71

Finally, someone has made a computer that can produce dogshit CGI renders at an even higher cost.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago

I don't like this line of argumentation - it's essentially neoliberal. It has echos of - "Socialism means giving money to the laziest people, the people who have spent their whole lives too lazy to sit down and do the work necessary to get good at something."

But this erases the material conditions that determine so much of our lives.

In reality, sometimes, people don't have the years and years of free time they need to do the work. Sometimes they don't have the resources or teachers to learn from, don't have the tools they need to hone their skills, don't have a safe environment where they can learn and grow, or their fucking psychiatrist won't give them fucking ADHD medication because a parent got hooked on meth (I'm not bitter), or they were dysphoric for so long that their depression atrophied all of their talents (definitely not bitter)

Motivation, itself, isn't a choice. It's just something that happens to you. You just got lucky by having a brain that works.

There's some truth to their complaining about the unfairness of talent. We make our own talent, but we do not make it as we please.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I don't see how rephrasing things changes much. The situation is still that the people who gain the power to make shit are unmotivated people with no actual skill in the art. They don't magically make good content now that they have AI because they are still unmotivated people with no actual skill and giving them AI doesn't change that. They still require thousands upon thousands of hours of practice to understand and improve in the skill of writing to actually form a decent script, and if they really had such motivation for writing they would be putting it to use and practice without the AI.

You just got lucky by having a brain that works.

I disagree. It's about having a brain that is interested in it, or having parents that can pay a tutor to whack a child's hands with a ruler every time they don't focus on the piano keys but that's a different kind of motivation through force. Real genuine motivation comes from interest, it stops being work and it is basically play for that brain. Not that this changes anything, interest and "brain that works" are still ultimately the same thing in practice, just different interpretations of the mechanism. I think what you're trying to suggest though is wrong, neurotypical people struggle with the motivational requirement to become artists as much as neurodivergent people, their brains still work, they just want to play instead of doing what they perceive as work because the interest isn't there. It's a little spark that makes the art activity into something as fulfilling and enjoyable as playing the videogame is for everyone else.

I take adhd meds too. They don't fix motivation, merely focus.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Depression, notably, saps all interest in doing anything. Interest isn't a choice either, it's just something that happens to you.

Or doesn't.

There is a fundamental unfairness to talent that I just don't think you're acknowledging.

What I do agree with is that AI isn't some instant-win cheat code to making great art. If they lack the interest, the motivation, to put in the work then their AI slop is only ever going to be slop. Though, maybe, they won't have to put in quite as many thousands of hours. It can be like the difference between being talented with hand sewing vs being talented with a sewing machine. Making a beautiful dress requires hard work whether you do it by hand or with a machine, but it's certainly a lot easier and faster with a machine.

Also, executive function disorder is hell. It doesn't matter if you have interests and want to do things. You just don't do them, and hate yourself for it.

[-] Awoo@hexbear.net 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I don't see what there is to acknowledge here? The argument is semantics, we're saying the exact same ultimate thing in terms of outcomes. Every point I've made about AI remains the same. These people still remain bad at creating because they do not practice and improve due to their lack of "talent" as you put it, I feel that I put in the much friendlier terms by saying it is lack of practice due to motivation and I very much dislike this "talent" shit because it feels like bioessentialism.

It doesn't matter which wording is used here either way, the outcome is literally the same, a bunch of hacks being given AI doesn't produce good content. The people with the "talent" to improve are already producing content and improving their skills without it.

[-] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago

I dont see how AI makes any if this better

[-] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

I am having a rainy arts and crafts day after a busy yesterday of working in fancy restaurant on mother's day. I am building models and painting display stuff for ones ive already built. It is fun and relaxing. I do some painting and then do some building while the paint dries and im watching movies at the same time. Its a good day. At the end of the day, putting in prompts for an AI all day instead would probably kill my soul. Making art is fun. This tskes away the fun part. I made a post earlier in the thread that as a toddler I just filled a page with drawings and then threw it out and started the next. My parents had to tell me that I should be saving the good ones which implies I should be trying to make a good one each time, at 34 I can say they were wrong as hell. The finished product is a brief moment of moderate satisfaction cause you will always see the flaws no one else will. The best part is making the damn thing. I am altering the real world to match or express my imagination as best as I can. AI can never ever do that. I like digital art and like playing with it, but even that feels a bit removed from real tangible stuff for me. Photoshop is fun, editing film and music digitally is just way easier, but I have done the analogue version of both and theyre a lot more fun. It stinks.

[-] GalaxyBrain@hexbear.net 3 points 2 days ago

Yeah, we should create a society where that isnt the case. Until then you do what you can with what you have. You dont need ai to make art. The barrier to entry there is a lot more than paper and pencil. Anyone can make art. You maybe cant make a Pixar movie yourself but no one can. That's why they hired people.

[-] Ilixtze@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Still this idea that making a vending machine spit out the work of other people slightly remixed doesn't sound like democratization, but just pointless masquerading as someone else's achievements. By generating work based on other people's work one is taking valuable time from them.

What is the point of making visual media if the maker doesn't want to engage in anything that is visual about the media? What is the point of making music if the person making it doesn't want to engage with anything musical? they just want to just write a prompt. There is no vulnerability or personality. There is nothing that feels tangibly human behind it.

during the start of the internet, the social convention was created that entering a chat or an online space in order to spew unwanted mindless information was aggressive disruptive behavior that needed to be moderated off. I am starting to see AI generations in the same vein: producing mindless material and filling the internet with it is a new form of spamming and i hope more people will start to push back on it. Using precious resources to have a vending machine produce media without thought or process sounds the same as pressing the enter button over and over again on the same message on a chat room to get attention.

Also this argument erases centuries of achievements made by neuro divergent and disabled artists. People who painted without hands or had serious disabilities and still made art. I invite you to look into outsider art, and transgressive writing and art. You will find a lot of disabled and neuro divergent people putting work and effort into their art in those spaces. The worse part is AI slop could potentially hurt those people because it homogenizes and clogs the creative industries. AI generation dampens valuable voices that bring much needed diverse perspectives to our shared human subjectivity. Because these creators are working in more fragile conditions. These are people that are poor, have disabilities, or come from fragile backgrounds. The spam of AI generations might be killing their opportunity to get their work out there in the first place.

this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
71 points (98.6% liked)

Slop.

851 readers
575 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target federated instances' admins or moderators.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS