Comment by 1718627440
12 hours ago
> Formulaic
Also formulaic art isn't necessarily bad, because human appreciation does follow some patterns.
12 hours ago
> Formulaic
Also formulaic art isn't necessarily bad, because human appreciation does follow some patterns.
Agree. I didn’t say bad. I said that the adjectives that people use to describe ai slop are as applicable to human creations as to ai.
There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art (my pet peeve is many “instrumental guitar albums” that are just pentatonic scale and standard licks in all shapes and forms) and ai art can be good.
I will say even more. I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great. Critics will be in ave “triumphant return to old form” and everybody will avoid looking in the eyes and say the truth about how they were able to write new good songs, given that they weren’t able to do it in like decades.
> Agree. I didn’t say bad.
In fairness, you did say “even worse”. That’s not an expression one tends to use unless calling something bad. I can’t imagine someone saying “this is the best album ever, and even worse this is the second best”.
> There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art
There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box. Even the people who used to wax lyrically about “prompt engineering” have mostly subsided. AI pictures (not necessarily “art”, I don’t think that term should apply to any random image, even from humans) created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.
> and ai art can be good.
What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.
> I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great.
Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it? Then sure, can’t argue there. Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure. I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.
Language barrier, sorry.
For “even worse” - I meant different, and I think your analogy is unfair.
One can say something like “this is not your best job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even worse, I know you could do much better, like a woodworker”. And nothing here says that the job is _bad_.
But again, my native language is not English and the way I say things may surely sound unnatural.
——
How going back to your argument. You already subtly move goalposts and give humans mich more benefit of the doubt and leeway than you give to ai.
> There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box.
There sure is. And that’s what separates results. Most of the things that I enjoy are clearly have good deal of thought in inventing lyrics (again, I watch lore channels and the way the lyrics are made is clear that there is a good amount of thought, prompt and maybe even manual tinkering), in doing montage of videos. I’m skeptical about prompt engineering but your criticism here is as same as painters criticizing photographers: “they just press the button”.
> created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.
I used to thing along this line too, but later I realized that this is not an argument in any favor. Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors - costumes of wrong epoch, or made wrong way, or worn wrong way. Wrong guns, wrong ammo etc etc etc. I saw some pro criticising ai generated picture of a woman on a horse, and it was about same - the things used to steer the horse are like upside down, some other things don’t make sense. And then it clicked to me - it doesn’t matter. It isn’t unique to ai. Humans did same stuff forever. As long as result is enjoyable, it’s fine.
> and ai art can be good. What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.
This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc. On first albums of Metallica you almost can hear how they are learning and getting better (except drummer). Yes, if it’s pleasing enough people and bringing joy to their life then it’s ok. It doesn’t matter is it ai or human. Again, there are many cases in music when apparently the solos weren’t played by artists but by uncredited session musicians. Is it slop? Musician acted as tool here.
> Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it?
Fans like it. Not only me. It brings new fans or even casuals may enjoy it
> Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure.
You do you. It’s fine.
> I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.
Why Metallica does new albums? They already have enough super hits, that stood test of time even By your definition (decades) to not care. Why other bands do the same?
—-
In very short. To me it feels that there is an attempt to steer into public conscience that
And I disagree with that wholeheartedly. To me
No matter who produces it. Yes, unfortunately ai enables slop generation significantly easier. I hate searching for reviews or even analysis now, but it isn’t unique. Netflix documentary was a meme like 5-10 years ago already, if not more. And many of them are are exactly what ai slop is today, made by humans though.
3 replies →