If we’re talking artistic credibility (as opposed to job security, plagiarism, and environmental impact), I want anti-AI people to uninstall their desktop graphics applications like Photoshop and GIMP. If you depend on buttons, value inputs and algorithms to get the art you want out of the machine, as opposed to using an easel and scanning your work into the PC without minimal touch-ups after the fact, then you’re no better than the person typing book-length prompts to get what they want. If you animate with key frames instead of hand-drawing every frame, you’re likewise just as credible (or not) as the prompt jockey. Hell, if you at any point use CTRL+Z, CTRL+C, CTRL+X or CTRL+V, you’re as artistically incredible as Paulie Promptnuts.
Just to be clear, I don’t think any of those things. But if you’re dismissing art on the basis that AI was used at some stage in its development, you should be thinking those things.
if someone learns art on digital systems they can grab a pencil and do the same on paper. maybe they’ll be annoyed by lack of the undo button, maybe they’ll have to learn colour mixing, and how materials interact with each other, but the core ability to make art is fully transferable between ditigal and paper
same goes for animation. btw. your statement about it doesn’t make much sense, keyframes are a concept used by both digital and traditional animators. and if you meant frame interpolation then it’s a brute force calculation of the most average of averages given two data-points, 90% of the time the animator has to go back and fix it, developing their animation skills that they can then take to paper and do just the same (would just take way longer)
now what will a prompt typer do without their AI?
fuck all is what they’d do. the only transferable skill from that would be idk writing image descriptions for the visually impaired
Hot takes are good when they’re like a campfire: other people gather around and start talking. This, though, is more like lighting a pile of used toilet paper on fire.
With the shit in the TP being false equivalence. It compares two situations (AI usage vs. the usage of other tools) as if they were the same for the sake of artistic credibility, when they obviously are not.
As I am replying, you got 9 upvotes and 9 downvotes; looks like the perfect “storm” to put my hot take too.
We got psychotic people on both side, when you get this grade of polarization people usually lose the perspective.
AI is a technology, an human logical entity like math: AI works on very advanced (probabilistic) math. Math is not the evil… but an actual evil does exist.
There’s a difference between a LLM chatbot that runs on your local GPU… and one in the cloud.
The chatbot on your GPU is “trapped” by your questions, your needs, your choices.
Today the chatbot on the cloud will tell you that Elon Musk is a controversial person, tomorrow it will tell you Elon Musk is the savior of the Earth and you’re not worthy to kiss his feet.
People seeing absolute evil in AI, are against you running your chatbot locally, on your PC.
People enthusiastic about AI will accept any “gift” (or AI GF) Elon Musk will give them.
I used autocorrect to write this sentence, which is a language model trained on copywritten works. It just so happens to have been developed in the 2000s instead of the 2020s.
There are definitely lines being arbitrarily drawn around AI, and there’s not a sensical flow to what any individual might believe is an acceptable AI use case. Nobody has really sat down and made a full documentation of every modern AI use and weighed the benefits and detriments they have on society. I think many of the outward haters of AI are likely just as ignorant as the blind defenders of it.
The Hottest of Takes:
If we’re talking artistic credibility (as opposed to job security, plagiarism, and environmental impact), I want anti-AI people to uninstall their desktop graphics applications like Photoshop and GIMP. If you depend on buttons, value inputs and algorithms to get the art you want out of the machine, as opposed to using an easel and scanning your work into the PC without minimal touch-ups after the fact, then you’re no better than the person typing book-length prompts to get what they want. If you animate with key frames instead of hand-drawing every frame, you’re likewise just as credible (or not) as the prompt jockey. Hell, if you at any point use CTRL+Z, CTRL+C, CTRL+X or CTRL+V, you’re as artistically incredible as Paulie Promptnuts.
Just to be clear, I don’t think any of those things. But if you’re dismissing art on the basis that AI was used at some stage in its development, you should be thinking those things.
no,
if someone learns art on digital systems they can grab a pencil and do the same on paper. maybe they’ll be annoyed by lack of the undo button, maybe they’ll have to learn colour mixing, and how materials interact with each other, but the core ability to make art is fully transferable between ditigal and paper
same goes for animation. btw. your statement about it doesn’t make much sense, keyframes are a concept used by both digital and traditional animators. and if you meant frame interpolation then it’s a brute force calculation of the most average of averages given two data-points, 90% of the time the animator has to go back and fix it, developing their animation skills that they can then take to paper and do just the same (would just take way longer)
now what will a prompt typer do without their AI?
fuck all is what they’d do. the only transferable skill from that would be idk writing image descriptions for the visually impaired
Hot takes are good when they’re like a campfire: other people gather around and start talking. This, though, is more like lighting a pile of used toilet paper on fire.
With the shit in the TP being false equivalence. It compares two situations (AI usage vs. the usage of other tools) as if they were the same for the sake of artistic credibility, when they obviously are not.
As I am replying, you got 9 upvotes and 9 downvotes; looks like the perfect “storm” to put my hot take too.
We got psychotic people on both side, when you get this grade of polarization people usually lose the perspective.
AI is a technology, an human logical entity like math: AI works on very advanced (probabilistic) math. Math is not the evil… but an actual evil does exist.
There’s a difference between a LLM chatbot that runs on your local GPU… and one in the cloud.
The chatbot on your GPU is “trapped” by your questions, your needs, your choices.
Today the chatbot on the cloud will tell you that Elon Musk is a controversial person, tomorrow it will tell you Elon Musk is the savior of the Earth and you’re not worthy to kiss his feet.
People seeing absolute evil in AI, are against you running your chatbot locally, on your PC.
People enthusiastic about AI will accept any “gift” (or AI GF) Elon Musk will give them.
I used autocorrect to write this sentence, which is a language model trained on copywritten works. It just so happens to have been developed in the 2000s instead of the 2020s.
that language model doesn’t regurgitate the media it was trained on. it just makes sure you don’t misspell your thats
There are definitely lines being arbitrarily drawn around AI, and there’s not a sensical flow to what any individual might believe is an acceptable AI use case. Nobody has really sat down and made a full documentation of every modern AI use and weighed the benefits and detriments they have on society. I think many of the outward haters of AI are likely just as ignorant as the blind defenders of it.