‘It does nothing new!’ Sure it does. ‘But who wants that?’ Lots of people. ‘Well why should they get it?’ To do new things. ‘Well I don’t like what they’re doing.’ Who fucking asked?
Your retreat from bailey to motte is tacit admission you’re just plain wrong. As if you cannot imagine doing something worthwhile with a program that effortlessly renders whatever the hell you want. As if your imagination is even relevant, to say this technology does new things. As if novelty is the only metric - as if there’s no benefit to making desirable tasks a million times easier.
When computers made music easier to make and distribute, a lot of shitty music got passed around. Ninety percent of everything is crap. Do you care how that relates to things you wrote, or did you not mean anything when you typed them?
My exact quote was: “Counterpoint: previous technologies also enabled people to do what wasn’t possible before.” - Not exactly what you accused me there. I never said it “doesn’t do anything new”, I said “it hasn’t made anything “impossible” possible”.
But who wants that?
I never said that or anything like that.
Well why should they get it?
Mind you, I asked this twice. Your first reply was “People want it”. So, people should have access to AI because they want it, according to you. That’s about as a non-answer as it can get. In this current comment, your answer is now “to do new things”, which I will go out a limb and assume “new abilities” are some of these new things, and the main ability is “making their imagination a reality”, which circles back to my question because when I first asked it, you had already made that point of “AI enables people to generate images of anything they want”.
Well I don’t like what they’re doing
True, and while “nobody asked” me, I am forced to sift through a lot of AI whenever I do even a simple image search, because even tools to auto hide them will still let some slip by. There’s also the problem of it multiplying the amount of scams and fake news spam since it’s “a million times easier” to fake images and videos nowadays, but hey, who fucking asked me, right?
“Any tool can be used for evil” yes, i know, everybody knows, doesn’t mean one should turn a blind eye to what sometimes feels like the main use case
As if you cannot imagine doing something worthwhile with a program that effortlessly renders whatever the hell you want.
That’s a philosophical argument of whether the end result has any worth because it had no/very little effort. I won’t go there because neither of us has the time to really sit and go through it
Ninety percent of everything is crap.
You don’t like what others are doing? Who fucking asked?
Do you care how that relates to things you wrote, or did you not mean anything when you typed them?
I care because that percentage of crap is steadily increasing thanks to AI.
I’m not sure what’s worse. Splitting hairs about new versus previous impossible? Or not understanding how a gotcha works.
You don’t like what others are doing. I’m not the one dismissing a technology, or demanding we curtail it, or whateverthefuck. I don’t take issue with making music on a computer. Supposedly, neither did you. You held it up as fundamentally better than AI, because new things became possible.
I wasn’t the one who initially compared electronic or computer music to AI, that was a different poster. A better comparison is that AI is like a calculator machine, it doesn’t enable anything new, but it speeds up what humans could already do. Someone else commented on me that “the speeding up is already making an impossible possible” which, as you might have noticed, I have not argued against.
You don’t like what others are doing
Of course I don’t, because it’s affecting me and people I care about. I didn’t mention the scam willy nilly in a shitty attempt to poison the well, people close to me get bombarded with AI shit trying to scam them. But you simply dismiss this because fuck me, I guess.
Did you ever actually care about that? Or were you lying?
You haven’t argued against what I replied, either. You pivoted straight to ‘but why would you want that?’ Or sorry, since your exact word choice is oh-so-important: “Yes, anyone can make that now, thanks to AI. But why should they?”
Because they fucking want to.
Why do art tools need a reason?
Oh sorry, people are misusing this science-fiction technology, the machine that effortlessly renders their imagination. Better burn it to the ground, or keep it a secret, or whatever the hell your remedy is. If you’ve even got one. Does this repetitious chin-stroking lead anywhere? What do you want?
As the other guy said: “every new technology that lowers the barrier of entry gets derided every time. Tale as old as time. Every new technology that enables more of the masses to participate will obviously mean more low quality stuff gets made. That doesnt mean the tool is worthless.” You should be arguing with them, because they nailed your ass before you spoke up!
This is failure to argue.
