My username is a wordplay on the Linux command filesystem check: fsck.
Posting only a link to a wikipedia page is obnoxious. You’re not even bothering to explain how you think it’s relevant. In this case that would be particularly important since the “AI effect” you linked has nothing to do with what I said.
Are you too lazy to even explain, are incapable of explaining, or are you just regurgitating whatever you can find in an attempt to overwhelm with low-effort “arguments”? (This is rhetorical. Please just go away, since you’re clearly only here with bad faith.)
Yeah yeah. The definition of AI has now fundamentally changed. Notice that I never said an LLM is not a form or subset of AI at all. The term “AI” has a much broader scope than an LLM and because of that people think it can do more than it is capable. An LLM cannot reason—it just predicts the next most likely word to follow with some additional weights as a loose guideline.
I would only agree that people who are ignorant or willfully ignorant will not care, but that does not give any strength to their argument. It just acknowledges mass ignorance.
That is a fundamentally incorrect interpretation of what a director does. Though, I see what you’re trying to say with that exceedingly off-the-mark analogy. That just had to be said.
Ultimately, due to how subjective the idea of art is there’s nothing I can say to convince you that this perspective is wrong. As long as people want something to be considered art, they will find a way to craft an interpretation that makes it work.
Just as I was able to take your meaning with your analogy and not dismiss it because it’s so incorrect, I expect you and others to understand the meaning of art being “created.” Instead you decided to leverage the broader concept of what is created in order to manipulate the idea to encompass generated images. I don’t think this discussion could possibly turn out as anything but a frustrating and negative experience, so I will step away from it. Suffice it to say that we will simply always disagree on this subject.
Generated images in themselves cannot be art. Generated images could be used to create art, and I would say that falls into what you call “AI art”, but it would be still better described as “generated art.”
It’s not.
Words matter. For example, calling an LLM “AI” has incorrectly shaped people’s perception of its abilities. This is a core aspect of marketing for this reason, and the choice to call it “AI” was specifically to take advantage of how much word choice matters in shaping perception.
Regardless of definition, art requires an intention. You cannot find art in the wild, it has to be created.
It really takes an inexcusably small amount of effort to find a better copy
– Edit –
I fucked up and did the unthinkable. I let you down.
Here’s a correct version. (Also found in a matter of seconds, so the point still stands.)
Calling it “AI Art” gives it too much credence. They are generated images. Nothing more.
Not sure what is up with this screenshot. Looks like someone erased something from the sides? I dunno, but the quality is not great. Here’s a new one:
Bad link. Here’s a fixed one:
https://hiddenpalace.org/Animaniacs:Hollywood_Hypnotics(Prototype)
RIP, Admiral Piett
It looks like a “prison” for the ultra-wealthy.
That’s not a sofa—not in the way we think of sofas now. This is a 3-person chair. It’s not for lounging, like a modern sofa, it’s for sitting.
You’re not supposed to soak your memes in water.
Lazy and wrong. You are intentionally misinterpreting what I said and conveniently disregarding other things I said that contradict your incorrect use. You’re simply trying to disingenuously undermine my points rather than have a good faith discussion.
I already asked, please go away.