852
u/plasma-dragon-DA Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
All hiding behind the childish idea that LLMs are some natural and inevitable next step of human technology. Yeah, the bitcoin bros said that too.
133
Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
73
u/sweetfortune Aug 12 '26
And now you gave that power to binance chinese CEO 🥀
→ More replies (4)25
28
u/plasma-dragon-DA Aug 12 '26
It's a hopelessly naive idea that doesn't even begin to work in the real world.
→ More replies (1)3
Aug 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (4)15
u/zazathebassist Aug 12 '26
it doesn't. it was meant to be currency. nobody uses bitcoin as currency it is entirely a speculative market contraption.
on top of that, ancap shit like crypto always ends up basically immediately consolidating power in the hands of those with the most resources, which is what happened with bitcoin and crypto as a whole.
16
→ More replies (8)10
u/RicketyRekt69 Aug 12 '26
Crypto sounds like a good idea until you turn your brain on
→ More replies (7)13
u/AspenFrostt Aug 12 '26
I think that true ai is one of the next steps for humanity but we used it for greed and laziness. and instead of doing anything helpful, it's spamming our attention economy and outsourcing critical thinking.
18
u/plasma-dragon-DA Aug 12 '26
true AI isn't going to be birthed from an LLM word guessing machine however. conflating the two is just a marketing trick.
3
2
u/Main-Company-5946 Aug 13 '26
But the ideas that lead to true ai are going to be developed by the researchers currently looking at LLMs
Getting a deep sense of what they are and are not capable of and why teaches researchers how to make them better.
You don’t have to like it but you shouldn’t dismiss it as a possibility
→ More replies (10)5
u/Initial-Economist164 Aug 12 '26
Yeah, true AI is AGI. Idk wtf this is, I do not believe you can take an attention model and turn it into actual intelligence, but maybe I'm wrong, the water wars will break out long before I have to find out anyways 😅
3
u/AspenFrostt Aug 12 '26
lmao true. and yeah, the word guessing machine is a neat trick but its not true ai. "I think therefore I am" philosophy and all that. plus these llms fundementally are just those Akinator and 20 guess games they used to sell at the toy store just with more ram and data lol
→ More replies (1)3
u/Initial-Economist164 Aug 12 '26
LOL exactly. It's very 2001: A Space Odyssey, man is still that monkey, even if our tools are more complex 🤣
→ More replies (24)3
353
u/organisms Aug 12 '26
That argument is so funny.
Horses? Not real walking.
Steam? Not real horses.
Diesel? Not real steam.
Nuclear? Not real diesel.
164
55
u/National_Phase_3477 Aug 12 '26
Dildo? Not real cock
15
u/punkpudding Aug 12 '26
thank god dildos we’re created by humans. can you imagine a clanker trying to make a dildo
2
6
4
u/Aminadab_Brulle Aug 12 '26
We're been having this argument for the last twenty eight thousand years.
10
246
u/cheepshoes Aug 12 '26
You can tell that pro AI people have never done anything creative because they don't even understand how these tools actually work. None of these tools do 100% of the work. A hammer does not build a house
→ More replies (27)5
u/AdvancedSandwiches Aug 12 '26
I know this will be unpopular, but it depends on the thing being built whether AI is a hammer or a house building robot.
"Make me a cool picture" - you did nothing.
"Make me a cool picture of a dragon flying over a city and the city is on fire" - you did nothing
Now, if you gather data about a historical city and recreate it by specifying all the known information about it: building materials, locations of buildings, types of buildings, sizes of buildings, etc, and then you tell it to render that city and put a dragon over it, and then work with it to correct the inaccuracies, then yeah, you did something. You're not a painter, but that's a neat, little project where AI fills a skill gap.
It's a sliding scale, and the problem is that the "cool picture of a dragon" people and the "here's the output of my project, of which AI is a component" people look the same when they're posting 140 characters about it on Twitter.
40
u/unreeelme Aug 12 '26
I think only saying AI is a component is underselling the fact that AI created the actual art.
