I hate it when I talk about AI "art" and how awful it is, and people respond with "Oh, but it will get so much better at it!
-
I hate it when I talk about AI "art" and how awful it is, and people respond with "Oh, but it will get so much better at it! It will be able to create amazing stuff, not just creepy images!"
I. Don't. Care.
I want stuff made by thinking, feeling, flawed humans. That's the whole point. I don't care how good AI is at "art". I don't care that "writing a good prompt is difficult". I really don't. The problem was never the quality to begin with.
-
I hate it when I talk about AI "art" and how awful it is, and people respond with "Oh, but it will get so much better at it! It will be able to create amazing stuff, not just creepy images!"
I. Don't. Care.
I want stuff made by thinking, feeling, flawed humans. That's the whole point. I don't care how good AI is at "art". I don't care that "writing a good prompt is difficult". I really don't. The problem was never the quality to begin with.
@TarkabarkaHolgy also... Why would it get better? .... Because it processes even more stolen art.
This is not a good thing.
Can they also mention what generating an image needs to cost, for the "AI" companies to actually make money? They're probably not gonna keep using it then.
-
I hate it when I talk about AI "art" and how awful it is, and people respond with "Oh, but it will get so much better at it! It will be able to create amazing stuff, not just creepy images!"
I. Don't. Care.
I want stuff made by thinking, feeling, flawed humans. That's the whole point. I don't care how good AI is at "art". I don't care that "writing a good prompt is difficult". I really don't. The problem was never the quality to begin with.
Also, unpopular opinion:
Trad publishing's preference for easily marketable tropes makes the use of AI easier.
Multiple people I know have been told by publishers that they need to "describe the manuscript in three common tropes" or "as a combination of two popular books/movies" in order to be marketable. The more formulaic something is, the easier sell. They were told to tweak stories to fit into a trope.
This, #AI can do easily. But it's not even an AI problem. It's a marketing problem.
-
Also, unpopular opinion:
Trad publishing's preference for easily marketable tropes makes the use of AI easier.
Multiple people I know have been told by publishers that they need to "describe the manuscript in three common tropes" or "as a combination of two popular books/movies" in order to be marketable. The more formulaic something is, the easier sell. They were told to tweak stories to fit into a trope.
This, #AI can do easily. But it's not even an AI problem. It's a marketing problem.
And finally, a #StorytellingPSA:
There is no such thing as "I generated a new folktale with AI!"
(Yes, someone has actually tried to convince me AI will make me new folktales to tell.)
That might be a tale, but it's not "folk." Folktales are part of a community's oral tradition. They work because people have told and told and retold them. You can't plonk a chunck of text down and call it a folktale. Connection is the whole point.
/end rant
-
And finally, a #StorytellingPSA:
There is no such thing as "I generated a new folktale with AI!"
(Yes, someone has actually tried to convince me AI will make me new folktales to tell.)
That might be a tale, but it's not "folk." Folktales are part of a community's oral tradition. They work because people have told and told and retold them. You can't plonk a chunck of text down and call it a folktale. Connection is the whole point.
/end rant
@TarkabarkaHolgy I might be willing to go with folk tales these days not necessarily being part of *oral* tradition specifically; but I definitely agree with them needing to be part of a community's tradition, as well as being widely known and told in similar but not necessarily identical variations. And establishing something new as that takes significant time, even if lots of people re-tell the tale. It *definitely* does not happen in a few years!
-
R ActivityRelay shared this topic
-
@TarkabarkaHolgy also... Why would it get better? .... Because it processes even more stolen art.
This is not a good thing.
Can they also mention what generating an image needs to cost, for the "AI" companies to actually make money? They're probably not gonna keep using it then.
@lettosprey @TarkabarkaHolgy It's also, conveniently enough, generally not presented as a a falsifiable claim. AI bros (not all of whom are male…) can always claim that the improvements will come at some unspecified later date, and conveniently neglect to specify any sort of measurable criteria for what constitutes "better".
If it isn't falsifiable, then it's meaningless as a statement of current or future fact. It can still have value, but not as any of those.
