It's certainly one of the reasons yes. Another is that your average leftoid has a grossly inflated idea of their own value and truly thinks that mediocre scribblers on the internet truly represents their bohemian idyll.
There is an entire industry of Leftists who believe its not only acceptable but cheap to charge people hundreds of dollars for a black and white drawing of some character, no background. And that you should be forced to wait in line for such a great offering. That's before getting into the porn side, which felt even more comfortable in their niche as "the only guy drawing this specific thing."
They all want to be the "Elite's Chosen Money Launderer" being able to live as an artist making lots of money on silly scribbles, so they forced the industry to accept ridiculous prices as the default to feed their ego and laziness. And AI represents the breaking of that monopoly.
Yes, they want to be known as good artists and feel important rather than for the sake of good art. For somebody who just wanted more good art, then they would welcome more tools for the sake of creativity and fast prototyping.
It's the same reason they always demand recognition like having people credit them and being upset about having their art they posted for free online being "stolen" and posted elsewhere, because they aren't getting attention from it.
For somebody who just wanted more good art, then they would welcome more tools for the sake of creativity and fast prototyping.
They do. But that's not what the generative ai slop is. The digital sculptors are largely all on board with ai powered auto uv unwrap and remeshing stuff for example. It's just tedious work that gets in the way of the more enjoyable creative parts of the process, is done algorithmically anyway by a lot of people, and depending on the workflow, doesn't have to be all that good, just passable. If you're making a 3d render of your collectable figurine, near enough is good enough for the UVs and mesh. You don't need it perfect like a video game or cgi movie face would need to be. And then when you go to 3d print it, the majority of people absolutely rely on some automations and algorithms for orientation, hollowing and supports. Because it's tedious. You'd go in and manually check it after, and maybe redo a few pieces, but yeah, people use the automated tools for this all the time.
They're generally on board (if they weren't grognard anti-digital purists) with ai for those purposes. We could call this the 'technical' or 'tool' or 'tedium' ai tools. The artists are generally on board with this style of ai, and more would be if it were only this. It's generative ai where the problems are.
Generative ai proponents say that it (generative ai) can be used as a tool to enhance or speed up creativity or prototypes or as a reference.
No it can't be used for references, because it's not accurate. AI hallucinates things. Anatomy and details. So do other artists of course, but for the artist seeking references, that's then a choice that make and you'd deliberately have some reference of both types, some of the references you'd grab are real photos, and then for the other references you'd grab other artist's work for style and potentially pose and composition or 'fun details' but with the understanding that the anatomy/details might be wrong or deliberately ignored in parts to make the pose and composition work, or just for the sake of it looking cool. And you might say that that's what AI does too. But it's not, it's creating a plausible guess based on text associations about what a thing might look like, without it actually being accurate. So it can't be used for the first use case, anatomy/detail reference. And for style and comp? Just use the artist's art. You typed their name into the prompt (or got around in-built restrictions on that with other tools), or used a lora that is trained only on their art. Why take the inferior copy when you've got their art right there, just use their art. So it's not great for the other use case either. The only place left for ai in terms of reference is a kind of paradoilic rorschach style of reference which some artists like to use, where the original idea is drawn out from splotches or randomness. I'm not usually a fan of this, it feels too 'fluffy/airy' for me, but I will occasionally draw ideas from the water on the glass in the shower for this, the steam and water coming together in shapes. Even if we grant that ai can help with that style of 'reference', for that you only need the general sense of it, and Dalle-1 the trial version that was shitting out indistinct nonsense could do this 4 years ago.
But not only is it effectively useless for reference, it's made searching for reference so much harder than it used to be. That's the other issue and part of why artists are getting so annoyed by it. Not only is it not much use, generative ai has actually made things worse. They want a good reference, and searching for that is just bringing up thousands of crap images. 'baby peacock' is the classic example at the moment, the one people are pointing to. Try googling it and you'll find a lot of garbage. But this is happening with everything and often in far subtler ways than the peacock thing making it actually even more annoying. Thousands of seemingly plausible but inaccurate images that we do not want hiding everywhere. Good and accurate reference is becoming harder to find because of the generative ai shitting up the internet (and google searching by date hasn't been accurate for a good 8 years or so). And so it's actually making art harder to do, right at the very start of the process.
