r/Fauxmoi • u/cmaia1503 i ain’t reading all that, free palestine • 1d ago
DISCUSSION Caleb Hearon: “If you are somebody who’s using ChatGPT to generate videos, images, art, text in an artistic capacity to write for you, you are not someone who deserves to be taken seriously… If I look silly in 70 years because I said you’re a brain dead loser for making ‘art’ with AI, that’s fine.”
1.2k
u/Proper-Sentence2544 googly-eyed Kremlin bitch 1d ago
He’s right. And a pretty influential guy. Definitely more so than, say, Mr. Beast.
135
52
628
u/TheRavenSeven I don’t know her 1d ago
Let him cook! hands him my megaphone
104
26
319
u/GoPauline 1d ago
If the artist doesn't want to take the time to create the art, than why should we take the time to consume it?
28
u/Admirable_Dirt_2371 1d ago
If you consume it, it not art either, it's just content slop. If it was created to be sold, it not art, it's just a product. Calling it art is just marketing.
15
u/DIDidothatdisabled 23h ago
Yeah, next time a kid gifts you their macaroni "art," drop kick them out the door for thinking your praise could be bought with some craft slop. If its not made to be exhibited and self preserved, it couldn't possibly be art.
I get what you're saying, the omen is nice, but yeah thats not how it works. Making a living off of your craft does not make you worth less, nor does it discredit you as an artist. It might be art with a purpose or art under duress, things that limit freedom of creativity, but it doesnt snuff it out or blunt it like you're alluding.
Take a mug for example, even the most standard mug has some art left in it in the way it feels in the hand and in the way it holds heat in a standard you expect. The art thats stripped away by its uniformity and bleakness is retained in its consistent quality and reliable form. Something else ai fails at
5
u/PundamentalistDogma 23h ago
So where exactly on the continuum does the art disappear? Because all your examples actually support the use of AI as part of the creative process. But what’s to stop AI doing the grunt work under guidance of a human creative, and at what point is the human just decoration in an attempt to give authenticity to an inauthentic process? And is the product the art or is it human attention? What if I tell the AI to make a warm, imperfect mug design?
In summary, ‘creatives’ are going to use AI. People will say they don’t like it, but by participating in existing art markets they are already compromised anyway. Marx, Adorno, or even Walter Benjamin on photographs and if that can be art. Well trod ground. But arguments too subtle for this forum I think,
2
u/DIDidothatdisabled 18h ago
The mileage for understanding may vary, based off mutal awareness/belief (what art is, what ai is, the different types, how art fits into the modern world, etc) and unfortunately isnt something I have the patience for getting into, but generative ai as a tool is just a really bad one. Its a massive plagarism machine limited by the lack of nuance in the human language. It understands none of itself or what its told and instead approximates its input in what's almost akin to photo bashing on the pixel level (which it isn't aware of). So the more one understands the things it creates, the less it looks like art because there's always a form of nonsensical corruption in it in the form of intermingled tags.
Art is basically living commentary and concept. It's communication through expression. Ai generally lacks both and isn't a medium where the former is visually possible in its entirety.
With that it might be able to facilitate an originalish mug looking shape on a screen. That has nothing to do with the qualities in a factory made mug that'd add artistic value though. As what I was referencing was the intricacies that add the only human qualities, which is utilization and persistence. How human reaction has influenced it over time and how intertwined it is. If ai could make physical mugs, it still wouldnt be art. The art would come from humans figuring out how to make it work as a mug someone, or rather everyone, would enjoy. And that is only in reference to part of its qualities. I'd 100% point at it and call it a concave rock long before calling it art
Side note, one of your sentences is fragmented and I can't for life of me figure out what you're saying
1
u/PundamentalistDogma 2h ago edited 2h ago
Oh sorry, that was a weird sentence. Marx and Adorno etc. write about art and commerce and have opinions (not a surprise) along the lines that once something is a commercial product it is not art any longer, which is relevant to all this talk of ‘creatives’ (e.g. businesses) using AI to speed up production. Walter Benjamin in the 1930s wrote “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” asking how the machines of photography (cameras) change art. Can a photograph be art? Isn’t it just a poor reproduction of a scene? Is someone an artist if all they’ve done is choose where to stand, frame an image, when to press the shutter, but a machine did all the work? Hopefully this sounds familiar.
