If you are going to hate on AI at least hate it for real reasons.
Peter Thiel, and his incestuous coven of vampires, have funded this machine's creation to replace newspaper comic artists. Do you disagree? That's what it did.
Or, do you think I don't also have criticisms of capitalism.
maybe AI will too one say, who knows?
One can hope.
The key difference here between this and photography, though, is that photography only displaced painters. You can tell by looking whether something is a photograph or not. Usually.
AI is very good and will only get better. When the machine can replicate any style, any subject, 3,000 times a minute: what is left for people to even do? How will you ever know a person was there?
If these tools were built to be honest, such that you always knew when something was generated and when something wasn't, I wouldn't have nearly as much of a problem with it.
the actor does something unexpected and they keep it
Credit for this would go to the actor, Morpho.
I am intentionally leaving you room to impress me, and you are still just calling out alleged hypocrisy.
Oh, I know what this is. OP, you just need to select a different floor.
It is if your reflex is to say it when you feel it.
I think you have some issues to work out, man.
Have you painted landscapes and portraits?
Yes.
I tried AI art once to see what it was about and it took a lot of time with prompts to get anything useful out.
So does passing a kidney stone.
I don't care about effort, I want to know what you have to say. I want to see what you've learned. I want you to show me something about your life.
If this were math, I want you to show me your work.
In the things you've made, you are the only thing I give a shit about. You've made things with AI? Show me where you are in them, then. Are you even real? Do you exist? Should I care you were ever even here?
If you think photography doesn't achieve these things, boy, let me tell you about AI then.
To onlookers: if you're wondering why I'm not addressing the lazy and uninteresting hypocrisy arguments, it's because they don't mean anything.
Painters used to be mad at photographers? Okay. They get along now, why is that? Does anyone even care? Did they simply forget they were pissed at each other? Was Mercury in retrograde?
The only purpose of these arguments is to make you doubt yourself. They don't advocate for anything. They don't suggest a goal, or a resolution, or a compromise, they're just rhetorical chess moves---"neener neener" and tongue wagging.
Yeah, this is because the only thing they believe in is the end product.
If you ask them whether they prefer a text from their real mom over a digital simulation of what their mom might say, they'll acknowledge what you're getting at, the human spirit, but they'll call it a love bond. So, their mom has human spirit, but not their neighbors.
Let's end I.P. law and burn down the datacenters. Since you hate I.P. so much, I assume this is the easiest offer in the world to you.
"stealing" is bullshit because you are not depriving the originator of anything.
This is such a sovereign citizen tier argument. "Officer, I wasn't driving, I was travelling."
Using AI is lazy. [...] As is photography.
As somebody learning photography, take my goddamn hobby out of your mouth. I am so sick of you AI freaks pretending that chatgpt and photography are the same thing.
My hand made art looks ugly.
Practice, then. It's good for you. All that brain activity from actually doing something with your life might stop the dementia from getting you in your 50s.
Yes, of course, what we need are good billionaires.
Anyone can choose not to fire a gun---I don't want the gun in the room. If you want the gun for other reasons, then build it to fire blanks.
Is this at all because: 1) it is wildly unpopular, 2) it is, for now, kind of shit at its job.