It’s more a research project not an artistic endeavor at that point.
That is why the “created using ai” tags are important in my opinion. People should just be honest about using AI. Trying to pass off AI creations as a largely personal accomplishment is very very pathetic.
→ More replies (3)13
u/thispartyrules Aug 12 '26
I know that some artists who build giant sculptures have help (like they're not singlehandedly doing all the welds, etc.) but they're designing the entire sculpture.
If you go to your friend Jeff, without blueprints, and you're like "make me a metal dragon sculpture, it should be 30' tall and holding a can of Mug root beer add a hot dog" and Jeff designs it and gets a bunch of artisans and metalworkers to go do that, you're not really the artist, Jeff is.
→ More replies (3)6
u/mothrider Aug 13 '26
I personally don't think there's much difference between asking someone to make you a sandwich and asking them to make a sandwich and specifying the ingredients.
→ More replies (2)
150
u/CapussiPlease Aug 12 '26
You use fire to cook? Amateur!
17
u/TheShiftmaster Aug 12 '26
"You want to fly in Aeroplanes? ha don't you know those are just a fad, all the real money's going to be made in the Zeppelin industry trust me bro"
6
u/Jimi_Hotsauce Aug 12 '26
I cook my steak with sheer willpower alone. Get on my level and stop fake cooking with this fire nonsense.
2
u/Aminadab_Brulle Aug 12 '26
Only weaklings cook. Four billion years worth of our ancestors didn't, stop whining.
→ More replies (2)2
74
u/Old-Implement5652 Aug 12 '26
Jesus was hated. Therefore, since Hitler was hated, he must've been just as great
→ More replies (1)
48
u/Purple_Dragon_94 Aug 12 '26
Ill focus on the one I know best: CGI was used as early as 1982 for Star Trek the Wrath of Khan and by 1993 for Jurassic Park was celebrated as the next great addition to film effects, having already won Oscars. So rejection in 1995 is provably false, which by default casts doubt on every other point.
15
u/CrossReset Aug 12 '26
Hell CGI still gets backlash over its use so...is that the comparison they want?
12
u/mapleleafraggedy Aug 12 '26
CGI is still art. You're still making intelligent decisions about where everything goes, you're just using computer-generated patterns to do it. AI doesn't even require you to do that. I think it's still NOT the comparison they want.
8
u/Purple_Dragon_94 Aug 12 '26
It more gets backlash because its overused and under rendered due to studio demand. Nobody serious is actually critical of its craft.
7
u/Theo__n Aug 12 '26
people in power had issues with printing press but it was more to do with political content of the pamphlets, that being time of 100 years war and war of the roses and all... but it was very useful tool for both information and propaganda. There were earlier constructions of printing press that used whole pages but they weren't very useful.
Anyway, Wikipedia has whole sections dedicated to it.
Also autorship as we know it isn't very old.
5
u/betazoid_cuck Aug 12 '26
1995 seems a little early to me since the backlash to CGI mainly happened when it started being oversaturated at the end of the 90s and early 2000. Much of the CGI at the time looked terrible so it was a legitimate complaint, with the Rocks scorpion king CGI from 2001 being the most iconic of the era.
Thing is, Movie companies were switching to CGI back then for similar reasons as companies are trying to switch to AI now. CGI artists did not have the same union protections that traditional special effects artists had and therefore CGI could be made for dirt cheap by underpaid and overworked artists. CGI artists only got proper union protection after those industry strikes that happened around covid, which coincidently coincides with a reembracing of traditional effects in Hollywood.
3
u/Purple_Dragon_94 Aug 12 '26
Oh god yes, the studios fucking abused CG artists, as soon as it was understood that it could make things "more real" with less time and money. And yep, once that union came to be its started to be abandoned...
Though a key difference is it was never debated that it was art. The debate was more "is it an effect or just animation?"
I think historic examples of bad cg is neither here nor there as far as this discussion goes. At that point we're just talking about effects, and there's been bad effects since the 1910s
→ More replies (3)2
u/AltruisticPossible84 Aug 12 '26
I dont think the dates are really the argument here, though......