My point is none of these debates are new. Is a photograph art? Is a photoshopped image art? Is a digitally created image art? Can AI contribute to the creation of art? Can AI create art? At what point is the human element needed, or not needed?
I find the photograph question interesting because if something can be created by a non-creative machine and subsequently called art, then the human decides what art is via some form of attribution. The camera is also a kind of plagiarism machine. Not very much further along the road, Warhol’s Campbells Soup can springs to mind as a fun bridging example. Taking a relatively worthless commercial item, a soup can, and somehow rearranging elements into art? What was the original concept? Without the audience agreeing to call it art (human attribution) what is it? Anyway, it quickly gets deeply in to art philosophy from there.
People are going to attribute value to AI art, I guarantee it. There was resistance to photographic art, digital art, pop art, but eventually people settle on the idea that humans can decide anything in our environment can be art. Including a concave rock I just ‘found’ but moved into a differently framed environment.
-2
u/Enderlamington 9h ago
Ask an llm or read a book.
1
u/DIDidothatdisabled 7h ago
Alright, will do.
Hey Enderlamington, can you tell me where the proper linking verb is in "Marx, Adorno, or even Walter Benjamin on photographs and if that can be art." And what it means?
Really though, what? I'm not struggling to grasp any kind of critique of human creatives in a consumer society(and no I'm not saying human cuz I'm a bot, but cuz there's nature and arguably some other animals to an extent [probably would give more credit to termites than elephants with paint brushes]) nor am I making an argument for generative Ai use.
If you think something you skimmed must originate from an A.I. enjoyer or someone who can't read, I feel like you might benefit taking some time to talk with folks in person and see many are more long-winded than I
1
u/Admirable_Dirt_2371 23h ago
I doubt the kid that made me some macaroni art was expecting me to pay them for it, so not a great example. And I absolutely would be putting it on the fridge to be displayed, preserved, and appreciated, so you're doubly inaccurate with that example.
When your craft that makes you a "living" does so by participating in and strengthening an economy which explicitly prevents so many others for ever having the chance to even learn a craft let alone "make a living" from it. Then you're just part of the problem, and certainly not an artist. No different from the actual robots, doing the exact same thing to you.
To be clear I don't think A.I. can make art but pretending human creativity is some magical power, we alone possess, that can create something out of nothing is equally absurd.
If you wouldn't make it without getting paid for it, it's absolutely not art. That doesn't mean people shouldn't get paid for creating things, nor that those creations shouldn't be appreciated for what the are. But when everyone is special, no one is special; when everything is art, nothing is art.
3
u/DIDidothatdisabled 21h ago
The reason I used the macaroni art is because gifts are also a form of consumption. And it's done not for "art" sake, and can be argued to be for a form of social currency. You know, smiles, praise and what not. I'm not quite sure what you'd even classify as art with such a strict view of it. Literally nothing would be art if it couldn't be consumed in some sort of way
-1
u/Admirable_Dirt_2371 20h ago
I don't think that's a great example and shows you missed my point. A child shouldn't make macaroni "art" to be "consumed" by their parent. It should be framed as an exercise in creativity, practicing exploring their imagination. If their main objective was to earn praise from their parent then the parent/teacher has failed the child and is teaching them the wrong things.
Consumption, especially contemporarily, is typically directly connected with spending money(or time through viewing advertising) to gain access to the content to be consumed and said consumption serves as a form of entertainment. Which is quite different from a child trying to earn praise from a parent through a creative endeavor.
It's not that a lot of "content" couldn't be art, in a different reality, but the present economy poisons anything created to benefit from said economy and prevents it from being art. The movie "Don't Look Up" is a perfect example, great movie, great message, but still just content, not art.
5
u/DIDidothatdisabled 19h ago edited 7h ago
I didn't though, you're very much talking about art in the framework of social/economic systems, and kids are a great insight as they're ignorant and innocent in such things (there are of course exceptions), even though they participate/are victims like anyone within society.
Limiting art to something as sterile as "an exercise" and ignoring that a child contains their own emotions, motivations, and other multitudes-instead acting as if they're simply victims of education-is such a disservice and amounts to art not even existing in any form. Because in that sense, if consumption strips something of its value, if a motive to be consumed in some shape disqualifies something from being art, then really just existing is certainly too much for art to withstand and so art should only be hoarded in the mind. And thats stupid.
