Comment on Marcus Aurelius: The Man Who Solved the Universe

• Zephyr@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I appreciate that. This was the early days so to speak when people were just beginning to play around, before the current flood of content never touched by any person aka the beginning of the dead internet. Personally if it’s a person making something with intent then it’s just another tool but if it’s fully automated aka someone just told an agent to go make content and that’s it then I’m also not a fan.

  Every time there’s been a new tool it’s been degraded, like for a long time photography wasn’t considered for art, and then digital art or CGI wasn’t considered art and so on.

  There’s still some possibilities here for making actual art. Like if a person replicated AI generated art well enough it triggered people because they thought it was AI but was fully human generated then that could be an intriguing art piece. Either that or probing the neural nets, finding their behavior or where they break or have odd behavior would also be interesting. Like in the early days just toggling one pixel in an image to a specific value would be enough to destroy image recognition which is intriguing.

  source

  • Mr_Wobble@thelemmy.club ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Human beings make art. LLMs steal art to make images (not art). I’m never going to move from that.

    You wanna use machine assisted tools to isolate a subject from a background in photoshop? Fine. You start using it to create assets and elements? Absolutely not.

    I’m also not really into justifying it so that a few neat niche uses like the ones you listed might happen, when the overwhelming use of AI is the opposite of creative and exploratory.

    source