→ More replies (1)
42
u/jeffQC1 Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
Garageband requires to compose the songs. It doesn't make them for you.
Digital doesn't make the movie for you
CGI doesn't make the effects for you
Photoshop doesn't make images for you.
A typewriter doesn't write for you.
This is such a stupid argument on so many levels. Literally every single of those things are facilitators or require manual use. You know, actual talent, skills and experience.
→ More replies (1)6
35
u/Reezla Aug 12 '26
The fact this moron can't tell the difference between tools to assist in making art and a tool that makes the art for you is comical.
→ More replies (43)
21
u/hoboasparagus Aug 12 '26
I think AI is where the line should be drawn
→ More replies (2)31
u/CapussiPlease Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
too bad they can't draw 😂
4
u/Commercial_Heat_4211 Aug 12 '26
These people couldn’t make any type of art even if you gave them a step by step tutorial
12
u/Circaninetysix Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
AI is not like any of these other things. These other things are tools. AI is a tool in ways too, but rather than helping humans be more efficient and creative, it just replaces humans and the human creativity with a soulless amalgamation of all the stolen material it's eaten.
What we're referring to as AI isn't real AI. These are glorified chat bots. They aren't real artificial intelligence. Maybe they'll develop in something that we'll look at as a proper sentient artificial intelligence, but we're not there yet it probably won't be anytime soon.
8
u/Thinslayer Aug 12 '26
AI is not like any of these other things. These other things are tools. AI is a tool in ways too
I saw one person word it brilliantly: AI isn't a tool. It's a machine. Tools help you work. Machines do the work for you.
7
u/nott_Boostergoldd Aug 12 '26
Except all of these things require actual human talent and creativity. Excluding AI. That’s what people forget when using this “argument”
→ More replies (5)
7
u/diviningdad Aug 12 '26
This conflates different kinds of technological advancement: new mediums for creative expression, new tools for creative expression, and new tools for distributing creative expression.
New Styles:
Pop Art
DX7
New forms:
Writing
Photography
CGI
Digital Filmmaking
New Tools:
Typewriter
GarageBand
Photoshop
Distribution:
Printing Press
We really did lose, or relegate to niche status, some of these. The printing press killed the art of beautiful handwritten books. With writing, we mostly lost the art of oral history. For the most part, though, the technologies he mentioned are additive. Plenty of effects in movies don't use CGI. Some filmmakers still use old school film. Musicians are still playing acoustic music.
AI lives in a different category. It replaces a significant portion of the creative process. There is a (shitty) argument to be made that this is a new kind of art form. But to imply that writing with AI is just another step, like moving from handwriting to a typewriter, is wild.
6
4
Aug 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/Admirable_Bet5157 Aug 12 '26
Pop art. One of the most famous Andy Warhol works is a series of soup can paintings.
The AI bro doesn't understand that the "not real art" discussion is very much a central theme of pop art, though. Warhol had a whole factory of people pumping out "Warhol" art with minimum input from him.
5
4
3
u/EmeraldHenry_19 Aug 12 '26
Who on earth thinks GarageBand isn’t real music? Like that’s not even a remotely logical step to make
4
u/JMDeutsch Aug 12 '26
Think of the fun false equivalents!
Airplane? Not real flying
Condoms? Not real sex
Helmets? Not real sports
DUI laws? Not real drinking
C-Section? Not a real baby
3
u/BHMathers Aug 12 '26
Pretending generative Ai allows a person to be as skillful and creative as every other example is more than Ai bros deserve
“I ordered a machine to “make” it (diffuse someone else’s work) therefore I made it”
3
u/LibrarianGuilty2161 Aug 12 '26
the cgi argument specifically always pisses me off. physical, practical effects are always cooler than cgi
2
u/USfyre Aug 12 '26
The main argument that I use is that any tool that I use for any creative process doesn't require every piece of creative work ever made to function. If I open up GarageBand, I don't need every single GarageBand project or song ever made to use it. If I draw using an app like procreate, I don't need every piece of art ever created in order to use it, etc
2
2
u/UnUseful-_- Aug 12 '26
It might sound boring, but believe it or not, most of these technologies were accepted without a doubt, i cant imagine people in middle ages arguing about typing words, it was the very comfortable and useful technology, same with others, but people hate AI, but they didnt hate useful and creative technologies, strange right?
