On genAI and art: "A machine can ostensibly produce the same results as a basketball player, throw a ball in the hoop and score points against other machines. But [...p]eople don't watch sports for the concept of throwing balls in hoops, people watch sports for human spectacle and physical ability."
genuine question and I hope it doesn't make you feel uncomfortable answering. If it does feel free not to!! I know LLM's, l… — Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh. 'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a huma… retrospring.net/@chira/a/113...
Apologies in advance, this is going to sound harsh. 'What is different then?' It's not complicated. A computer is not a human. A computer can't think. A computer can't feel. A computer can't experien...
I mean, there's also the fact that most Gen AI art is objectively badI mean, there's also the fact that most Gen AI art is objectively bad
It's more than that. Why is there a chair in the background of your painting? GenAI: "There are chairs in the background of similar paintings." Artist: "Because that's where he likes to sit, and that's the sort of chair he likes to sit in. That's his chair. That's 𝘩𝘪𝘮." Details matter.
This is officially getting more interaction than I can respond to; what a surprise twist to my Monday. 😂 Glad that the quote I pulled from Chira's post is resonating with so many people; the whole post is worth reading too!
This is spot on!
Not every image created is meant to be some grand art. Sunsets are pretty universally better in person. So are waterfalls. We still photograph them.