Would be ironic if the image was AI generated. I've been tempted to play around with this. Kinda like Picasso and Braque. Make real things that look fake and fake things that look real aka make hand made things that look AI generated and make AI generated things that look real and put them in a collection together and let the people decide which pisses them off more and why. Part of actual art is a commentary, making people feel something, making people question and question themselves. Capturing that quality of AI generated by hand sounds like a real shit show and a half for people pissed by seemingly AI generated images.
Fuck AI
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
I get the idea, but I don't think there's any real benefit in intentionally muddying the waters further on this stuff. I'm not personally a fan of pouring more fuel on the dumpster fire, and there's been a lot of deep discussions about all of this already. There's not much room for "good faith" discussion in this shit as it is.
Art can be for any reason and sometimes it's only to rattle some cages. What exactly are people pissed at. Is it the style they determine to be AI generated or is it actually the concept of what they thought was human generated having no human touch. What's actually the pain point here, or is this evolving into like a new prejudice where anything remotely AI is bad regardless of how it was generated. I think there's a lot of valuable questions to ask about what seems to be a whole mountain of animosity. Let's clear shit up a little. Without questioning does someone even know where they stand on a subject?