Setting aside the usual arguments on the anti- and pro-AI art debate and the nature of creativity itself, perhaps the negative reaction that the Redditor encountered is part of a sea change in opinion among many people that think corporate AI platforms are exploitive and extractive in nature because their datasets rely on copyrighted material without the original artists’ permission. And that’s without getting into AI’s negative drag on the environment.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      38 months ago

      That’s not a tool. A tool is something a mind uses to make something. AI is a generator in and of itself, requiring nothing from a mind.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        Of course it does. An AI generator does nothing without a prompt. Give it a bad prompt, and it looks boring and uncreative.

        The idea that you can throw anything (or nothing) into a generator and get something good out is a misconception. I’ve played around with generators, and can’t get much “good” out of them. But I’ve seen amazing looking stuff created by others.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          18 months ago

          yea I’ve also seen amazing stuff created by others. But that’s not what we’re talking about here

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            28 months ago

            It literally is. The person I replied to explicitly said it’s a good tool but has no creativity. I said the creativity comes from the users skill.

            If it’s a tool requiring a user to bring it to its full potential… then again thats what is being talked about.

            These tools do literally nothing unless a user is involved. Be it setting up auto responses to certain text, or explicitly handing it instructions and tweaking as they go.