It's a huge shame the right ceded the arts to the left, because this then creates a lack of understanding of the process on the right, and a desire to hurt them (artists), or at least an indifference to their struggles. And that's natural. But I would rather see good art reclaimed by the right, and the left's trash thrown out, rather than have both burnt down. Generative Ai is not helping make good art. It is hindering it.
(UVs are the squares that determine the surface of your 3d model, that you then paint or project the textures onto, once you’ve sculpted everything. Think of your model as an orange, and you want to unpeel it and make it flat with as few seams as possible and with those seams on the rear side or up at the naval of the orange, so there isn't a nasty seam in the colours. And you want all the squares generally even in shape and size so any textures aren't stretched out. It's just tedious to do)
Generative ai proponents say that it (generative ai) can be used as a tool to enhance or speed up creativity or prototypes or as a reference.
Because it is good for prototyping and concept art.
All your yapping following doesn't matter to that. Small inconsistencies are not important for that.
Not really AI, is it? More like an automated script that actually knows what you want doing.
Anatomy and details
AI got over the "six finger" thing about two years ago, my man. Provided you have a competent, trained model the errors you'll experience won't be that much worse than an average paid artist's.
The rest
I'm not going to address every point individually, just that most of the slop you see is the natural end result of granting internet access to hundreds of millions of turdworlders who lack the brain capacity to know what's good and what's slop, or even what's real and what's fake (as the three-headed African talent show singer has recently proven). You cannot grade what people with functioning neocortices desire over the basal lusts of those who are barely above animals.
The progression of AI as it develops is not going to be stopped. And the leaps and bounds it's made in the last 10 years is an incredible feat of engineering, given that in 2015 it could barely draw a cow in a field. And leftists are running scared because they thought they could colonize all of the arts and charge whatever they wanted for any old shit.
A decade ago the 'creative class' believed the working class would soon be made obsolete through automation, and all the right-wing factory workers and coal miners would have to either grovel for entry level office jobs where they'd be at the mercy of browbeating HR commissars, or become destitute and starve. Turns out replacing everyone with robots isn't going to happen for a while because that shit is expensive and difficult (can attest, I work at a plant where they've been trying to automate and it's been a boondoggle). Meanwhile AI is advancing so much that it will seemingly make many writing, illustrating, animating, and coding jobs obsolete soon. A lot sooner than manual labor jobs, that's for sure.
You've not seen databricks helper fuck up the way I've seen it fuck up.
We are in no danger of AI becoming the next UNISYS MAPPER (the marketing pitch), because AI is the next UNISYS MAPPER (the actual product): great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else.
great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else
This is pretty much my take on it. Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity. There are a handful of people I trust who endorse it, but when pressed about it you'll discover that their process for extracting useful results from it involves so much fiddling and exacting specification that you may as well just write the code yourself because you pretty much already have and the extra time it'll take to debug the hallucinations makes it a wash or net negative.
Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity.
Uhh ... I'm currently using Grok to help me work on and analyze a novel algorithm. ~2k lines of pretty dense C++ code with lots of math, bit twiddling, and custom data structures (think interleaved linked lists stored in a single std::vector).
I'm continually astounded by how deeply it understands the operation of the code. I ask it to generate unit tests for edge cases and it just does it. I point out a bug in the output and ask it for a solution and it nearly always gives me a good starting point to get it fixed, if not an outright fix.
It's really damn impressive. It's definitely not perfect, but if I'd had access to this earlier on the project, I have already identified several months worth of hacking and experimentation that it would have saved because its suggestions are that good.
I've not touched Grok so maybe that's better than the handful of models I've tried. I think there's probably some measure of utility in using it as a summary generator, but I remain steadfast in my wariness of it as a tool to generate code.
As a code generator? No, not there yet. I've had it generate some code and it's not terrible but you really have to prod it a lot to not generate extremely inefficient slop (e.g. doing dumb stuff like auto foo = bar - baz; if (foo < 0) ... instead of if (bar < baz) ... ). In general, writing the code isn't the hard part; it can just be tedious in some situations.
But as an analysis tool, it's absolutely fantastic. And given that, it's only a matter of time until the code comes with it.
I'd recommend giving it a try. Hit it with the trickiest bit of code you've ever written. My jaw was on my desk for the first week I was using it, and I paid for the subscription after I hit the 2-hour-15 question limit because I could immediately see the utility.
