As an artist, all y’all need to chill. The problem is capitalism, and it’s not like artists make a living anyway. Democratizing art opens up a lot of possibilities, you technophobes.
Easy. Don’t work a job or pay rent. Anarchism already exists. It just exists in the crannies (like right in front of you) where other domineering primates don’t beat you with sticks or boss you around. You don’t fix the system. You ignore it.
think more. if i draw something that looks nice on paper, and at the same time am fine with asking chatgpt to solve a math problem, why would my views on ai affect me being an artist or not?
Because ChatGPT is trained on stolen data and using it for any reason is participating in that theft while simultaneously causing a significant impact to the environment.
So I guess your right; it has no bearing on whether you’re an artist or not, but whether you’re a decent person. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what if you used an ai trained on uncopyrighted, public data, and made sure that the computers training it were using solar power or some environmentally friendly energy source?
On the surface. But, you’re being rhetorical, in the original sense of the word. You can link words together but fail to do logic. You’re doing duckspeak, quack quack
The early 20th century? I’d say physical philosophy would beg to differ, and do you see how you just killed your own argument by citing a time period? I think ideas don’t have value and that intellectual property stifles innovation. You had me in the first half, where I assumed you meant that people don’t just intuit new ideas from nowhere, then you cited a date and lost me.
do you see how you just killed your own argument by citing a time period?
no. all art prior to that period was just refinement of forms that go back to pre-history. the 20th century introduced ‘modern art’, which basically solidified the idea that anything can be art.
As an artist, all y’all need to chill. The problem is capitalism, and it’s not like artists make a living anyway. Democratizing art opens up a lot of possibilities, you technophobes.
End capitalism, then. I’m waiting.
Easy. Don’t work a job or pay rent. Anarchism already exists. It just exists in the crannies (like right in front of you) where other domineering primates don’t beat you with sticks or boss you around. You don’t fix the system. You ignore it.
I’ll tell that to the IRS the next time I refuse to pay taxes.
You’re not an artist if you think AI is OK.
think more. if i draw something that looks nice on paper, and at the same time am fine with asking chatgpt to solve a math problem, why would my views on ai affect me being an artist or not?
Because ChatGPT is trained on stolen data and using it for any reason is participating in that theft while simultaneously causing a significant impact to the environment.
So I guess your right; it has no bearing on whether you’re an artist or not, but whether you’re a decent person. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what if you used an ai trained on uncopyrighted, public data, and made sure that the computers training it were using solar power or some environmentally friendly energy source?
Let me know when this happens then I’ll answer.
But you see my point, right? There is a point at which this stuff isn’t actually that bad.
It has the potential to be useful, yes. It isn’t currently and the path we’re on with it is already irredeemable.
You have no comprehension of relevance.
No I’m pretty sure I do.
On the surface. But, you’re being rhetorical, in the original sense of the word. You can link words together but fail to do logic. You’re doing duckspeak, quack quack
all art is stolen. no one has had an original idea since the early 20th century.
Ideas are not art.
PROJECTING
ART HISTORY. read a fucking book sometime.
The early 20th century? I’d say physical philosophy would beg to differ, and do you see how you just killed your own argument by citing a time period? I think ideas don’t have value and that intellectual property stifles innovation. You had me in the first half, where I assumed you meant that people don’t just intuit new ideas from nowhere, then you cited a date and lost me.
no. all art prior to that period was just refinement of forms that go back to pre-history. the 20th century introduced ‘modern art’, which basically solidified the idea that anything can be art.
You’re just gatekeeping, not looking at what makes art that
saying that anything can be art is gatekeeping? ok buddy.