342
David Revoy (open source comics artist) is tired and frustrated of people calling his human art, AI-generated (www.davidrevoy.com)
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by to c/technology@lemmy.world
59 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1317157/david-revoy-open-source-comics-artist-is-tired-and-frustrated-of-people-calling-his-huma

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -8 points 2 months ago (8 children)

The solution is to not worry about whether it's AI generated. It's a tool; it can be used well by skilled people to create a good output, and it can be used poorly by unskilled people to create a poor output.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You're missing the point of why AI output is so obnoxious.

    It's like an updated version of the bullshit asymmetry principle: it takes considerably more time and energy to parse AI-produced works (art, text, music etc) than it does for traditional low-quality low-effort shit, because it's produced in large quantities and has a superficial look of being professionally produced.

    AI hasn't made shit artists better, but it has enabled them to suck all the oxygen out of the room and make the process of seeking and enjoying good art intractable and infuriating. It also hasn't made good artists better either, because good artists are already better than AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    I agree that this is a concern, but it's a problem already solved. Do you read every single post on Lemmy? How do you deal with all the garbage, low effort posts?

    And while you're focusing on the negative aspects of AI, you might consider the flip side of it. How many good, creative ideas died on the vine because the person who came up with the idea lacked the technical skill to implement it?

    I understand that it might not seem this way for those people who attempt to make money on their technical skill, but lowering the bar between idea to implementation is an overall benefit to culture.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I disagree. Anyone working in a skilled profession can attest to the number of people who come to them saying that they have this "great idea" for you to work on, for free. It's never a great idea. Skilled professional have their own great ideas, and that's often the motivator for acquiring new skills to make those ideas possible.

    Lowering the bar between idea and implementation, in a capitalist, surveillance/attention-based, target-marketed world further incentivizes low-effort, high-engagement practices and likely shrinks the space for high-effort markets.

    Meanwhile the tools "lowering the bar" are rent-only or need hardware that is quickly becoming unaffordable. Silicon Valley's only play is enshittification. If it actually is successful it's only a matter of time before they switch from growth mode to profit mode and it's google search all over again but this time you're paying a monthly fee. If you want to have an idea of how that works out ask an adobe user-- and those were products that were already profitable. There is no way people are willing to pay the actual cost of ai, it will need to be extracted. The rest is externalities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago

    It's never a great idea.

    There is no possible way you can even begin to support this statement.

    It's not exactly unheard of to read about an indie developer who says something like "I learned to code so I could implement my idea". It is a real thing. How many people had an idea but couldn't spend the time learning the skills needed to implement it? It seems wildly inprobable that the number is zero.

    Lowering the bar between idea and implementation, in a capitalist, surveillance/attention-based, target-marketed world further incentivizes low-effort, high-engagement practices and likely shrinks the space for high-effort markets.

    You're pointing out potential issues with the economic model, not with AI.

    Meanwhile the tools "lowering the bar" are rent-only or need hardware that is quickly becoming unaffordable. Silicon Valley's only play is enshittification. If it actually is successful it's only a matter of time before they switch from growth mode to profit mode and it's google search all over again but this time you're paying a monthly fee.

    This "there is an initial investment cost" issue has always existed. I couldn't learn to play guitar without a guitar. Except for a vague "AI = bad" sentiment, I'm not even sure why you're discussing this. I never said lowering the bar meant there would be no bar.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    It's a tool; it can be used well by skilled people to create a good output

    Of course that's true for things like programming if used only as a chat-based responsive rubber duck to help debug or investigate potential architecture. People using it to spit out entire projects is terrible though and it's destroying the open source ecosystem by making it difficult to find projects that aren't jank and likely to be immediately abandoned

    But in regards to generating any sort of art media, there is no good output or skilled creators because there's no skill or effort put into it. You're not skilled because you put a prompt into a chat bot in the same way you're not a skilled chef for putting in an order at McDonalds.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    People using it to spit out entire projects is terrible though and it's destroying the open source ecosystem by making it difficult to find projects that aren't jank and likely to be immediately abandoned

    This is a temporary issue; if a project you are interested in gets abandoned, fork it and maintain it (with AI). The problem is that too many people are rejecting the tool that can mitigate the issue. If history is any indication, this is just growing pains, and won't last long.

    But in regards to generating any sort of art media, there is no good output or skilled creators because there's no skill or effort put into it

    I really don't mean this to sound harsh, but what you're saying here is gatekeeping and inaccurate.

    I can give you an entire movie studio with everything you need to create a movie, including writers, actors, special effects, etc-- leaving only the directing to you, and you can still output garbage. Just having all the tools at your disposal doesn't make something good quality. However, if we put a skilled director in that same exact situation, and the output will be significantly better. AI can handle much of the process, but that doesn't mean there's no skill or effort involved.

    Additionally, writing prompts does involve creativity. Coming up with an idea is a creative process. To lean on your metaphor, coming up with an interesting and delicious dish is the creative aspect of the process, not just cooking it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    "...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •