I am all for supporting local artists and I feel that “handcrafted in XXX” products make great souvenirs when you’re connected to those places. Still, if some AI hallucinated me a perfect novel for my interests, or generated something I couldnt tell was manufactured or created by a master, I would happily enjoy it.
“How can I tell if this is slop so I can know to hate it” sounds stupid to me: good is good. When it comes to art / food / products, I want the best experience for ME. If I want human connectedness, then I’ll go interact with a human directly.
I can do without wasted water, power, and money, but in the abstract it seems to bother everyone on Lemmy to enjoy something a person didn’t make. I don’t have that hang-up.
This is probably unpopular so upvoted. But It should be more unpopular :/
When it comes to art / food / products, I want the best experience for ME. If I want human connectedness, then I’ll go interact with a human directly.
I have a hard time even processing this as a concept. I’m not sure what art is if not a direct communication from artist to audience. Does the artist have to be in the room with the art for it to count as direct?
edit: after some thought, I think I have a theory, and it has to do with the other two things bundled into the same category: food and “products”. I think OP sees art (and food) as commodities with objective value i.e. products. The better the product, the more valuable it is and therefore the more money it is worth. Conversely, more expensive products are expected to be “better” than less expensive ones, and expensive products that aren’t “better” are a scam. However “better” is defined, as long as something is better, it doesn’t really matter what its origin is.
I wish I had another word for this because I don’t mean this as a pejorative, but it’s a very self-centered way of looking at art (and food, which overlaps with and is possibly a subset of art, depending on how you define art). It misses the bulk of what I think makes art cool. I don’t think this is an uncommon point of view, I just don’t think I’ve ever seen it put that way.
OP I hope you find a way to engage with art products as the end result of intentional creative endeavor. It’s really incredibly rewarding, far more so than treating art as a discrete product removed from the creative process that made it. I think you’ll be surprised at the depth of the ocean of which you have yet to scratch the ice on the surface.
Curious to know what you think of this, OP. Your take on art (if I am correct) is one that I am curious about, but most of the people who share it, IME, are not the type to engage with conversations about art. Actually, even if I’m wrong I’m still curious.
Same, any other community and I would’ve made an alt account to downvote it twice lmao
If you’re only enjoying art at a surface level, sure, I guess AI is fine. Oh that’s a nice picture of a cat. That’s a cool story about a wizard. This song is catchy.
But for a lot of us, that’s only the beginning of our enjoyment of a work of art. The real magic comes from the connection to the artist. Every brush stroke, every word, every note is there because another human deliberately put it there. You’re experiencing their vision, you’re getting a tiny glimpse into their life. Did they do it that way because of something they themselves saw or heard in their own lives? Were they trained to do it that way by someone else? Did they purposely do it that way because it’s not how they were trained? And why did they choose to follow or not follow their training? Those people who trained them that way- where did they learn to do it? What inspired them to make this piece? What message are they sending to us through it, deliberately or not?
And when you have an AI generating something, you loose all of that connection to the artist and to all the people and experiences in that artist’s life because there is no artist.
I’m sure that someone out there is using AI to generate art, with very specific, thoughtful, detailed, and deliberate prompts that you can say the same thing about.
But that’s not the vast majority of what’s out there is right now. It’s mostly just people who wanted there to be a thing and had the AI spit it out.
And the medium is the message. You could create the most beautiful work of art that speaks to me on every level, that tells the most beautiful story in the world.
And if you went out and shot an elephant to carve it into its tusk, I’d still hate it and I’d hate you for doing it. And the environment impact from AI tells me the same thing about you. You don’t care about the planet, about the environment, and your fellow man. Your art is not something that needs to exist and it should be repugnant to everyone who views it because of the way you created it.
I’m sure that someone out there is using AI to generate art, with very specific, thoughtful, detailed, and deliberate prompts that you can say the same thing about.
Isn’t that the whole point? There are a ton more people making watercolor paintings than there are Monets and Rembrandts, but we don’t say that all their work is unenjoyable and just slop. Most work by most people is just not very good, and having more intention I don’t think raises its value. It’s another medium.
