When I see something impressive generated by a computer, I may go “wow”, but when I see something, displayed on a computer or not, that I know a person went and handcrafted so many details on, I am inspired by that dedication to the craft. The human elements within art are a big part of what makes it meaningful.
If someone wants to use AI for the parts of a work they don’t care about (or as placeholders) so they can pour their heart into a different aspect of the work, fine. If they want the computer to do all the work for them, they have created slop. This is independent of whether we live in a society that values gross resource accumulation or one that shares equally.
I will say that the push towards slop primarily stems from our societal zeitgeist. The mentality is “I need to make as much money with as little effort as possible”, and sometimes people really do need that money to pay bills. I think that’s a big reason why it’s such a problem. There is little monetary value in actual expression for the effort required when compared with mass produced “content” for dollars.
Unless humans are magic, AI will be able to feel. I would assume that AI will be able to feel much deeper and much stronger. So one day, AI will use art to tell us about things that are beyond our horizon.
We assumed the same about animals and babies. AI could use hybrid systems that use animal or human cells, or it could simulate emotions to the point that ai art becomes interesting.
Its not that there’s a difference between emotions and feelings. You latched onto the wrong word. The key word there was simulated. Simulated feelings and emotions are not real. They’re fake. They’re a cheap, sterile copy of real human emotion.
A computer will most likely not only recreate but create better, * one day.
Life can be much better with AI, if we don’t starve to death. The problem is not AI but other humans who don’t share their resources.
When I see something impressive generated by a computer, I may go “wow”, but when I see something, displayed on a computer or not, that I know a person went and handcrafted so many details on, I am inspired by that dedication to the craft. The human elements within art are a big part of what makes it meaningful.
If someone wants to use AI for the parts of a work they don’t care about (or as placeholders) so they can pour their heart into a different aspect of the work, fine. If they want the computer to do all the work for them, they have created slop. This is independent of whether we live in a society that values gross resource accumulation or one that shares equally.
I will say that the push towards slop primarily stems from our societal zeitgeist. The mentality is “I need to make as much money with as little effort as possible”, and sometimes people really do need that money to pay bills. I think that’s a big reason why it’s such a problem. There is little monetary value in actual expression for the effort required when compared with mass produced “content” for dollars.
Unless humans are magic, AI will be able to feel. I would assume that AI will be able to feel much deeper and much stronger. So one day, AI will use art to tell us about things that are beyond our horizon.
AI is a lifeless algorithm. Its completely incapable of feeling anything.
We assumed the same about animals and babies. AI could use hybrid systems that use animal or human cells, or it could simulate emotions to the point that ai art becomes interesting.
Simulated emotions are not feelings. Also, who’s “we”? Speak for yourself.
We is humanity, years ago.
Why would the difference matter?
What’s the difference between emotions and feelings?
Its not that there’s a difference between emotions and feelings. You latched onto the wrong word. The key word there was simulated. Simulated feelings and emotions are not real. They’re fake. They’re a cheap, sterile copy of real human emotion.
For now. We are building machines that can fly faster than birds. Why shouldn’t we be able to build machines that feel more than humans?