Thorny_Insight @ Thorny_Insight @lemm.ee

---

Read more

Posts

41

Comments

1,874

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is slightly off topic because we're now discussing who the artist is, not wether it's considered art.

My personal opinion on the matter is that artist is not a tool so by prompting them it's still them whose creating the art piece. At best it would be considered a collaboration. The output is still art. I argue that the output of human and AI collaboration is also art.

How did they not create anything? They inserted a prompt into the tool and received a picture.

I don't see how that comparison translates to the topic about AI art.

If AI can create better content than humans can then people will rather consume that. I don't see why you should artificially limit this. If someone thinks that AI content is not better then that's who the audience is for the remaining human creators. AI can already create better looking photos than I can, but it has zero effect on my desire to do photography. I don't see what the issue is.

One who wrote the prompt. It may be the AI that does all the heavy lifting but it's still a tool and alone it doesn't create anything.

Human is the one with vision, AI is the tool. It's just a much more advanced paint brush that anyone can use. Alone it doesn't create anything and if the end result is bad, it's not the fault of the brush.

AI art is just an art sub-genre like painting, sculpting or photography is. Saying it's not art is like a film photographer saying digital is not real photography - gatekeeping.

every AI image i have seen has tells of being AI generated

Except the ones you didn't realize were made by AI. You by definition can't know how many have passed for you as "genuine".

I disagree with the premise that such mosaic of online pictures wouldn't be "original" piece of art. It absolutely qualifies by my books

AI will be only be able to produce art that already exists or realism.

Well, that is not true at all.

Generative AI isn’t just limited to imitating or copying existing art. It’s fully capable of creating original pieces, much like humans do. Sure, AI models learn from large datasets of existing art, but that doesn’t mean they’re limited to mere copying. Instead, they take these inputs, find patterns, blend concepts, and can then generate something entirely new. This isn’t too different from how human artists operate. They too absorb influences from the world and other pieces of art and generate new ones based on that. Nobody is creating art in a vacuum.

The additional benefit AI has is not being tied down by existing concepts. Human creativity often gets shaped by cultural trends or personal experiences, but AI can step outside those constraints, giving us a fresh take on art and creativity in ways that many human artists can't. Not to even mention that you need a human in the loop to write the prompt. AI doesn't create art alone no more than a paint brush does.

Well debate about wether taxes are good or not are a whole another discussion. I live in a wellfare state myself so I don't mind the relatively high taxes I'm paying because I've benefited from what the government spends it on my whole life and continue to benefit in the future as well, not to even mention the people less fortunate than me.

If you're broke, disabled and unable to provide for yourself the government will provide you with an apartment and money for food. 200€ a year is pennies compared to the benefits people like this are receiving.

I don't know where you live but the property tax on my house is 200€ a year which is less than half of what I spend on groceries every month. If I end up disabled and without a job, the property tax, from a financial perspective would be among the least of my worries.

If you mean that the average person doesn't exist in real life then you're correct, but to claim that what is statistically average cannot be determined, then that's just a bunch of nonsense.

Having rented before and now owning my own house I can gurantee you that there's a major difference in the freedom between those two.

You think homeowners should not be required to pay property tax and build whatever they want on their property disregarding all safety regulations and building codes? I can definitely see how that would go horribly wrong..

But what does it matter if the value of your stocks drop in a market crash? Assumeably you're in it for the long run so you can always just wait for them to go back up before selling. Even if a property might hold it's value better during a crash, which is not guranteed either, that would still be irrelevant unless you intend to sell the house, which again would be difficult during a market crash. If you want something that holds it's value that you can liquidate at any time then perhaps you should buy gold instead.

If you're invested into something such as S&P 500 and something happens which causes a significant number of those companies to go out of business at once, then we're talking about an extremely rare world wide event that'll effect your investments no matter what they're tied into. Keep in mind that the ~7% yearly average growth of the stock market includes events such as both world wars.

So the government is your landlord then?

Depends on wether it's a loving or an abusive cat owner. Cats are carnivores and need a diet consisting of mostly meat to stay healthy. If buying meat products is against one's values then don't get a predator as a pet.

And just investing in stocks means I won’t have a diversified portfolio that could resist a financial crash as much as real estate can.

That's nonsense. A house would be equally difficult to liquidate in a financial crash than stocks would. Probably even more so. If you have a diversified portfolio and enough savings so that you don't need to touch your investments then you'll handle crashes like that just fine. The stock market has always bounced back up. Always.

I’m someone who believes landlording is immoral

Wouldn't that then mean that there would be no rental apartments available and everyone would be forced to take a loan and buy a home? To me this kind of thinking is just the opposite far end of the spectrum where as what is optimal is likely somewhere in the middle as is the case with most things.

Youtube and Twitter. Technically Facebook and Instagram too but only to post pictures on my business profile as an advertisement.

Samsung default one seems to get the job done just fine

I couldn't know. Nobody knows that I do either