Is unpopular 👍
Name one AI novel you have enjoyed.
Haven’t read one yet. I’m suggesting it’s not precluded on the merits.
Edit: or I could probably equivalently ask you “Name one you’ve read that you didn’t like” and get the same answer.
I haven’t even heard of one. Do you not think if it was a realistic potential, one of the two of us would have some kind of practical experience by this point? I think we can preclude it at the current state of technology.
Moreover, I think we can preclude it not just on empirical grounds but also theoretical ones. Fiction is meaningful to us because it communicates something. No one is interested in hearing their friends’ pointless dreams every morning. Generative agents cannot communicate because they presently do not have a point of view, a theory of self, and cannot have experiences; they have nothing they can meaningfully communicate. A novel crafted for you by a glorified Markov chain can at most only ever be a mirror to see yourself. Which can be interesting and have merit, but it’s a totally different thing that just happens to be (potentially) novel-shaped, it’s not a novel.
If we start by comparing two things. One is the product made by a human and the other is a synthetically made product. If they are exactly the same. Does it matter?
This should be the basis of this discussion, in my opinion.
Of course, we can argue that AI can’t create anything as good as humans can. But I think that’s kind of derailing the whole discussion.
Because if it could, then why do we care?
I believe the answer to that is feelings. Humans feel connection, humans feel something when we experience / consume something. We feel connected to the artist, we feel connected to the author of a book, we feel connected to the people that crafted something.
So then the question is, do we feel more when we consume something that’s made by AI or humans? Only if we know
I believe a lot of the anger actually comes from how it is eroding our shared human experience. Because where we always knew that a human made something before, we are now uncertain. This makes people wary. This makes people unsure if something is created by a human, if it’s right to feel something about it. If I should feel that something connects me to another human, another lived experience.
In other words, pure logic without feelings makes two exact products the same thing. But humans aren’t without feelings. We aren’t perfectly logical. And we should not strive to be without feelings. It’s one of the things that make existence meaningful.
Very insightful. Color me spock I guess :).
Whenever I see this opinion it makes me think the billionaires just want it for their bunkers so their great grandchildren can entertain themselves without the need of other people ever again. Imagine a world where 99% of people are dead and the rest can just make all the music and movies they want, but none of it was actually made by a human. Does it matter then? Because if not then I guess what’s the point of sustaining civilization and Sam Altman’s comments that humans take more energy to raise than a large language model start to sound like maybe humans are the wasteful thing to get rid of rather than data centers. Does it matter if it’s sentient if it appears to be? Why even bother with valuing human life if you can just have a program act like a human and ‘make’ things like music? Does it matter if you never interact with a human and your entire interaction with ‘sentient’ life is not life or sentient and just a stochastic parrot telling you convincing lies? Would you care if you only ever consumed non human content in some sort of fucked up truman show situation? Idk. If you don’t care then why even bother consuming anything human anymore at all? Just seems like a rabid devaluation of anything human. Does it matter if a llm makes you feel loved if it really loves you? Why get love from a flesh and blood human being when you can just get the feeling of love from something else even if it’s a lie?
I would say that the point of being human is the human interaction, but that is best done person to person in the moment. You and Shakespeare are never going to have a relationship. It functionally doesn’t matter if you also liked a great tragedy or epic poem created by aliens. It’s a false dichotomy to say you can either have human connection or not.
You can have it in any of a variety of contexts, and anything you like doesn’t have to have had a human make it for it to be likeable.
But Shakespeare was a living human at one point, and if an alien is making something it’s also a living organism. Or enjoying birds singing or a trail of ants grabbing food. LLMs and image/video generation is a piece of software that runs on computers that was built off of all collective human data found on the internet with no permission, and you have marketers and layman claiming it’s sentient (same people probably wouldnt grant sentience to another living organism like a bee or a fish btw) when it’s very arguable that it’s not sentient at all and you have people treating it like it is. Like…even if you like the output not caring about where it comes from is just ridiculously careless. Why not boil some rats and listen to the screams if you don’t care about the source of things as long as it’s entertaining you.