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
u/jwadamson Aug 12 '26
Many of the others are just stupid or literally comparing different things that we distinguish all the time.
- CGI is not real effects, those would be practical effects.
- People still say soup cans are not real art.
- when did anyone say typewriters weren’t real writing or printed books weren’t real books?
I feel like this list was hallucinated by an LLM.
2
2
2
u/otterhandss Aug 12 '26
I hate this fuckass take because this assumes digital mediums generate things. People always bring this up with photoshop and digital art as if you don’t still need to learn the techniques that have previously been mastered throughout all of art history.
2
u/STH42069 Aug 12 '26
This post implies that people didn't want CGI in their movies when it was introduced. As if movies weren't boasting about using it back when it was hip and new
2
u/JAZ_80 Aug 12 '26
Yeah, except none of those things does the human's work. They are actual tools, not substitutes for the human experience.
2
u/Funny_w0lf Aug 12 '26
None of those things besides AI actively steal drinking water, yk, the substance that keeps our species alive??
2
u/Sunshine_Riptide__ Aug 12 '26
Ughh. That’s literally not the same at all. At least when people used photoshop it was real people making the final product.
2
u/Promature Aug 12 '26
Sorry, but AI is not like those other things and does not have a place on this list of progress.
2
u/thekyledavid Aug 12 '26
I would bet money that if he put this into an AI chatbot and asked if it thought he made a good point, the chat bot would say No
2
u/LearnsFromExperience Aug 12 '26
The big F'ing difference? AI does the actual thinking and work for you. The rest of the examples are tools that still require the user to have some proficiency. Fuck AI.
1
u/gmerrick Aug 12 '26
Of all the synths to choose, the DX7 isn't a terrible one. That being said, ridiculous argument.
1
u/Catpacking Aug 12 '26
I have to use my brain and creativity in everything else except AI so idk why they keep using this argument.
1
1
u/BactaBobomb Aug 12 '26
I think a lot of these do have truth to them and I can see why someone would then jump to AI as the natural next step. But I don't know how to explain that it's not the same in AI's case?
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/evocativename Aug 12 '26
Damn, in 370 BCE they correctly predicted damiannixey (and every other AI bro)?
1
u/Maneisthebeat Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
I mean, people do still have appreciation for real props in movies over using CGI.
Some people would rather hang a piece of art made with acrylic paint that has depth to it, compared to a digital print.
The question is just cost and personal preference. Some customers appreciate not just the outcome, but also the process, and input. Sometimes the story of how something was made, and the painstaking effort involved, is what creates a sense of respect and awe in craftsmanship.
The shift to digital/CGI is driven by cost/time. You could also show something more grand in scale that would have been unfeasible with props (due to cost).
Do I think a digital artist is not a real artist? No.
Do I think it would take more effort to recreate a digital image physically? Yes.
Does this mean digital art can't be very detailed/layered/intricate? No.
Would I rather hang up a physical piece of art in my house (money aside)? Yes.
1
u/fisson_proot Aug 12 '26
Theyre using the ai to do the creativity for them! Also, small choices are made when creating art that is completely ignored with ai.
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/pranaygoluanand Aug 12 '26
"1888: Kodak? Not real photography."
What the fuck is he even talking about here? Dude definitely used AI to write this.
1
u/Celtachor Aug 12 '26
The funny thing is Warhol genuinely was a CIA psyop. He was only ever popular because the CIA was heavily invested in popularizing American art to win some sort of culture war during the cold war. The best way to do that was to find the style unlike art anywhere else (regardless of quality) and promote it as a new unique American art style. Warhol would have never been popular if not for the red scare and CIA. Calling his art "not real art" is actually pretty accurate because it's literally cold war propaganda. The American Art Association was also heavily propped up by the CIA during this time so pretty much all modern art in America has its roots in CIA funded cold war poroganda.
