6 ms·

How to you love this stuff so hard? I could newer love any ai generated music, book or artwork. Anything ai gemerated i have ever seem or heard was either disgu

How to you love this stuff so hard? I could newer love any ai generated music, book or artwork. Anything ai gemerated i have ever seem or heard was either disgustingly slop or indistinguishable from something else which was real. It‘s a like finding a cool track only to discover it‘s a lazy bootleg.

m463 2mo ago
I've made ai generated art using family photos as the starting point, and it was wonderful. :)
- NexRebular 2mo ago
  s/I've/machine/;
ivanjermakov 2mo ago
I'm sure most engineering is LLM-assisted already and nothing is wrong with it. It's just the one-shot vibe-coded low quality slop that spoils sentiment of this tools. Also many people are interested in what agents can build unsupervised as a test of "superintelligence".
nylonstrung 2mo ago
Yeah but it was only like 2 years ago that artists were arguing this on the basis that AI-gen images would consistently mangle hands Now we're at a point where that never happens, and where lipsync is almost a completely solved problem If the issue here is simply that the quality is bad, one has to contend with the fact that it is undoubtedly exponentially improving and there's no reason we should expect that improvement to stop I also don't have any interest in consuming AI generated art, but the same criticisms were levied at computer graphics and if we're comparing to CGI we'd be at the late 1970s in terms of nascency
- Jtarii 2mo ago
  An LLM cannot make art because it isn't human. It can make "art like artifacts". Art involves one human communicating some emotional experience to another human, LLMs cannot experience human emotion, so they cannot make art. The process of making art is not a subset of hill climbing optimisation algorithms.
  - int_19h 2mo ago
    By this definition most of our culture isn't art because it's made not to "communicate some emotional experience" but to induce one in order to make money. 90% of pop music is like that, for example. And LLMs can do that just as well - better, probably, since they know all the psychological tricks from their training data.
    - Capricorn2481 2mo ago
      No, even the most cynical pop music is going to carry more emotional resonance with the average person, because art is a social contract between the Creator and audience. Even if you are keenly aware that any perceived bond with an artist is parasocial, humans get a fundamentally different experience if they think a real human was behind it. It has nothing to do with quality. Artists that use AI are going to need to hide it because people will enjoy it less knowing it's AI. It's that simple. Maybe that will change in 15 years if a new generation is trained to believe learning a skill is stupid or embarrassing. I wouldn't rule that out, these companies are already trying to convince people not using their products is morally bad.
  - nylonstrung 2mo ago
    The natural world is full of things that area beautiful and breathtaking without having come from "human emotion". The plumage of a peacock is beautiful and awe-inspiring beyond most human made art, and it is genuinely the result of evolutionary hill climbing on a fitness landscape
- HellDunkel 2mo ago
  I remember watching Jurassic Park when it came out and i loved the CGI (the 5 seconds). Now with Ai we should be excited to see the new dinosaurs looking even more realistic but somehow they don’t- they look like in 1996 just not quite as good…

m463 2mo ago

I've made ai generated art using family photos as the starting point, and it was wonderful. :)

NexRebular 2mo ago
s/I've/machine/;

ivanjermakov 2mo ago

I'm sure most engineering is LLM-assisted already and nothing is wrong with it. It's just the one-shot vibe-coded low quality slop that spoils sentiment of this tools. Also many people are interested in what agents can build unsupervised as a test of "superintelligence".

nylonstrung 2mo ago

Yeah but it was only like 2 years ago that artists were arguing this on the basis that AI-gen images would consistently mangle hands Now we're at a point where that never happens, and where lipsync is almost a completely solved problem If the issue here is simply that the quality is bad, one has to contend with the fact that it is undoubtedly exponentially improving and there's no reason we should expect that improvement to stop I also don't have any interest in consuming AI generated art, but the same criticisms were levied at computer graphics and if we're comparing to CGI we'd be at the late 1970s in terms of nascency

Jtarii 2mo ago
An LLM cannot make art because it isn't human. It can make "art like artifacts". Art involves one human communicating some emotional experience to another human, LLMs cannot experience human emotion, so they cannot make art. The process of making art is not a subset of hill climbing optimisation algorithms.
- int_19h 2mo ago
  By this definition most of our culture isn't art because it's made not to "communicate some emotional experience" but to induce one in order to make money. 90% of pop music is like that, for example. And LLMs can do that just as well - better, probably, since they know all the psychological tricks from their training data.
  - Capricorn2481 2mo ago
    No, even the most cynical pop music is going to carry more emotional resonance with the average person, because art is a social contract between the Creator and audience. Even if you are keenly aware that any perceived bond with an artist is parasocial, humans get a fundamentally different experience if they think a real human was behind it. It has nothing to do with quality. Artists that use AI are going to need to hide it because people will enjoy it less knowing it's AI. It's that simple. Maybe that will change in 15 years if a new generation is trained to believe learning a skill is stupid or embarrassing. I wouldn't rule that out, these companies are already trying to convince people not using their products is morally bad.
- nylonstrung 2mo ago
  The natural world is full of things that area beautiful and breathtaking without having come from "human emotion". The plumage of a peacock is beautiful and awe-inspiring beyond most human made art, and it is genuinely the result of evolutionary hill climbing on a fitness landscape
HellDunkel 2mo ago
I remember watching Jurassic Park when it came out and i loved the CGI (the 5 seconds). Now with Ai we should be excited to see the new dinosaurs looking even more realistic but somehow they don’t- they look like in 1996 just not quite as good…