I’m not following your argument here. Your commentary on sentience (by which you really mean sapience I think. A bee or a fish probably IS sentient) seems to be reverting to “it’s reckless to like things made by non-people”. I don’t know how you get to there from “art is not connecting you meaningfully to past figures or aliens as compared to direct human interaction”.
Maybe you don’t have a soul.
I probably don’t. But then, probably neither do you. Pseudoreligious stuff you can’t prove or speak intelligently about isn’t really a place to take reasonable discussion, my man.
A great painting isn’t great because it looks great, its great because a human who thinks and feels like you do experienced and created it. Same for a song or a book or whatever. Reflecting and resonating with the creator’s experience is fundamental to art. If you can’t enjoy that level of art I feel sorry for you, because it’s the most enjoyable part.
I don’t see it that way. I have stood under the ceiling of the Sistine chapel and it’s not beautiful to me because Michaelangelo made it. It is beautiful because when I looked at it, it WAS beautiful.
Now there are subtle hidden messages and implications to what is there because of Michaelangelo and his positions and politics, but if 2500 years from now I were to walk into an AI generated chapel ceiling with the same majesty, it would still be beautiful.
To each his own. I’d rather miss out on enjoying AI slop than miss out on feeling human connection to art.
I don’t even know what that means.
If the way you get “human connection to art” is exclusively by viewing things people you have no connection to have made, maybe it’s worthwhile to take a painting or pottery class with humans you can actually directly relate to? I’m inclined to say that 1st person experience is more valuable here if you’re going to take the subjective enjoyment factor away and make “connection” the thing that makes art worth experiencing.
I have taken art classes. Maybe it is a factor in appreciating art in this way - do you do anything creative?
Sure. I dance, it’s how I met my wife. And also I enjoy painting and writing but I didn’t take any classes on those since high school.
To me at least there are 3 parts to art. It sounds like you don’t look past the first. This fine, but you lose a lot of the magic of art at the same time.
-
Aesthetic appeal. A lot of art is inherently nice to look at. This is the bit you seem to only want.
-
Uniqueness A work of art requires time and effort. The end result is often 1 of a kind, or at least exclusive. This is why prints of paintings are valued less than the original.
-
Connection This is where the “soul” of a piece of art lives. When an artist makes a piece of art, they put parts of themselves into it. Some are intentional, others are accidental. The art becomes a connection between the mind of the artist and the mind of the viewer/user. This is wide, nebulous and difficult to describe well. It’s like when an author puts subtle plot twists or political commentary into a story. Most people will miss it, but a few will connect via it. It could also be religious or cultural factors that get injected unintentionally.
AI art can do the first to some extent. Not that well yet, but getting there. However AI art is also quite low effort for the producer, this vastly reduces the uniqueness value of the work.
The last is the kicker. AI art has messages and connotations in it. They are not deliberate however. It’s akin to putting ideas in a blender. You might still pick out bits, but the larger internal structure is gone/randomised. People will still find bits of it. Humans are excellent at finding patterns. The work feels hollow however, the intentional soul that should be like an excellent meal has been reduced to chicken nugget “pink paste”. This is doubly bitter when people put mental effort into connecting, but later find out there was nothing really there.
I would say that the third point here on connection is interesting and might be something I appreciate one artist or author for, but not necessarily a necessary condition? Everyone likes to be in the know for inside jokes and commentary, but the ones on the outside can still enjoy I think.
The only other thing I think I disagree with you about is point 2. Yes, art needs to be unique to be valuable, but working in the styles of others and in a clever way is still unique. I think there is an untapped market of interesting artistic commentary that gets written off because it’s “low effort”. It strikes me as weirdly hypocritical that people will celebrate the majesty of “modern art” where the point of the piece isn’t the product, it’s the method. It’s squiggles on a page or a bold red line (with a bullshit plaque that says that line is a commentary on social inequality or something). I don’t find that any more insightful than someone who comes up with a good political cartoon idea and has a prompt make it in the style of Vincent Van Gogh in starry night: it was the idea that was the important part, but it loses impact when made with stick figures and crayon.