‘It does nothing new!’ Sure it does. ‘But who wants that?’ Lots of people. ‘Well why should they get it?’ To do new things. ‘Well I don’t like what they’re doing.’ Who fucking asked?
Your retreat from bailey to motte is tacit admission you’re just plain wrong. As if you cannot imagine doing something worthwhile with a program that effortlessly renders whatever the hell you want. As if your imagination is even relevant, to say this technology does new things. As if novelty is the only metric - as if there’s no benefit to making desirable tasks a million times easier.
When computers made music easier to make and distribute, a lot of shitty music got passed around. Ninety percent of everything is crap. Do you care how that relates to things you wrote, or did you not mean anything when you typed them?
Let’s go point by point.
My exact quote was: “Counterpoint: previous technologies also enabled people to do what wasn’t possible before.” - Not exactly what you accused me there. I never said it “doesn’t do anything new”, I said “it hasn’t made anything “impossible” possible”.
I never said that or anything like that.
Mind you, I asked this twice. Your first reply was “People want it”. So, people should have access to AI because they want it, according to you. That’s about as a non-answer as it can get. In this current comment, your answer is now “to do new things”, which I will go out a limb and assume “new abilities” are some of these new things, and the main ability is “making their imagination a reality”, which circles back to my question because when I first asked it, you had already made that point of “AI enables people to generate images of anything they want”.
True, and while “nobody asked” me, I am forced to sift through a lot of AI whenever I do even a simple image search, because even tools to auto hide them will still let some slip by. There’s also the problem of it multiplying the amount of scams and fake news spam since it’s “a million times easier” to fake images and videos nowadays, but hey, who fucking asked me, right?
“Any tool can be used for evil” yes, i know, everybody knows, doesn’t mean one should turn a blind eye to what sometimes feels like the main use case
That’s a philosophical argument of whether the end result has any worth because it had no/very little effort. I won’t go there because neither of us has the time to really sit and go through it
You don’t like what others are doing? Who fucking asked?
I care because that percentage of crap is steadily increasing thanks to AI.
I’m not sure what’s worse. Splitting hairs about new versus previous impossible? Or not understanding how a gotcha works.
You don’t like what others are doing. I’m not the one dismissing a technology, or demanding we curtail it, or whateverthefuck. I don’t take issue with making music on a computer. Supposedly, neither did you. You held it up as fundamentally better than AI, because new things became possible.
Did you ever actually care about that?
Or were you lying?
I wasn’t the one who initially compared electronic or computer music to AI, that was a different poster. A better comparison is that AI is like a calculator machine, it doesn’t enable anything new, but it speeds up what humans could already do. Someone else commented on me that “the speeding up is already making an impossible possible” which, as you might have noticed, I have not argued against.
Of course I don’t, because it’s affecting me and people I care about. I didn’t mention the scam willy nilly in a shitty attempt to poison the well, people close to me get bombarded with AI shit trying to scam them. But you simply dismiss this because fuck me, I guess.
About what?
Picking novelty was all you.
You haven’t argued against what I replied, either. You pivoted straight to ‘but why would you want that?’ Or sorry, since your exact word choice is oh-so-important: “Yes, anyone can make that now, thanks to AI. But why should they?”
Because they fucking want to.
Why do art tools need a reason?
Oh sorry, people are misusing this science-fiction technology, the machine that effortlessly renders their imagination. Better burn it to the ground, or keep it a secret, or whatever the hell your remedy is. If you’ve even got one. Does this repetitious chin-stroking lead anywhere? What do you want?
As the other guy said: “every new technology that lowers the barrier of entry gets derided every time. Tale as old as time. Every new technology that enables more of the masses to participate will obviously mean more low quality stuff gets made. That doesnt mean the tool is worthless.” You should be arguing with them, because they nailed your ass before you spoke up!
“because people want to” is, like I said previously, a shit non-answer, but you’re hellbent on saying it is an answer, so I won’t bother anymore
“Why should they?” is a shit non-question. You keep repeating it, as if there’s a follow-up, should I happen to say, shucks, maybe they shouldn’t.
What then?
What do you want?