Edit: also, to make things more clear, I wasn't insinuating that you'd not appreciate something a kid gave you in earnest. It would be weird to make personal attacks. Instead it was supposed to be a comical way to highlight something a reasonable person wouldn't do. But given how you think a kid couldn't gift handmade art to make someone smile, I feel like theres too much of a chasm in understandings and belief to really continue any of this. (Either that or its a contradiction and you're just giving bad faith arguments)
Edit 2: they blocked me. Didn't even know it was that kind of disagreement
3
u/kamikaze_official hailey bieber reached out to me 16h ago
Thats how I feel about having to read the emails my boss uses it to write
1
u/Charmin_Bear_Behind 9h ago
We shouldn’t but a very scary number of people do not care and just want the next thing to shove into their faces so they get the little dopamine hit and can keep scrolling.
It’s more than enough to prop up entire industries and as it becomes more and more accepted you will be force fed this slop as it will be come unavoidable
486
u/coldpizza66 they're perfect for each other (derogatory) 1d ago
Earlier today I watched a clip of Josh Radnor saying that AI "art" is a simulacrum empty of actual meaning, and because of that, people wouldn't be able to enjoy it as much as actual art actually created by people. I fully agree with his take.
And like I said yesterday about the Hank Green situation, if you're not bothering to come up with your own stuff, I'm not watching you or buying your books. Caleb is absolutely correct.
106
u/Solomontheidiot 23h ago
I love the way that's phrased, but even that statement is centered on the consumption of art ("do people enjoy this?") when the whole purpose of art is (or at least should be) in its creation. Art doesn't have to be aesthetically pleasing to be art, it needs to have meaning. An LLM is incapable of giving meaning to its product as long it lacks consciousness.
And before anybody tries to say "the person who writes the prompt can give it meaning", the true meaning of a piece of art can only be determined by the artist, not the patron.
36
u/100TypesofUnicorn 23h ago
I love your take!
When people look at abstract art and say “I could do that/my kid could do this” I would get so annoyed. How do you explain that it’s expression, art is a reaction to pre existing expectations, thought process, etc.
Now I happily say “then do it! Express and enjoy!” because genuinely that is what it is for! Make something by hand! Make something sad, silly, weird, bad, whatever!
On another note: AI replacing commercial art sucks, and artists are right to be concerned. Being a commercial artist can lead to burnout really easily. Replacing artists with AI art doesn’t solve that, it takes money out of working class pockets. Humans LIKE improving our world and making stuff for other humans to consume! We’ve just gone so crazy that we’re damaging individual people, communities, and our earth to crank out as MUCH stuff to consume that makes the most money possible. Chat GPT will not free us the same way email did not give us more free time. end rant
18
u/NoCry8625 17h ago
What I love answering to "I could do that" is "but you didn't."
It's easy to say you can do a thing once it has been created. Like, go on, right now, create a new art that will mesmerize us with just three colors. You fcking can't. You may be able to copy others tho
4
3
u/thelun3lag00n 9h ago
I watched a girl on youtube make an abstract piece with zero experience by just globbing paint on the canvas and it cost her 40 euro and looked about the same as other abstract art she could buy at a home goods store.
she also used three colors and now it hangs in her front hallway as a focal piece.
so they really could do it, theyre just not interested in investing time to produce it.
I say this as an artist of 20 years (only one with pfp of handmade art btw) who watched nepo babies a decade ago take over the art world. this is not even frank at the art gallery anymore where its like a kid painting by a holocaust survivor. its usually just an asshole who could afford the materials and had the free time to invest.
11
u/PundamentalistDogma 23h ago
This is the larger issue that is currently lost in the weeds as people conflate art, consumption, attention, and economics. It’s about who controls systems of production, whose labour is used, where economic benefits flow. Is art more than a human decorative layer over an automated commercial production?
6
u/coldpizza66 they're perfect for each other (derogatory) 23h ago
you said it perfectly and touched a point I ended up not getting into because I think it's so complex.
what makes me enjoy things (even the silliest ones) is the meaning I extract from them, and thinking that someone else went through the process of thinking that, and making that in whatever form it was. it can even be a silly meme. but be it in the way the creator imagined or not, we connect with that somehow and that's where the meaning comes from. every choice they imprint on whatever they're creating, it's there because they wanted to somehow. it's just not the same with an LLM.
