Plainly, the people mad about the work required to write well and make great art who are justifying various artificial intelligence tools as shortcuts to that creative process don't value the labor inherent to it.
Replies
-
And the lol is they've made it so ppl good at stuff like writing and painting can't live off of it
-
My experience is they have shifted to "it's just a bit of fun *chill bro it's just shitposting" When challenged on "and you stole the space on feeds/social bandwidth from folks who put effort?" They quickly embarass themselves and lose
-
👆👆👆👆👆👆 lazy mediocre shits imho
-
They are not making art, they’re commissioning art. They are the patron asking an AI agent to create a piece based on their request. The patron isn’t the artist, and the artist isn’t human. The art is a facsimile of the human condition.
-
To me AI is like clip art. The creative part is not there.
-
Or even understand the act of labor inherent to it. It's just a payday for them.
-
And it is the natural extension of their view that artists and writers are “content creators” (!)
-
Makes sense a tool made by people who dismiss others' labor is clung to by people who dismiss their own.
Terminal serf brain.
-
Yees!Thanks for the likes☺️LOVE YOU💕I'm chiitan Let's be friends! Please follow Chiitan's Blue Sky
-
They don’t (can’t!) recognize it.
I say to anyone that will listen that if you think an AI generated email is just as good, then that says more about your reading comprehension than it does about AI’s future in the workplace.
There’s nothing “ok” about Robotic C minus writing.
-
I often find that the beauty behind a piece of work is often the labor put into it or the story that led to the creation of the work. AI destroys this and I can't help but feel its going to make us all uglier as a result
-
I've actually heard someone in a position of power (i.e., someone who hires creatives) say, "AI democratizes creativity." My dude a) creativity is a process, and it's the process that makes it meaningful and b) you're not talking about creativity, you're talking about saving money on graphic design.
-
This is an oversimplified hot take on a complex and convoluted problem. Yes, some of the people using, and many of the people creating the ai tools, don’t value the labor. But it isn’t so “plainly” apparent as you propose, and oversimplifying the problems doesn’t help solve them.
-
Why should the "inherent labor" matter to anyone other than the laborer?
Most of us just want stuff that works and is aesthetically pleasing. We don't care if a human put 100 hours in or if a machine put 30 seconds in, as long as it works.
The idea of asking for more and harder work is nuts.
-
It’s the same people that don’t see the difference in spilling paint on their floor and a Jackson Pollock. If your standard is paint on a surface then yeah AI is fine, but if you want anything other than a spill it’s going to come from talent.
-
I’m fairly certain that the “people” you’re describing are of at least two sorts:
- The people who are making money from the LLM tools; &,
- The barely literate people who can’t write and don’t read.
The former are infringers & the latter don’t understand what infringing means.
#Thieves&Fools
-
I always remind people that art is expression and AI is computation.
They are not the same.
-
Clearly this is true
-
👍🏻 This, too, will pass. I've been predicting it for about 3 years.
-
Not everything needs to be especially well-written, just as not everything needs to be made out of titanium.
-
I don’t understand how somebody could knowingly enjoy AI-produced “art”
Might as well watch static on the TV and convince yourself it’s meaningful. AI cannot say anything meaningful about humans, it can merely regurgitate what other humans have said, without context or attribution
It doesn’t think
-
We've traded experiences for conveniences.
-
It's all about the quantity these days, not so much the quality...
-
The creative process has many different parts all leading to growth. Using AI, eliminates the human process.
-
As someone with a intellectual disability I agree. I struggled with both these things and still do. Initially I did use Ai because I didn’t believe I could do things on my own, I was beat down and lacked confidence but turns out I never needed Ai, I just needed to believe in myself
-
AI can do impressive things, but it’s worth remembering that real breakthroughs often still depend on deep human expertise. For example AI recently succeeded in controlling plasma in a fusion experiment showing the potential of combining human-guided systems with AI: glassalmanac.com/breakthrough...
Breakthrough: AI Successfully Controls Plasma in Fusion Experiment!
Magnetic confinement fusion, especially in tokamak configurations, represents a hopeful path toward sustainable energy. A major challenge in this field involves shaping and maintaining high-temperatur...
-
I have spent a long time learning how to write really good features and now three years learning how to report on the art industry. Years of formal education, countless interviews, written articles and conferences on my own dime, plus constant reading and absorption of other work. Often tedious!
-
I don't think the labor is inherently valuable. For example, a low skilled worker might labor harder and for a longer time than a high skilled worker and still produce lower quality output. At the end of the day, my only concern as the employer is if the output meets my criteria.
-
yup yup yup
-
This thread hit me at just the right time. I spent too much time this morning arguing with someone (I use to follow them, sob) about the inherent theft of AI, the shitty derivative output, the years I spent learning to make art, getting sea-lioned on justifying what "good" art actually is.
-
in practice, based on the prompts people have to write, they could easily do the art in the time it takes to come up with the "correct" prompts