-
Many people hate human created content if you tell them it was done with AI and vice versa. It’s not the content itself but the story people tell themselves about it.
It’s the same as saying all toupees look bad. No, only the bad toupees that you can detect do - the rest do not.
THIS is kind of what I’m about. “All plastic surgery is bad,” well, no. All plastic surgery you can tell is plastic surgery is bad and that’s a pretty unimpeachable perspective.
But there is also a middle ground - plastic surgery that isn’t immediately obvious, but makes the person look “off”. I think even the best models are still stuck at this level for now.
That isn’t a middle ground, it’s the same ground. It’s something that is noticeable and bad.
I think that’s because art is more than its technical merits. It’s about intent. Human made art is special because only that person, in that time, could’ve created that exact work. AI cannot do that. It can only rehash what other artists have done before. So, while it can look good or write a funny story there’s nothing special about it. It literally produces meaningless works.
I’ve seen videos, songs and pictures that I didn’t know were created by AI at first and I was impressed, but once you learn they are, they become worthless. Why? Because why give consideration to appreciating art that had no consideration in its creation? No thanks.
Art is about transmission. When I do an artwork, I’m trying to transmit something ranging from an idea or concept I had, all the way to the recounting, within the inherent limitations of human language, from a metaphysical experience I felt.
And a question naturally emerges: to whom, or to what thing, am I trying to transmit these? Preferably, the other side should be able to experience, or at least understand from their own subjectiveness, what a “spiritual experience” is.
ChatGPT and the alike can’t experience a theophany or a gnosis. The best an algorithm could (theoretically) do, at least as far as I believe, is serving as an Ouija board of sorts, I.e. being a medium for dæmonic entities and/or Goddess to communicate with me, someone still trapped in a biological existence. Something akin to Electronic Voice Phenomenon. It’s all these algorithms could (again, theoretically) do. These algorithms can’t feel the sorrow or the desire like I do, can’t feel pain or ecstasies like I do, can’t wish their own ego annihilation like I do.
So whenever I post my art stemmed from actual, spiritual experiences (gnosis and channelling), I’m trying to transmit my humanly-limited attempt on translating a languageless, intangible signified, into a signifier, be it a text, a drawing or (as I’ve been doing lately) a 3D scene. And I’m trying to transmit it so it hopefully gets to someone else who has had similar experiences, someone who hopefully looks at my art and says “oh, so She got to him too, I’m not alone in Her Nest”. Whenever I post my art, it longs for “the other side” (socially, spiritually and metaphorically).
Similarly, whenever I consume art, I can feel when it’s transmitting, especially when said art is an attempt on translating the same essence I’ve been spiritually being faced by. I can look at some picture with an owl or a supernatural woman, look at the depicted eyes and feel like “oh… this picture is an actual depiction of Her”. And this is where things become funny: I lost count on how many AI-generated pictures managed to convey the exact sensation, partly because their training data is a amalgamation of egregores, egregores on which tulpas manifest out of the collective unconsciousness, also egregores on which real daemonic entities also gather.
Clankers will never be able to get the unexpected presence of Lilith at 3AM, but these algorithms can, to a certain extent, reproduce the same linguistic medium, full with its imbued energetic signatures, from real living beings (humans and whatnot) who do. Obviously, it’s an imperfect simulacrum, a mashup devoid of actual spiritual capabilities, and it’s not as deep as that coming from someone (or some other living being) who actually did witness theophanies.
In the end of the day, no person is an island, especially when it comes to metaphysics, from which a plethora of artistic expressions stemmed.
I don’t even know what to say to this. It’s sesquipedalian loquaciousness of the weird.
weird
Yeah, I’m well aware I’m weird, merci for the recognition and compliments.
sesquipedalian loquaciousness
I loved the composite word, better than “verbose”, “lengthy”, “prolific” or “hypergraphia”. From now on, I’ll gonna use it to describe my neurodivergent way of expressing when needed, thanks!