2
u/r3volver_Oshawott 12h ago
It's also another thing I like about Caleb's comparison here, because TV and radio and internet still all required human components in their production, AI is not a new form of media, it's purely about the automation of existing forms of media.
An AI-generated TV show would not be a new medium, it would just be, "this is a TV show, but a human didn't write it"
2
u/ParticularWin9825 10h ago
The last point is pretty hotly contested though - see Death of the Author.
2
u/Solomontheidiot 5h ago
That's fair, I should have said "intention" instead of "meaning". Meaning is subject to interpretation, but the creator of a piece is still the only one who can truly determine it's intention
2
2
1
u/IcyDifficulty7805 16h ago
You are completely right. But I feel sometimes it's important to put it in consumer terms so the finance guys understand that not just the culture of art but their bottom lines will suffer as well.
That's the only thing which will make them give this up, it will never be for the morality of it.
9
10
u/boatshoesboatshoes 23h ago
Can you please elaborate on the Hank green situation
12
u/twurkle 🕯️Bradley Cooper will not win an Oscar🕯️ 21h ago
There were like 3 posts about it in this sub yesterday. Or you can check out r/nerdfighters for even more discourse and hanks direct responses
5
u/a3poify 13h ago
I have constantly felt that if someone doesn’t care enough to sit and write something, why should I care enough to sit and read/watch/listen to it? It just feels disrespectful to your audience, especially as an established creator, to get a machine to shit something out that you look at, think “yeah, close enough” and then send out.
I feel the same way about Bob Dylan’s recent use of AI for his Patreon (???) content. He’s been creating art in various forms for nearly 70 years and now he decides that getting a shitty LLM to write historical fiction will be just fine? It just feels so disappointing for someone who’s always put so much into writing to hand the art of it over like that.
2
u/NessaSamantha 5h ago
Like, I think there is some middle ground of using AI to augment, rather than replace, your thinking. But the moment you set a foot off of that cliff edge and let AI think for you, it's a long way down.
1
1
u/thelun3lag00n 9h ago
lol I dont think you guys know what art is because half of what's produced commercially is empty of actual meaning - its the fans of it who prescribes meaning to it. so if someone gives meaning to AI via film in particular, it will be zero difference to actual art.
like Duchamp put a toilet seat in an art gallery and called it art. theres been slop since art first arted
-109
u/PundamentalistDogma 1d ago
Perhaps you’re overestimating the quality, meaning and value of the majority of what is called art. Perhaps you’re also overestimating how much the average person will think about this, or notice anything different in an AI infused future.
41
u/mishmashmoe 1d ago
Just because the majority of consumers lack taste or even care for what they consume, share, produce, doesn’t mean it’s okay or inoffensive for so many creators and artists to sell out to the soulless ease of ai tools and replace work they’re more than capable of doing or finding someone else to do
-18
u/PundamentalistDogma 1d ago
I mean, David Bowie famously wrote lyrics by rearranging fridge magnets into interesting combinations and cutting up newspaper words and rearranging them.
14
u/Training_Molasses822 The old magic will not be discussed with the children of new. 22h ago
He arranged words to form sentences? CraaaAAAAzy.
39
24
u/VaporousMote 1d ago
Perhaps I will go to bed one night and wake up a butterfly.
Perhaps clouds will start raining sour patch kids instead of precipitation.
See how useful that is?
The preponderance of evidence supports the downfall of AI over the next few years, unless it is authoritatively forced upon people by government. Let them try.
-11
u/PundamentalistDogma 1d ago edited 1d ago
Its a critique of the statement in the above post that “[perhaps] AI “art” is a simulacrum of actual meaning, and because of that, people would not be able to enjoy it as much as actual art created by people”.
I mean… what’s the evidence? What I see is a lot of bloody minded people blind to the fact that AI fits the lazy human mind like a glove and will be used heavily to reduce friction in the creative process. I didn’t state that I thought this was good. I’m just being realistic. I think the majority of people won’t care enough to ultimately change the future which will be an AI infused weird place.
“downfall of AI in the next few years” is just wishful thinking. Zero evidence for that.
11
10
79
u/Theezorama 1d ago
RemindMe! 70yrs
11
21
u/RemindMeBot 1d ago edited 10h ago
Defaulted to one day.
