• 0 Posts
  • 14 Comments
Joined 5 months ago
cake
Cake day: April 30th, 2024

help-circle
  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneNegativity rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    12 days ago

    AI does not aim to replace the artist. That is beyond the reach of the technology.

    Generative AI aims to make one artist produce more art in less time. Same as digital art or photography with respect to portraits.

    What capitalist companies do with a technology is always bad. That’s why I do not like capitalism. But primitivism and halting progress is not the solution. If capitalism is causing issues maybe the solution is ending capitalism.


  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneNegativity rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    12 days ago

    You’ll know how much the means of creating art have changed over the centuries. Different or more time efficient does not mean worse.

    Also if you have been an artist for a few decades now you’d been alive while digital art was introduced and the complains it raised to traditional artists.

    Complains here are very similar to those. It’s just a new tool. It can be used to do good of bad art same as a Photoshop brush. And Adobe is as bad and big corporations (probably bigger and worse) than openAI.

    And no, making AI art is not instant. Neither just writing “make me a nice bunnie” and enjoy. It also have a process, with many steps, iterations and that if what you aim to do is something good a lot of times it needs to be complete with traditional digital art. Once again, it’s just a tool, how it’s used is up to the artist.

    I perfectly know that this is not about the “integrity of art”. This is mostly about “commission art” or “industrial filling art”(like videogame not important assets, backgrounds, etc) that it was paying the bills for many people and it has been incredibly threatened by generative AI as for the people paying for that type of art the results of an AI model are good enough for a fraction of the price.

    But again, it’s the same that happened before with digital art. Before there were a need for way more traditional artists jobs for the same result as fewer digital artists.

    Progress has always killed jobs, and people have need to learn new skills. That’s why we need social protection systems so people can keep employed despite that.



  • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.comto196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneNegativity rule
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    13 days ago

    I don’t think it’s like that.

    The worst of AI is how is being pushed by big corporations in every product to “sell better” and “collect more data”.

    But there are plenty of legitimate uses for both AI as a concept and in particular generative LLMs.

    Are you telling me that the people who use AI to spice up their RPG sessions with images and text are the devil??

    Sometimes I feel like anti-AI is reaching religion levels of dogmatism. It’s too early for a butlerian jihad.










  • Ok. Here me out. Not that I believe it but I read this more feasible conspiracy theory.

    Shooter has been given blanks. He shoots a couple of times before noticing that something is wrong (at this time the secret service is already taking him down). Meanwhile Trump uses a needle to pierce his own ear while hitting the deck, and once he is safe on the ground a second professional shooter takes a couple of real shots to the audience to make it look more real.



  • There’s no stopping climate change in capitalism.

    And nothing was done in the way of ending capitalism. Asking “pretty please stop using oil we will paint things” to a capitalist government is ridiculous. The only way to end emissions is being us the ones who control the industry.

    So, from my point of view was a useless, possibly counter productive, action.