• Sterile_Technique@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      24·
      11 days ago

      The criticism isn’t so much for AI itself, but for the mediocrity it enables.

      Remember in elementary school when you were learning basic addition and subtraction? And that your teacher wouldn’t let you use a calculator even though it was capable of getting the job done (and without hallucinating bullshit numbers!)?

      You teacher wasn’t ‘anti calculator’, they just recognized that tool as being harmful to their goal of training you to actually think.

      AI is a tool. There are some things hammers do a really good job of, but in today’s world they’re used in everything. Want to apply paint to your car? Hammer. Do the dishes? Hammer. Brush your teeth? Hammer. It’s stupid, and not at all helpful. So now we’ve got a counter-culture growing of “fuck hammers!” in response to that stupid, but hammers aren’t really the problem… the problem is the stupid. Fuck hammers.

                • pelespirit@sh.itjust.works
                  101·
                  11 days ago

                  you seem like a failed artist to have that much salt…

                  so let me try again.

                  what i think of the art is irrelevant, im explaining how it produces results.

                  if most art was good, there would be a lot more museums.

                  i think most people would agree good art is exceptional - which means its above average. which means that the majority of art is mediocre at best.

                  again, my opinion of any particular art does not matter in this explanation so please hold back on the LDE in your reply.

                  I got the best laugh out of this. Thank you, you made my day. Especially, this part:

                  if most art was good, there would be a lot more museums.

                  Edit: I can’t decide if I want to upvote you or downvote you, I think you actually believe what you’re saying.