pull down to refresh
i don't think speed should be relevant to our evaluation of AI generated things. But I think i probably would have been more impressed if you hand drew your own version of the thing.
What I'm trying to understand is why -- it doesn't make any sense that I should care what tool you use to make the above image, and yet it does affect me.
I made tons of money as an artist in the past and got wrecked by agencies and flooded by the art equivalent of shovelware. I could show you my art, but "doxing?" is not my thing.
My relationship with art is far more advanced than the average person, because I spent 30 years doing it. But its hardly worth investing into a conversation that, like art, is cheap these days.
The downside of the speed to generate is that every shallow thought, be it about perceived hysteria or other things, is generated and plastered all over the place (also by others mistaking it for something deep) instantly.
And with the overuse of it comes the Pavlovian counter reaction condemning anything that even remotely gives off a hint of being generative, without ever examining the idea that is being communicated.
No, I do not think so at all.
The whole point is to communicate something. If communication happened, then it worked. And AI can be hit or miss, but when it hits, it hits hard.
How else can I generate a "photograph" of some metaphor I thought up?
Or, in another case, if I want to quickly scramble up a comic to show what I think is a hysteria, if AI does it fast, then why not use it?
Example: