![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://fry.gs/pictrs/image/c6832070-8625-4688-b9e5-5d519541e092.png)
They want to complain about the glasses, but all the salient points in the thread have been made, so they went with whatever.
They want to complain about the glasses, but all the salient points in the thread have been made, so they went with whatever.
Google search is less than useful nowadays. Google assistant seems to be Google’s inbred idiot cousin. DDG doesn’t seem to be any better. Most of my searches give the same clickbait results that google does.
Honestly, outside of Google Maps, is there any legitimate value to any google product? Is there a single search engine that is brave enough to give 0 results and also literally parses what you’re asking instead of valuating against what the advertisers want you to see?
I dream daily of Google imploding, and every single investor at that useless company going immediately bankrupt and destitute for the disgusting, addled, brain-malware they push.
They deorbit very quickly.
you’re the one doing each and every brushstroke, deciding each and every detail as you draw.
Does Photoshop or any digital art not count? I don’t have to have the skill to draw a perfect circle?
good photography takes skill.
So we should artificially handicap the art at the expense of the lesser abled?
Whereas for AI art, all you’re doing is providing instruction to the AI, that then goes on to make all these decisions
Same as clicking a button on a camera at something that just happens to be beautiful. Does it matter if someone next to me is using the same ISO or exposure?
I don’t have to realize the complexity of lighting, shaders, or materials to render a scene in Unreal. I get to utilize the processes that pioneers before me discovered.
I understand the frustrations, but this seems stifling in the same way that cotton-gin-phobes, typewriter-phobes, and computer-phobes wpuld have stifled the ability of the average joe to accomplish something.
To what degree do you consider AI involvement to be the deal-breaker. My phone uses something arbitrarily akin to generative AI to sharpen photos. If I take a photo with my phone of something novel, should I be able to copywrite that photo?
If I use an AI generated image and spend 24 hours manually tweaking and modifying it, do I have a right to copywrite?
If I use an LLM to synthesize an idea that I then use to organically create art, is it lesser art?
It all seems so arbitrary at this point. It’s like a typist in 2005 arguing that digital word processors shouldn’t be used to create copywritable art, as it takes significantly less work.
Your logic is right, but what he’s meaning is that capitalism exacerbates poverty. When homes, food, healthcare become commodities the people that can’t afford the new norm HAVE to do what they can to survive.
Yes, some-to-most shoplifters may be shoplifting for less than survival reasons, but in the same way many would argue that capital punishment risks the many at the expense of a few, villifying and prosecuting shoplifters risks the legitimate survival of a lot of people.
Do you want to work for a company that will intentionally sabotage themselves? Probably not.
Uh, music is content. Some music has more heart than others, but I wouldn’t say that Target is disgusting because they sell cheap prints and wall art.
People get mad that Steam shows them games. It’s like loading up Netflix, seeing the list of movies, and yelling “look at all of these ads”!
Hey, look, it’s somebody having a strong opinion about something they’re ignorant about!
Or it’s because many grocery chains used COVID as a reason or excuse to raise prices and refuse to lower them despite supply chains healing, during a time where literally everything a modern human needs to survive becomes nearly unreashable expensive.
But sure, it’s because cops aren’t shooting enough shiplifters.
Taking a photo on my phone is literally pointing it at something and pressing a button, yet I own the rights to that.
An argument against the work involved in AI art is fucking stupid, and anybody who makes it is stupid.
Talk about how AI art devalues real art. Talk about how (as it has been popularized), it literally steals from legitimate artists.
The " AI isn’t really work" argument is stupid, and I’m tired of it.
That’s like saying you can control the sun for a photo because you can predict where it will be at a given time.
You’re the one gatekeeping work. Don’t make a dumb argument against your own dumb argument.
If the argument against AI is that it’s too little work, then Photography neesds to step it’s fucking game up.
If the argument against AI is that irrelevant companies get to profit off of others’ work, then say that. Don’t make stupid arguments.
Edit: Do I have direct control of the LLMs that Samsung uses to sharpen the photos on my phone? Do I not still own them? You’re yelling at clouds.
Sooo… some people need starlink?
There’s a physical difference sure, in that one is way easier to use as it’s just a button you press while looking at something.
… you’ve never actually made art, have you?
I drew a pony when I was 6? Does that count? Or does gatekeeping art go that far?
See ya in 10 years, friend. We’ll revisit this conversation.
Photographers must have downvoted you. You don’t have to be skilled to take a really good photo. You do have to be skilled to it regularly, though.
Does my camera own my art, and not me?
From Wikipedia
Around the late 14th century in Europe, smaller and portable hand-held cannons were developed, creating in effect the first smooth-bore personal firearm.