@david_chisnall This is another variation on the argument...

david_chisnall's posts Post Back to profile

@david_chisnall This is another variation on the argument made against photography 150 years ago. To an extent it’s right: few of the billions of photos made every day are art.

like photography, generative models (which I assume you mean by “AI”) can also be used creatively. It took photography 50 years of creative struggle to develop as an art form that is still evolving.

It might be a little early to write off generative AI. (although not too early to condemn LLM excesses.)

Like 21 July at 13:31 | Wall-to-wall | Open on mastodon.online

2 comments

sidereal

@MartyFouts @david_chisnall Not a great comparison. Photography had /immediate/ scientific and strategic/military applications. Meanwhile generative AI doesn’t work without significant human intervention and probably never will.

From a material perspective, photography allowed people to create more precise images with less labor/energy than painting. Generative AI makes less precise images with more labor/energy! I see it as a major step backwards.

21 July at 14:52 | Open on kolektiva.social

Marty Fouts

@sidereal @david_chisnall
Photography, especially in the early days, required significant human intervention. As recently as 20 years ago I would spend many hours in the darkroom to make a print.

In the late 19th century, a proficiency draftsman could produce a more accurate picture more easily than a photographer.

21 July at 15:19 | Open on mastodon.online