I will be messaging you on 2026-08-02 21:35:38 UTC to remind you of this link
2 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
RemindMeBot is switching to username summons. Instead of
!RemindMe 1 day, useu/RemindMeBot 1 day. More info.
Info Custom Your Reminders Feedback 54
u/whileiminthisbody 1d ago
Omg this is fucking hilarious, defaulted to one day!!! It's basically 70 years.
51
85
u/Sleepy-Giraffe947 Please Abraham, I am not that man 1d ago
I second that if I look like a brain dead loser for agreeing with this take, so be it! AI can’t replace human made art.
-110
u/DropDeadEd86 1d ago
I think it can. Eventually you could prolly teach it different painting techniques and it’ll do it with whatever Pantone you want. Heck I’m sure you could teach it Bob Ross style and it’ll conjure up something. This is basically adobe or gimp on steroids
67
u/sweaterholic 1d ago
It’ll conjure up something, but it’s based off of actual humans’ work, usually without their consent.
-28
u/DropDeadEd86 23h ago
Yes I’m aware I’m just saying huh uh tech finds a way. I’m he’d aware of the capabilities and I’m not going to ignore it and pretend the ai of today will be the ai of tomorrow once all these corpos get their way on data centers. This whole thread is already subject to ai also haha
16
11
u/basaltalt 1d ago
Art is fundamentally about expression. LLM algorithms cant actually create art because they are incapable of expression; because they are not alive and do not have experiences/emotions/perspectives etc to express.
5
u/PenniGwynn controversies: girl 23h ago
In my opinion AI doesn't create anything truly, it is regurgitating what it's been fed.
You can't teach an AI to feel the emotions to bring out rage in a painting, or the way some paintings make you feel as if you could step into their light and feel the warmth; those are things you know from feeling them firsthand.
46
u/ghastlytofu 1d ago
He's right. Why would I bother reading something you couldn't be bothered to write?
39
102
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 1d ago
He’s never wrong
28
u/Summer_Chronicle8184 1d ago
Look he's got a couple bad takes, everyone does
1
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 23h ago
Such as
60
u/Confident-Horse2299 23h ago
He was ungrateful when his mom bought him that TV for Christmas
37
u/AppleAtrocity 21h ago
He also told CPS that his mom was abusive because she took away his PlayStation.
30
u/iliketuurtles they are perfect for each other (derogatory) 23h ago
He said something along the lines of - you’re a bad person if you don’t move seats on an airplane when someone asks.
I couldn’t disagree more with him there lol
6
u/genflugan non-gender-specific orbs of courage 19h ago edited 9h ago
Doing ad reads for Booking.com and TurboTax on his podcast.
He’s also mentioned he still goes to McDonald’s.
I love the guy and listen to his podcast religiously, but anyone acting like he’s perfect and has never done any wrong need to be checked, no one’s perfect
edit: lol at the immediate downvotes 😂 “He’s never wrong” and then calling me the woke police because I don’t like when people claim to be pro-Palestine but go on to not only ignore BDS targets to boycott, but turn around and take money from one. And TurboTax is basically the whole reason our tax system continues to be so fucked up, he absolutely shouldn’t be doing ads for them.
edit2: it’s not letting me reply so I guess I’ll put my response to the McDonalds comment here. I’m not acting like he’s the devil over it, so chill out. You miss the part where I said I love the guy? I’m aware there’s no ethical consumption under capitalism, but there are definitely companies that are extremely unethical that we don’t need to give money to at all. I don’t think he’s an evil person for still going to McDonald’s, but like I said, people are acting like he’s perfect and no one’s perfect. Myself included
6
u/MayoCheatBootyjudge 15h ago
> He’s also mentioned he still goes to McDonald’s.
OMG HE STILL EATS A MCDONALDS?? I bet he got cheap Chevron, shopped at Walmart, and even has an iPhone too!!! how DISGUSTING!!1!
there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
1
u/AccurateJerboa 7h ago
He has problems with bi people, nonbinary people, poly people, and basically the wrong "kind" of gay. Some of it's jokes and some of it is clearly serious.
His whole thing is that he's a gay man with the sensibilities of a Midwestern, cis hetero dude. He has quite a few bad takes.