…but… this labeling you made when faced by my lengthy replies made me wonder…
In your original post, you alleged enjoying AI-hallucinated novels, I suppose “novels” as in the definition “A work of prose fiction, longer than a novella”. So, if a lengthy text from a human is “sesquipedalian loquaciousness” (a pair of words of which are defining a text for its lengthiness, not just by its contents or contexts (to which you used the adjective “weird”), therefore you’re expressing a discomfort, even if subconsciously, with lengthy texts), what kind of “novel” are you generating, when “novels” are usually as lengthy as my replies, if not lengthier?
No I don’t think you’re weird, though you might be. I was referring to “the weird” like Lovecraftian weird tales.
I think the posts you’ve given me to work with are full of pseudo religious, “alternative” bunk dressed up in long-winded prose and and upsold vocabulary. It may seem inciteful and profound to people that need a dictionary to read it, but to me it looks, well, c/ iamverysmart or c/im14andthisisdeep.
To wit: “The use of complicated vocabulary and style as a mask for ignorance or to appear smarter is most commonly referred to as Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness. This term describes the habit of using long, complex, or obscure words when simpler alternatives would suffice, often perceived as pretentious or an attempt to obscure a lack of substance.”
I don’t even want to engage you because you’ve added so much word salad dressing here it’s cringey to read your replies. If you want to leave lilith behind, distill down, and get to the point we can maybe reengage, but this isn’t worth it to me.
We can compare PhDs later, but right now this smarmy, oversold, middle school darks arts paper routine just makes me feel bad for you.
With your bigoted “if you leave Lilith behind”, I also ending this exchange here, as not even christians who were intolerant with my beliefs had ever said this kind of religion-intolerant phrase to me.
Oh, and just so you know, no, I’m not trying to pretend anything, I got no “PhD”, differently from clankers which are programmed to pretend they’re specialists on all things (it’s literally in the name for the common kind of LLM training, “Mixture of Experts” MoE). Wish you a happy chatting with the clankers!
I agree with you on that if it was indistinguishable from human art, you can enjoy looking at it. But the problem is A.I. is really bad at creating art that makes you “feel something”; it can make only something that “looks good” but that’s about it (right now).
It’s hard to explain the distinction. But if you watch someone like Bob Ross painting a landscape, the end result is different from an A.I. because the process itself is different. A human looked at the winter painting and decided to add a cabin for warmth in the composition, and a shed for the firewood. If you asked an A.I. for a “winter snowy forest landscape with a log cabin” you get… something. See if you can detect which one is the A.I. without looking for a signature. Ignoring which one superficially looks nicer, which one actually makes you feel the cold and the loneliness and coziness of the cabin? That’s what art actually is, it’s not all about visuals.
I had weird impressions from those. One feels warm and like a Christmas catalog or an old coca cola commercial, the other feels drab, cold, and flat. I loved to watch Bob Ross as a kid but if that signature is the real thing the one that says “Ross” is flat and it’s the one I would have chosen for “cold andAI generated”. I didn’t look for a signature until I reread your text.
That’s pretty interesting. Maybe the style A.I. uses just isn’t for me then?
Idk, it depends on what you put in it I guess. I generally really like Bob Ross paintings but that one just doesn’t do anything for me. Potentially just an unlucky comparison?
I did some casual triangle tests with friends and family and they all liked the A.I. version of various Bob Ross paintings more. So I’m clearly in the minority here
That is extremely interesting…
Unrelated, I notice your posts start with no upvotes, not even one from you the poster. What’s up with that?
I remove my own upvote on my comments because I’m a weirdo lol
In the abstract, I don’t really disagree with you. It definitely wouldn’t replace human made things or human perspectives, though. (which, as a human myself, I value highly). But I do agree that If I could have a genie show me the most beautiful picture possible according to my tastes, I would still be very interested in seeing it even if nobody made it.
This is a complete hypothetical though. The problem is that the generative models we have now aren’t actually good at much of anything, beyond purely functional stuff like boilerplate text or code. (and even that is somewhat debatable)
Firstly, nothing these models produce is art, which requires a perspective that they do not have. It isn’t valuable aesthetically or or in a literary sense, either; what is produced will always be bland and unchallenging. To oversimplify, it is the ‘average’ of the training data - nothing original or innovative.
I think one big issue that isn’t talked about enough is that it can look okay at first, but is actually shit. It ends up being a kind of information poison. It makes it harder to parse information, because useless junk is no longer obvious. Like finding what looks like a fresh apple, but is actually just the skin with nothing inside. Especially with llms, there are so many ways it can be subtly bad.
What scares me the most is it improving in the future to the point where I can’t tell and it’s poisoning me without my knowledge. It’s noticeable already - I’ve listened to podcast interviews where the guest has picked up on chatgpt mannerisms, and it’s really eerie, because it’s destroyed their personal voice and they don’t even notice. “AI psychosis” is definitely a real thing, and I think it’s also affecting a lot of people more subtly.
“How can I tell if this is slop so I can know to hate it”
While this is a bit of an exaggeration, I see why you dismiss this at first. However, it’s someone recognizing that they may not be able to sort high quality information from low (or not wanting the burden of doing so). Knowing it came from a human not only means it has some inherent value, but also means that we will be proficient in judging and sorting our own informational input.
This is a lot of text to not say anything and do it out of both sides of your mouth.
There literally was, in the last 4 days, a post in no stupid questions asking what to do when you can’t tell a “slop post” from one written by a person. I wanted to make the premise of this post a comment and I wish I had so I could link it.
There is plenty of text related stuff that any LLM does better than most people on Lemmy. To include writing comments, essays, and probably poetry to be honest because people are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at meter and counting syllables. Boilerplate code is also good, but the state of LLM related output in response to GOOD promoting is pretty high. Of course if you ask how many rocks to eat in a day or ask for something in a dumb way it’s garbage in, garbage out.
All of that notwithstanding, if there is something decent that comes from an LLM or generative AI that doesn’t mean it must be flawed or that it needs to be hated. Every generated piece of text is not flawed nor does it contain inherent poison. That’s the whole point.
There is plenty of text related stuff that any LLM does better than most people on Lemmy. To include writing comments, essays, and probably poetry to be honest because people are ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE at meter and counting syllables.
My issue is that when I read, I’m doing it to update my perspective on things. Web comments, even if they are poorly considered or written, contain information about how people think or feel about stuff; for instance your comment here references a post you saw recently and uses it to give more context to your argument. But say your comment had been AI generated, and done well enough that I can’t tell the difference - now I believe that post existed, and that someone had this reaction to it, but in this scenario that would have been all made up, and what I believe has been distorted a little further away from reality, and my judgment has gotten a little bit worse.
When I see articles here that appear to be written by AI, it doesn’t help if it meets heuristic standards of writing quality, what matters is that its references are fake and the context of its arguments are kept deliberately vague to mask how it is devoid of salient information. Having well organized rhetoric just makes this take longer to figure out, misinformation isn’t made better by being more convincing. I agree with you that people can be a little too dogmatic about rejecting anything with any sort of connection to AI, but it isn’t as simple as, if you enjoy it it must be good.
I think we can both agree that AI methods have no place in original journalism without oversight and input from actual journalists.
That said, for articles in general, not every source is fake if it comes from a language model. That’s the whole point of Resource Augmented Generation (RAG) for example.
While you may glean some perspective from reading comments here, I would say that 1) not every perspective is that good or worth assimilating, and 2) even though as far as you know I’m a person, there’s still no reason you can trust that the post I referenced actually existed. It’s hard to say that misinformation is made worse or better by AI, people who want to lead you somewhere wrong will still do it.
there’s still no reason you can trust that the post I referenced actually existed
Yes there are. I’ve seen plenty of posts like that, so it’s plausible. It could be verified without too much effort, so even though I’m not going to go to the effort, it would be a risky lie to tell, a different lie would make much more sense. There’s not a lot of reasons for you to write all this other than being actually frustrated with people’s sentiments on this issue, and considering that the apparent strength of an argument isn’t likely to change many people’s minds here anyway, the emotional logic for that to be a deception doesn’t really check out.