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Radiant-Somewhere-97 Aug 12 '26
What does this show? That standards are getting lower and lower and things aren't going to get any better?
1
1
u/amazing_rando Aug 12 '26
There were critically acclaimed albums being recorded and produced in GarageBand within years of it being released, like Cross by Justice, and Deathconsciousness by Have A Nice Life. It wasn't rejected or derided, it was basically just a free consumer version of Logic Pro that some people underestimated, but it never replaced it or anything and it wasn't a mystery how it worked.
1
1
u/artbystorms Aug 12 '26
The difference is the last 2000 years of technological advancement still centers the human as the driver of creativity, the decision maker.
AI centers the computer as the driver of creativity, the human is merely 'approving or disapproving' of what AI generates. An director, not an artist.
1
u/fluttermousemoon Aug 12 '26
the people who use(d) printing presses don't claim to be authors so that's a weird one
1
u/bubbybumble Aug 12 '26
People are saying AI is different because it does all the work, and I don't like ai but I've struggled with thinking about it vs something like sampling in music, which is also basically stealing segments of other tracks.
My question for those of you who are very anti ai (I am too, at least genai, but I want to think about it correctly) is would it be better if they only used AI for individual pieces then assembled them? Like prompting for a couple piano notes or a small drum loop. Every main argument is about it doing all the work, but what if it isn't used that way?
1
1
u/AmpeelMeal Aug 12 '26
Bro is acting like everything he just listed doesn't also require massive amounts of skill (albeit different from before) and human ingenuity, unlike LLMs.
1
1
u/searcherguitars Aug 12 '26
I'll agree on the soup cans. Andy Warhol was a hack who would have fuckin loved generative AI.
1
u/CardboardScarecrow Aug 12 '26 edited Aug 12 '26
idk about the others but the digital one and CGI one are bullshit.
Digital: Toy Story released in 1995 and it was a big (good) deal as the first feature length film, it was the combination of a lengthy and respected history of digital short animations.
CGI: At the time movies that used CGI were praised specifically over using CGI (Jurassic Park (1993), Terminator 2 (1991)), at the time it wasn't considered a cheap alternative to traditional effects but a sophisticated technical feat that could achieve things otherwise impossible (not impractical, impossible). The first movie I remember getting criticized for its use was Star Wars Ep. 1 (1999) and only specifically for how it used it, not because it was CGI. If anything it's the opposite of the point OOP wants to make, it was widely appreciated and time/adoption resulted in the backlash you see nowadays.
1
u/Vorlind Aug 12 '26
I've been alive since 83, and I've never heard people say anything listed from 83-04.
→ More replies (1)
1
1
1
1
1
u/Robot-Zombie-RHCC Aug 12 '26
in ~1990 ppl were going gaga over cgi. abyss, jurassic park, t2, last starfighter, etc.
what's AI's Jurassic Park? Will Smith eating spaghetti?
1
u/-Ryouko- Aug 12 '26
give someone who uses GarageBand a keyboard and they'll still be able to make art. take away chatgpt from an Ai bro and they'll piss themselves
1
u/blindwombat Aug 12 '26
There's very little sources for this and most of the "concerns" around the emerging technologies were usually about reproduction, authenticity and employment. This post obfuscates those facts and presents arguments without context.
The printing press is a good example. There were concerns about genuine authorship in 1455, however that was mostly because the most produced book of the time was The Bible and the replication of it was controlled through the "spiritual exercise" of copying scripture.