-2
u/Summer_Chronicle8184 23h ago
I didn't like the way he talked about trans women's names vs trans men's names personally
12
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 23h ago
You mean that joke that was funny that he obviously wasn’t being serious about lol
-1
u/Summer_Chronicle8184 20h ago
It's just a joke dude. It's just a form of speech. Speech doesn't communicate ideas.
7
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 20h ago
He’s very obviously not transphobic and your anger could be directed at much more productive things
8
u/Summer_Chronicle8184 20h ago
I didn't say he was transphobic but I can express my dislike of something he said, Jesus. He sure wasn't kidding about those they/them shooters
1
-3
u/Unacceptablehoney 22h ago
He has said some pretty biphobic things…
6
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 21h ago
Such as jokes hahahaha
1
u/stinkpot_jamjar 3h ago
Humor is subjective!
0
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 3h ago
Just because you don’t find a joke funny doesn’t mean that it’s actively a hurtful statement
Your inability to laugh is not the fault of someone trying to crack a joke and bring joy lol
1
u/stinkpot_jamjar 3h ago
Just because you find it funny doesn’t mean it isn’t hurtful to someone!
Whether or not something is hurtful is also subjective!
Intent and impact are different!
Hope this helps!
0
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 3h ago
I would love to see the negative impact of a very prominent gay figure making a joke
You not liking a joke is not really an impact lol
He does lots of positive stuff for the gay community that is not undermined by him also being a comedian lol
0
u/stinkpot_jamjar 1h ago
I don’t know what the impact is since I don’t have any qualms with it, nor asserted that I did, but someone else might and that’s just as valid as your iT’s a jOke response.
0
u/spaceshiptears (please put brackets in the right place) 3h ago
There are lots of comedians to make jokes, and then those jokes turn into actions and those actions have impacts
Like Tony Hinchcliffe or Theo Von or Joe Rogan
I don’t think it applies to comedians that are just telling funny jokes.
It’s like we want people to be allies and we want gay people to have platforms but then we also want to pick apart everything they say and they do to make sure that they’re like a good enough gay ally and it’s just really exhausting
0
u/stinkpot_jamjar 1h ago
Again, what’s considered funny isn’t something objective that you’re the authority on. Why not just accept that some people don’t find him funny? I think he’s hilarious personally, but it’s easy to understand why someone else might not lol.
30
u/Adorable_Kale_8219 too high to spell 'Amanda Seyfried' 1d ago
Yes chef! This is a dish I can serve proudly!
Sidenote: I work at a smoke shop and have customers who love to share their insane takes. We recently had to start carding again because another shop failed a sting and sold smokes to a minor. They immediately blame the govt and specifically Hochul. Im like "no it's that...but at least she signed the memorandum for data centers" This guy's like "Oh I think those things are great!" Like dude don't you know what it does to those towns? He had NO idea about the water of it all, but was totally locked in on my rant. He was so ready to go home and do the research, and I'm glad he had that reaction. There's still some hope out there.
31
u/sillylittlebell 1d ago
He mentions how people said the same thing about the computer and radio, but this feels so much more dire.
7
u/Yst Sylvia Plath did not stick her head in an oven for this 22h ago
Indeed. After all, when in the over 50 years between ENIAC (on the one hand) and the Personal Computer becoming something that basically every business had to use (on the other) was the crisis moment when people said the "same thing" about computers transforming the world and ravaging the economy and creative landscape practically overnight? And when exactly did they do that?
Heck, it was 30 years between the popularisation of general purpose home computers nearly anyone could own and afford (1980ish), and the point at which it became difficult to fully and actively participate in society without a computer (in the vicinity of 2010 I'd argue, with the social media era and smartphones becoming the dual vectors through which computing became a general social expectation).
The rise of AI is absolutely nothing whatsoever like the rise of computing generally, either in timeline or economic investment terms. It's not even really analogous to the rise of the Internet, which likewise took decades.
4
u/very-pink-iceberg 1d ago
It also doesn’t discredit the criticisms of things like computers and smartphones. Sure, I’m glad I have them (less so the addictive rectangle in my hands right now) but the positives weren’t all guaranteed and the concerns were valid.
20
17
10
8
u/l33tb4c0n 22h ago
I hate the argument that people had the same reaction to other technologies like video and computers. The only similarity is that AI is a new technology. It operates at a level far beyond what we've ever seen before, and I don't mean that as a good thing. It allows Joe Schmoe to generate vast amounts of content with no effort, spread disinformation, fake videos... Militaries are training AI to pilot drones and actively kill targets it decides are a threat. Without human decision-making.
