Creative Commons license icon

Reply to comment

I still think we're getting confused, though we've flipped. You were arguing the AI was getting better, and I said your green pig was bad (though I think I finally got it; its a self portrait, right?).

I then tried it myself and got way better results than you, but still dumped a long personal essay type comment where I argued that even if it has improved rapidly in recent history, I think it's probably not going to get much better, or in things like the size of outputted images in pixels and bytes or whatever that I don't really care about (also noted that the best free models heavily censor their output). In this case, the generative AI is itself is the "product"; it is being sold as a low effort way to create art, and it just isn't. In this instance I am almost kind of agreeing, the output of AI is "art", in a "for the sake of the argument" sort of way. My point is that the "art" made this way is usually "bad" by most aesthetic and ethical arguments, but the AI itself is the flawed product creating flawed "art".

If a generative AI does not do what it says it will do on the box, it does (circumvent the creative process), it's a bad product.

Reply

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <img> <b> <i> <s> <blockquote> <ul> <ol> <li> <table> <tr> <td> <th> <sub> <sup> <object> <embed> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <dl> <dt> <dd> <param> <center> <strong> <q> <cite> <code> <em>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This test is to prevent automated spam submissions.
Leave empty.