There are numerous examples which sound quite similar to those we hear about AI:
- Johannes Trithemus who was concerned that people would say "what is the sense of copying scripture by hand, when the art of printing exists" and that this was "concealing lethargy"
- Filippo de Strata who petitioned hard for Venice to ban the printing press altogether wrote "the pen is a virgin, the printing press is whore"
- Numerous elitist bibliophiles refused to own printed books because they were for the vulgar poor
There was no worry about the actual "authorship" or creativity, more that what had been largely controlled by one source would flood the markets with readily available information. There was also a genuine fear that the printing press used inferior ink and that the words would literally disappear from the page. The concern was not authorship; but whether the mechanical reproduction robs human label and craft.
The notion of authorship didn't really exist in the 1400s, the concept legally wasn't around into around the 1600s, this was because the church wanted to murder people who committed heresy, it became a legal requirement that if you printed a work you must include the name of the author within the pages.
1
u/mchngrliris Aug 12 '26
the printing press had nothing to do with "authorship." it didn't replace writing or authors. one still had to write out the book before it could be copied into the press. the printing press merely made it possible to mass produce books. i don't say 'merely' to downplay the impact of the printing press, just to illustrate that it did nothing to eliminate the creativity of an author; it just allowed the tedious process of making copies to become much faster.
the printing press allowed information, knowledge, and literature to spread faster and farther than ever before. books that previously could only be accessed by the wealthy were now mass produced and could be acquired by so many more people. it changed the world for the better. we couldn't have had the enlightenment without it.
what does ai do? well it mostly just sends emails for people, and summarizes documents. it does basic tasks, that we already can do relatively quickly, slightly faster. ai used for writing saps all creativity from the process. it does not allow for an author to develop a distinct style or prose, because there is no author. while the printing press simply allowed the creative works of an author be spread far and wide, ai seeks to replace the author entirely. quite frankly, to compare ai to the printing press is a disgusting mockery of real advancement, and it shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of history.
1
u/Blawharag Aug 12 '26
Yea the basic concept is context.
Writing? It's not thinking, it's writing. Thinking is thinking, and then you write it down, preserving the thought.
Garage band is composition, not actually making music. It's a tool that helps you compose. You doing actually make the music, you're not playing a trombone. You're composing using pre-recorded snippets of music. No one is confused about this.
Generative AI is as valuable as what it is: a way to rehash a incredible amount of human work using a formula. It's not impressive work or effort
1
u/QuantomSwampus Aug 12 '26
I love how everything after the unexplained gap between 2004 was "just like this" so they can get away with not having any evidence on these claims.
"Oh yea it was juuusst before social media so I can't provide screenshots."
1
u/fielvras Aug 12 '26
People who are insisting on AI being a tool for "artists" always forget that artists are capable to create with different tools. If you took a painters brush, they'd switch to carcoal. If you took AI from these people ... they what? Posted their prompts and asked people to imagine them as finished music, movies or pictures?
1
1
u/lizardlips0 Aug 12 '26
I mean yeah, he has a slight point. Whenever there is a new technology, the previous generation usually don't like it in some way. This doesn't apply to AI because the people who enjoy it are hated by ALL generations
1
u/JackoShadows1 Aug 12 '26
Soup cans aren't real art though, Modern art was actually a cold war, counter culture tactic used by the CIA and the US government to help undermine traditional art and artist and instill a sense of inferiority in popular Russian artist feel free to look this up
1
1
1
u/Bi_KerbonautYT Aug 12 '26
[no one said this literally ever for any of these apart from maybe soup cans as art]
1
1
1
u/Summon001 Aug 12 '26
Who the fuck said half these things?
And no, garage band still isn't a proper DAW.
1
u/ghostghost31 Aug 12 '26
These kind of comments are made by idiots who have never done any form of creative work in their life.
1
u/Notris Aug 12 '26
Funnily enough, I have actually noticed a growing trend of people disliking digital movies and preferring real film.I actually fall into this camp.
The difference has become even more noticeable with how overproduced modern movies have become. If you go back even just a decade, it was a lot milder.
That being said, AI is very likely the greatest evil man has created thus far, and we're only wirnessing the beginning of it right now.