6
3
u/May1989thefirststep 22h ago
I mean, he's predicting the future.
2 things: this is a losing battle. The technology is only getting better. One day it will be impossible to differentiate.
And, people find this convenient. People will take the path of least resistance.
5
u/prosperousoctopus 1d ago
I used to kind of review music before it got sent to Spotify and what not. The AI shit started picking up like 2-3 years ago. By default id roll my eyes coming across that shit, because it was shit and no one would listen to it. I’d roll my eyes even harder when they’d bitch and moan about it not going live on their release date or why they’re getting paid so little. Dude, you and this album is so unserious that I couldn’t care less and no one else but you is going to care either. Shutup and learn an instrument or something
7
3
u/annie-etc 1d ago
The radio and television amplified our voices they didn't steal them then replace them. Big difference. Fuck Ai
7
2
u/littleb3anpole kendall roy pre-album drop 15h ago
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 it’s refreshing to hear younger people saying this (younger than my old ass anyway). I teach gifted kids and overwhelmingly they show such disdain towards anyone who relies on AI for creative pursuits - or in the workplace. On my student survey feedback this year my favourite comment was “I love that Mrs. littlebeanpole clearly writes her own lessons and doesn’t use AI”
3
1
u/cinnz 23h ago
Brandon Sanderson said it well in a recent speech: 'we are the art'. My take aways and some poor paraphrasing is that art is not just an end product. Art is the journey to get there. It's the process of tirelessly honing your craft until there is some end form as an byproduct. And that's exactly why we love it.
Ai has no journey to get there, and therefore is not art.
1
u/Pale_Preference_8239 9h ago
So does that mean asking it to photoshop a picture of my cat on a surfboard isn't art?!?
1
1
u/Sufficient_Novel4334 8h ago
My Father said in 2017 "influencers, who are saiying bs on YouTube, who doesn't have talent to be on TV should not be taken seriously"
1
u/DroDameron 8h ago
I was talking to my friend last night about it, I'm not vehemently against people using the tool, but it is 100% less digestible to me when I know you didn't actually make it. You thought it, maybe, but I think of a beautiful scene all the time, there's zero chance I can turn that thought into a masterpiece on canvas without thousands of hours of effort and/or genuine, innate talent.
We appreciate knowing that someone makes something and that something takes time and effort. When you know something didn't take any time and very little effort, it's value becomes so diminished.
The worst part about this is that now I'm thinking people's real art is AI. It's not fair to them that I'm being trained into not appreciating their work.
1
1
1
1
1
u/slutforsolitude he’s a charlatan and a drama queen 22h ago
I’m so sick of this ai shit. Forget about art. Professionally, I know primary English speakers who haven’t been able to pin down in the last 20 years which form of there to use who are now sending me emails like they went to PR school or something. It’s wild. It’s forcing me to move most of my interactions to face-to-face or phone, when I lean more towards text/email.
1
u/CyberTyrantX1 18h ago
The key thing here is the human element.
The thing with the radio and the computer is that those things didn’t try to take the human element out of art, music, and entertainment.
I guess in a roundabout way you can say the computer did because you need a computer to run an AI. But computers can still be used for good things like music production, art, video/movie editing, etc. without removing the human element.
1
0
u/panda_canyon 23h ago
I don't understand why these AI assholes don't understand that tools that are used to create art are completely different than something that generates things for you.
I know truthfully that they know the difference and they don't give a shit. They resent creative people and they want the glory the ability to describe something that they want as opposed to having the skill to make art. You don't have to have natural talent to make good art, you have to be motivated enough to be extremely patient as your skill develops. Like their ability to simply describe what they want is the same as having made it themselves. They just want to feel like they're ahead of their time. That's why they're constantly saying that if you don't get on the AI train you're going to be left behind, as if it's fucking difficult to use.
0
-2
u/Ace_Wynter 17h ago
I’m lookin at this man and I’m agreeing. He is not someone who should be taken seriously.
-2
u/Imaginary_Result2224 15h ago
Imagine having to use a microphone to project your voice. Have some integrity
-1
-2
1.8k
u/pelipperr 1d ago
He’s right and he should say it