The pushback against AI has been so otherworldly levels of strong because the current crop of gatekeepers realize that a parallel industry isn't only about to spring up, it's about to leave them in the dust.
The working class cannot afford basic art commissions anymore; paying some faggot on DeviantArt $90 for a basic line drawing, $150 to have it colored, and $200 for shading isn't a worthwhile investment for someone who has much more productive avenues to spend their money in. Especially if the quality of the art isn't frankly worth an investment of that size.
Similarly, the answer isn't just as simple as "picking up a pen" (read this so many times the past two years I want to take that pen and shove it up their asses) when you've got a job to do >50 hours a week or more that your livelihood depends on. Broke my back on bricks for 8 hours - what do I want to do now that I'm back? Rest, or draw? Rich faggots like Pewdiepie can take up art whenever they want because the worry of money is completely gone for them. Furthermore, not only do you have to be well-rested and flush with cash, but you also have to have a degree of innate skill that no amount of tutelage can bestow you that you can then build on. If you're shit at drawing at age 14, you'll probably still be shit at 34 because the development your skill should have underwent by that point didn't happen. It's like playing pro football (or any type of sport); if you're not good at it as a kid, you aren't magically going to become a god at it as an adult. The same goes for art. We don't tell football enthusiasts who can't even do a basic tackle to learn to play the sport before they're allowed to appreciate it.
Then there's all the other drawbacks that come with hiring a flesh and bone artist; delays, injection of personal political views, and the worst of all, flat-out rejection depending on what it is you actually want. Take something like lolicon for instance; regardless if there's sexual content in there or not, no artist in the Western hemisphere is going to touch such a commission with a 20 ft barge pole these days and will likely even rat you out to the authorities. So why take the risk? Just create an AI model in your preferred artstyle and churn away. Cut out the money-grubbing middleman and spare yourself the blowback.
Grey DeLisle's chimpout over that one animator who used a synthesized version of her voice is another good reason as to why so many of these fuckers need curbstomping back to reality and shut out now that we hold the cards, no matter how famous they may be. Where was this homewrecking harpy's objections in the days of YTP when we manually sentence mixed material such as hers?
The worst part is, so many of the chucklefucks who spread the biggest amount of propaganda concerning AI (such as "stealing" artworks - if that's the case, then tracing and sampling are also types of stealing by the same logic, or the supposed environmental impact it causes) are the people who stand to benefit the most from it. If you're already a great artist, there's no reason you shouldn't be seeking to maximize your profit by creating a model to replicate your style and rapidly cut down development time by letting the machine get the basic line work down for instance.
In the next 10 years, Ideas Guys will inherit the Earth and its many arts. And it will be infinitely all the better for it.
I've used AI to generate some concept art for myself. Then I did the actual animation work myself. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't want to generate everything through AI, but you're a fool if you don't see how useful it can be for kickstarting and assisting with art.
i've generated filler art and used it directly in a product. of course i could've scoured the internet and buy some fitting stock art, but quality wise there's no difference
Vibe Coding destroys their industry as well. AI makes the code, assets, and other parts and you put it together. Suddenly a skilled idea guy can take over an entire buildings worth of people.
"Vibe coding" is like having an army of juniors committing straight to master. You can shit out a lot of code quickly but the errors and technical debt compound over time.
My colleague and I have surmised that it's the equivalent of creating legacy code and all the associated tech debt in real time. Once that code starts making it back into the training data it'll just compound on itself and bring the whole thing tumbling down.
I was already mad at people for writing godawful code and this technology is only going to make everything worse.
As a leftist I don’t like A.I. because the i is on the right side of the keyboard. You are literally going from left to right while typing it in. This is an alt right dog whistle.
Nobody likes AI because it produces slop. Slop code, slop art. It's not intelligence. It's an algorithm vomiting out mashed together assets. Only corporats prefer it to hiring humans, and the consequences will be felt.
Can't escape Sturgeons law. 90% of everything is shit. No exceptions. At least this way we don't have to deal with the glorified prostitutes with the over inflated sense of self worth.
I wonder how many contortions he had to go through to trick the AI into making this, and how much better the video could've been if AI wasn't jewed to the fucking hilt.
It's mostly the same friend vs enemy political divide as everything else. You can identify an enemy 100% of the time if they started saying "slop" last year.
