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
[–] 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