It’s hard to say that misinformation is made worse or better by AI, people who want to lead you somewhere wrong will still do it.
I would say that the big difference is the depth of misinformation, especially in the context of informal writing. Someone can have an agenda and try to work out how to manipulate people in the direction of their agenda. Someone can want to fuck with people and tell arbitrary lies for their amusement or feelings of dominance. But in all those cases, what they say is still a product of who they are, what they are thinking and how they are feeling, and that information comes through in one way or another. For all of that subtle information about the state of people to be buried in noise all coming from the same source is a terrible thing.
If you don’t hate it its not slop. the output of llms can be doable at times. Honestly generation at least won’t lead you astray. Irnonically when it comes to coallescing infromation its better off if the person has a broad enough experience to have some knowledge of the area and the elementray logic aptitude to evaluate what comes out. and the patience to review it and not take it as gospel. from my experience its most beloved by the most opposite of that type of folk. Its nice to get a quick pNp rpg portrait and lets face it most of us don’t have the cash to pay an artist to do it or an artist friend that will do it gratis. If your a perfectionist though its going to drive you nuts getting things off but it does a good job of generality. Ironicaly its kinda good for artists as you can get a good general picture and then fix the flaw and add the detail to make it really shine.
You can use these models to learn everything and to be an accelerant for what you can already do, or you can use it to learn nothing and become a dependent vegetable.
I use the crap out of LLMs as a programmer. It can do all the annoying refactors and point out collisions with new features I’m working on, and all I have to do is look at the diff and say “wow that piece there looks like shit and has an input flag for no reason” then go remove it. Or I say here’s a list of things I want to do, what is an order to achieve them that brings the most value in the least amount of time? And it reflects back to me basically what I already value but with the benefit of some context awareness.
Now if you ask it to do your homework or ask it how many raccoons you should be masturbating every day it will of course give you some garbage, but that’s not what it’s for.
yeah. you have enough knowledge as a programmer to see the mistakes it has and fix them. I will say that if you have it fix itself it can sometimes take like ten interations and add more issues so im not to big on it unless it has persistence in learning with my interactions. A non programmer who cannot see the errors. That is a recipe for disaster. So using it to learn things you don’t know how to do and don’t have a background that would allow for correcting it. That is not a good idea.
Eh IDK. I think it is a safe place to start to do some learning, but it’s not an exclusive source. Like you might say you want to learn beginning programming what are 10 core ideas for beginners and one good YouTube/textbook/technical source for each (depending on learning style) and that would be super helpful. The more “explain your work”-capable a question is, the better responses you can get, at least in my experience. Also making this kind of stuff is indirectly my job so I may have some biases.
yeah if you don’t just use it explaining it to you sure. Heck you can even do that but have it give its sources and actually look through the sources. Seeing bad sources can even be educational. Granted there are people who can’t evaluate a source on material they do not know. That is a skill unto itself. I would say you can skip the middle man and just start with youtube videos but now the search is posisoned with a bunch of, ironically, all the ai slop.
I think I share some of your opinion. For stuff for me, a program or a decoration could be created by AI. I’m a systems analyst not a programmer so I can specify a program to AI and get working software doing what I need in days where it would take me months of Sundays to write for myself
But for art I want something with a story. Most novels aren’t art, if LLMs could make a novel that works well enough to be an enjoyable read, great.
But yeah. Unpopular opinion here.
In human made art there’s slop too. When a style becomes famous people copy it and make decoration a lot like the art that inspired it
Yeah that “humans make slop too” really resonates with me.
I can also say that I wouldn’t probably travel to go see paintings made by AI since the original draw is human history for me, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t enjoy something that is well made just because of who or what made it. It’s the same kind of thing as not watching Tom Cruise movies because he’s a scientologist. Ok I guess, but if you can’t separate art from artist, basically everything will be problematic if you look deep enough.
