Asklemmy

44380 readers

1361 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

What is the legitimate use-case for generative AI? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 4 days ago by B1naryB0t@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I promise this question is asked in good faith. I do not currently see the point of generative AI and I want to understand why there's hype. There are ethical concerns but we'll ignore ethics for the question.

In creative works like writing or art, it feels soulless and poor quality. In programming at best it's a shortcut to avoid deeper learning, at worst it spits out garbage code that you spend more time debugging than if you had just written it by yourself.

When I see AI ads directed towards individuals the selling point is convenience. But I would feel robbed of the human experience using AI in place of human interaction.

So what's the point of it all?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like the indistinguishability implied by this undercuts the communicative properties of the human art, no? I suppose AI might not be able to make a coherent Banksy, but not every artist is Banksy.

If you can't tell if something was made by Unstable or Rutkowski, isn't it fair to say either neither work has soul (or a message), or both must?

[–] nairui@lemmy.world 1 points 36 minutes ago

That is only if one assumes the purpose of art is its effect on the viewer which is only one purpose. Think of your favorite work of art, fiction, music, did it make you feel connected to something, another person? Imagine a lonely individual who connected with the loneliness in a musical artist’s lyrics, what would be the purpose of that artist turned out to be an algorithm?

Banksy, maybe Rutkowski, and other artists have created a distinct language (in this case visual) that an algorithm can only replicate. Consider the fact that generative AI cannot successfully generate an image of a full glass of wine, since they’re not commonly photographed.

I do think that the technology itself is interesting for those that use it in original works that are intended to be about algorithms themselves like those surreal videos, I find those really interesting. But in the case of passing off algorithmic output as original art, like that guy who won that competition with an AI generated image, or when Spotify creates algorithmically generated music, to me that’s not art.