We can imagine an artist eventually choosing configuration #371 as their artwork. They probably won't think of as though they've chosen configuration #371, they probably will think of it like "I have come up with this new arrangement of pixels on the 3x3 canvas" - but in reality all they did was discover a possibility that has already existed since the beginning of time. Either way, I hope you and I agree that this person's pixel art, despite being small and likely pretty boring, is still ART. It's a work of art, although maybe not a great one. Now if I have a computer do the same process - explore this latent possibility space according to some criteria, finally selecting one possible configuration - and let's say the computer also selects #371. Are we going to say this is not art? But this would be paradoxical! It's the same image the artist made! Anyone who is familiar with the notion of "the death of the author" will see this is quite the same sort of principle. And if the computer happened to select #371 before any human did, would we then accuse the human of having "copied" the computer? Clearly not. This line of thinking, to me, is a strong one to defend AI images as possibly being legitimate and original art.
As an artist, you cannot create a new possibility within the medium. You can only actualize a possibility that has always latently been implied by the constraints of that medium. This is why many musicians and artists often talk about "finding" a melody or "finding" a vision. They find it because they are searching. They are searching their own unique path through that massive possibility space. The possibility space is too large for us to just simply look at every possibility and pick the one we like best - so we have to explore it, choosing at every moment which direction is best to step towards next, based on what we've got so far, and what we think we've learned about the shape of this possibility landscape over our experiences as artists.
-
What I mean is like, what do you think is unironically awesome, even if people now think its cringe or stupid?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Superman
A lot of people dismiss Superman as being "too powerful" or "unrelatable." They’ll say Batman is more relatable because he doesn’t have superpowers. But seriously, how many of us can actually relate to being a billionaire playboy with unlimited resources? In contrast, Superman grew up in small-town, working-class America. He is as much Clark Kent as he is Superman.
People call him a "boy scout," as if that’s a flaw. But that misses the point. The fact that he has the power to rule the world and chooses not to, is what makes him extraordinary. He sets an ideal for people to strive for.
Yes, in the hands of a bad writer he can become a walking deus ex machina. But in the hands of a good writer, Superman becomes the core of some of the most powerful and iconic stories in comics. His greatness doesn’t come from what he can do, it comes from the choices he makes.
-
Funny that everyone agrees with this take when it comes to trucks, but if you apply it to clothing it is "toxic masculinity".
I’m not even sure what you mean precisely, but men’s expressiveness through fashion is a bit squelched, yeah.
-
Crazy watching you get downvoted for driving a pickup.
Most of the people on these forums live in major cities and don't do any real work with their lives, so it's understandable.
I guess I was mistaken for holding them to a higher standard.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It's perfectly representative of the opinion asked for.
Getting down voted is hilarious, because we're admitting "fuck you, this is actually awesome."
-
Twinkies. The perfect dessert.
-
I tried so hard but it just didn’t click with me.
That's OK. No piece of art or media is gonna be everyone's Thing.
-
i honestly stopped reading after you called my job prompt engineering.
machine learning has been a specialization for well over a century. i have a master’s degree in it, im an expert on the topic and am certain what i do is not “prompt engineering.”
do you think LLMs like ChatGPT just sprung out of the ground like plants? people had to design those. even if you don’t like them figuring out how to build one is engineering, doubtlessly so. using a tool that has been engineered isn’t engineering, obviously, but i’m not going to further entertain this strawmanning.
Yes GD and ML are entirely different. I agree with you. I just dont understand why you would support llm based art.
-
The problem isn’t the heel turn, the problem was that it happened on like 4 episodes. Rushed and lacked the time to show motive.
Of course a Targaryen would go insane in their lust for power. The game of thrones consumes everyone.
It just sucks that the show runners were like “and then she goes nuts and loses it all ok? The end. We’re gonna fuck off and make Stsr Wars now.” and it was so bad they even lost from Star Wars lol
See here's the controversial take. I don't agree with you at all. It was literally built up for the entire series and was the only natural conclusion. She was literally saying "I plan to break the wheel" from the start. That is not language a peaceful person uses. Her goals to begin with were those of a conqueror, and what we got was the natural end of that ambition when it crashes into reality.
I think it was done beautifully, and the fact so many people bought into her side of things and felt betrayed is evidence of how well done it was.
-
The skill that it takes to produce something is a horrible, horrible metric for what makes something good art or not. There are artworks that took tons of skill but are boring, bland, generic, emotionless - all the things you don't like about AI art. There are artworks that took next to no skill but stand out as powerful, great works that resonate with everyone.
Skill is a proxy used to judge art in place of having developed taste. The purpose of art is not to show off, to flex your skill, or demonstrate technical superiority to others. This is a very sad, utilitarian, economic view of art that I beg you to reconsider.
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.
-
Alien, zombie, monster, catastrophe, etc movies and shows. Obviously not all of them, but the genre in general.
Many people complain these shows only work because the characters act stupid, and it's true.
BUT:
a) what's the alternative? Not having these shows at all?
b) People are stupid even without a catastrophe. What makes you think we suddenly all develop a brain when there's an alien invasion, or zombie outbreak? If Covid showed us anything, than that there's a very large part of the population who'd go out of their way to act against everyone's best interest.wrote last edited by [email protected]I worked in science, pre-clinical pharma, for 11 years before switching careers. I can fucking assure you that scientists and people really are THAT stupid about shit. Complacency from routines or experience is real as fuck.
-
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.
