wardApr 18, 2024
Let's stop using the term, "ai art," and start saying, "ai content."

They want us to call our work, "content," and they want us to call their junk, "art." No.
#aiart
Show threadKernApr 20, 2024
@ward I don't think quality is the best basis for critique; it becomes irrelevant the moment one can point to a single good image. And these tools already can and do generate cool looking things... I'm not saying its right. But "AI bad because ugly" just doesnt hold water
Show threadward
@kern who said anything about quality? They call basically everything we do, "content." Executives say, "we need to produce more Netflix content." Game companies say, "Our team has created loads of content." YouTube says, "You are all content creators." It's about who is creating the work and what their intent is. AI has no perspective, no intent, and no understanding of what it is doing. So, calling ai generated stuff, "art," and calling human-made stuff, "content," is extremely perverse. The only people who want to call ai stuff, "art," are the people who are unwilling to put in the work to make art themselves. Generate whatever you want and if you enjoy it, cool. But don't fool yourself into thinking that you are making art. There are no shortcuts and ai-enthusiests don't get to call their ai content, "art."
Jul 6, 2024 at 11:37pmWeb
Show threadKernJul 7, 2024
@ward Yeah I know that: https://kersed.net/blog/on-content/
But it still stands that if you critique AI on some qualitative or merit basis it's just going to be blurred or surpassed at some point. Like how people used to say autotune isnt real singing, now it's an accepted staple technique of pop music. By saying "AI is bad because x" youre only implying "AI will be good once it's no longer x".
On 'Content'

Why's it become so unsettling to be left alone with our thoughts - without a song, show, or stream running in the background?

Kersed
Show threadwardJul 9, 2024
@kern again... I don't know who said anything about quality... I did not mention it. So, who are you arguing with? AI has no perspective, no experiences to draw from, and can, therefore, not express itself at all. I'm not interested in quantifying quality or anything like that. I'm interested in the human experience and those humans using art to express themselves. That is the antithesis of what ai stuff is. AI can not express itself and it does not understand its own output. So, that is how I will judge it's value. We would need real, actual ai (not this LLM stuff) before we can have ai that can truly express itself. At which time, it will be more interesting.