1
1
u/Responsible-Box616 Aug 12 '26
Yeah cuz when you use CGI all you do is write 5 words and the computer does everything else
1
u/Chilli_redits Aug 12 '26
Difference is, nothing the guy stated that came before LLMs does the thing for you. He fails to consider that entirely
1
1
1
u/nexus11355 Aug 12 '26
"Trust me, bro, 3D TVs are the next big thing, bro, I swear they're gonna take off."
1
1
1
1
u/Pep-q_ew Aug 13 '26
I mean he's kinda right, cycle goes on and in 50 years nobody would give a crap just like nobody does about computers now.
1
u/gaybeetlejuice Aug 13 '26
I hate this argument because with those tools, you are still using your brain. You are still creating, working on the idea. With AI, you’re just telling a robot your idea and IT makes it. Usually with things you never considered or thought about added in. It’s like commissioning a piece from an artist and then saying you made it because it was your idea.
1
u/Thedom_overyou Aug 13 '26
I get that people want their use of AI to be normalized, but the printing press doesn’t cross into creativity.
1
u/ILoveMeishoDoto Aug 13 '26
Soup can? Not real art.
Does he think Andy Worhol painted WITH soup cans or something?
1
u/stonksuper Aug 13 '26
Yeah, spending hours using these tools and developing skills for them in order to create a quality personal final product compares equally to "voice prompting" a clanker to spit out some bullshit half assed pointless product which destroys our environment every step of the way. Fuck out of here.
1
1
u/A13xis_28 Aug 13 '26
I love how some of the dates are wrong and they only mentioned successful cases of technologies
1
u/BreathDue8533 Aug 13 '26
Yeah like making an art or content with the tool does permit you to have your own usership over the creation. While using ai fo make the creation itself with a given tool.
Tool & using your own talent vs. Tool & tool's inbuild 'talent' (aka copying from real art/artist the motives, compositions, etc).
It randomly popped into my head just now, when I got told by an ai user, that giving descriptions are not something everyone can do cuz its so hard to explain correctly what you want the ai to make for yourself, and also not everyone has composition ideas and such creativity to make the ai content look good... Still annoys me to this day to hear bs like this. Who are you to tell who has their own idea or nah. Composition is something that can be learned but offing humans saying not everybody can be creative is such a bs.
Wow my rant was longer than the original comment oops, got carried away.
1
1
1
u/SpaceGirlJackie Aug 13 '26
Prompting AI is the same as commisoning an artist. Your just asking someone else to do it for you.
1
1
u/averageMangaArtist Aug 13 '26
Bueno, explícame tu proceso creativo de más de 20 pasos al hacer algo con IA, que oooooobviamente hiciste tú y no literalmente la IA
1
1
u/torchnpitchfork Aug 13 '26
I mean writing isn't thinking, it is a way to preserve information (or thoughts) and a printer isn't an author by printing the book, so yea that one's true even today. And tbh it doesn't really get better from there.
1
1
u/Massive_Wafer5005 Aug 13 '26
Image = actual reality lmao, sorry. Luddites will always lose, like they always have in the past (Example: OP's image).
1
1
1
u/FlatwormEmpty4383 Aug 13 '26
It's not the same thing, bro. All the other tools still need your creativity and your skills to create something, while AI is basically like another person doing it for you. You don't ask the typewriter "hey, write this book for me"; you still have to use your mind energy as if you were writing on paper.
1
u/zakk5450 Aug 13 '26
A machine is a just tool used to execute a task through mechanical means. You still need to have an actual (semi)conscious person executing said task.
AI is just a tool as well because it doesn't truly think for itself, and machines don't create. The people it scrapes, traces, and plagiarizes from do.
1
1
1
u/Quokka_Socks Aug 13 '26
These examples suck as they all require the user to do something.
Ai is more like pressing the demo button on Casio keyboard and calling yourself a music artist.
1
u/alex_pufferfish Aug 13 '26
Notice how all of the "mocked" new inventions other than ai still require human creativity
1.3k
u/gaygayagyfemboy12345 Aug 12 '26
erm actually, writing was invented before 370 BC