https://fxtwitter.com/DiscussingFilm/status/1838581688017846328

  • Riffraffintheroom [none/use name]
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Yes and AI represents more people getting to make art.

    But they’re not getting to make art they’re having a plagiarism machine make it for them. A person at a restaurant is not a cook because he orders the food. And the means of production for art are a pencil and paper, it’s already pretty fucking accessible.

    that is in the end better for everyone involved.

    Destroying the environment at a staggering pace and and giving bourgeois a reason to devalue the labour of artists, writers, programmers, musicians, lawyers and god knows how many other types of worker is not a net good for the world. You just want your treats and you don’t wanna feel bad about it.

    • StalinStan [none/use name]
      ·
      4 hours ago

      Every indication is that by the time the tools are ready for mainstream adoption in terms of photoshop the code will be optimized enough you don't have to run it on unholy asemblages of parts. Looking st thr stuff gpt4 puts out. It would take years of gpt2 processing. If we crunch that down as engery savings we cna hope gpt5 will be abel to just use long term storage instead of processing. At least for consumer grade stuff. As to the rest, you can't blame AI. Capitlaism was doing that anyway. Every kind of professional art has in a rough state lately. The issue here is techbros actually made a new tech that works. If they didn't they woudl have just found an innovate way to exploit labor further. So this isn't as bad as it could have been