On the one hand, AI devaluing the "work" of leftists is a huge plus. On the other hand, I’m sick and tired of seeing AIslop everywhere. It was a nice novelty a couple years ago, but that’s about it, and no it hasn’t improved exponentially as many people claim.
I think most good, politically non-left artists will be apprehensive at least either because they're too set in their ways to change or because they'll see too many faults of the tech before seeing the benefits.
It's certainly one of the reasons yes. Another is that your average leftoid has a grossly inflated idea of their own value and truly thinks that mediocre scribblers on the internet truly represents their bohemian idyll.
There is an entire industry of Leftists who believe its not only acceptable but cheap to charge people hundreds of dollars for a black and white drawing of some character, no background. And that you should be forced to wait in line for such a great offering. That's before getting into the porn side, which felt even more comfortable in their niche as "the only guy drawing this specific thing."
They all want to be the "Elite's Chosen Money Launderer" being able to live as an artist making lots of money on silly scribbles, so they forced the industry to accept ridiculous prices as the default to feed their ego and laziness. And AI represents the breaking of that monopoly.
Yes, they want to be known as good artists and feel important rather than for the sake of good art. For somebody who just wanted more good art, then they would welcome more tools for the sake of creativity and fast prototyping.
It's the same reason they always demand recognition like having people credit them and being upset about having their art they posted for free online being "stolen" and posted elsewhere, because they aren't getting attention from it.
They do. But that's not what the generative ai slop is. The digital sculptors are largely all on board with ai powered auto uv unwrap and remeshing stuff for example. It's just tedious work that gets in the way of the more enjoyable creative parts of the process, is done algorithmically anyway by a lot of people, and depending on the workflow, doesn't have to be all that good, just passable. If you're making a 3d render of your collectable figurine, near enough is good enough for the UVs and mesh. You don't need it perfect like a video game or cgi movie face would need to be. And then when you go to 3d print it, the majority of people absolutely rely on some automations and algorithms for orientation, hollowing and supports. Because it's tedious. You'd go in and manually check it after, and maybe redo a few pieces, but yeah, people use the automated tools for this all the time.
They're generally on board (if they weren't grognard anti-digital purists) with ai for those purposes. We could call this the 'technical' or 'tool' or 'tedium' ai tools. The artists are generally on board with this style of ai, and more would be if it were only this. It's generative ai where the problems are.
Generative ai proponents say that it (generative ai) can be used as a tool to enhance or speed up creativity or prototypes or as a reference.
No it can't be used for references, because it's not accurate. AI hallucinates things. Anatomy and details. So do other artists of course, but for the artist seeking references, that's then a choice that make and you'd deliberately have some reference of both types, some of the references you'd grab are real photos, and then for the other references you'd grab other artist's work for style and potentially pose and composition or 'fun details' but with the understanding that the anatomy/details might be wrong or deliberately ignored in parts to make the pose and composition work, or just for the sake of it looking cool. And you might say that that's what AI does too. But it's not, it's creating a plausible guess based on text associations about what a thing might look like, without it actually being accurate. So it can't be used for the first use case, anatomy/detail reference. And for style and comp? Just use the artist's art. You typed their name into the prompt (or got around in-built restrictions on that with other tools), or used a lora that is trained only on their art. Why take the inferior copy when you've got their art right there, just use their art. So it's not great for the other use case either. The only place left for ai in terms of reference is a kind of paradoilic rorschach style of reference which some artists like to use, where the original idea is drawn out from splotches or randomness. I'm not usually a fan of this, it feels too 'fluffy/airy' for me, but I will occasionally draw ideas from the water on the glass in the shower for this, the steam and water coming together in shapes. Even if we grant that ai can help with that style of 'reference', for that you only need the general sense of it, and Dalle-1 the trial version that was shitting out indistinct nonsense could do this 4 years ago.
But not only is it effectively useless for reference, it's made searching for reference so much harder than it used to be. That's the other issue and part of why artists are getting so annoyed by it. Not only is it not much use, generative ai has actually made things worse. They want a good reference, and searching for that is just bringing up thousands of crap images. 'baby peacock' is the classic example at the moment, the one people are pointing to. Try googling it and you'll find a lot of garbage. But this is happening with everything and often in far subtler ways than the peacock thing making it actually even more annoying. Thousands of seemingly plausible but inaccurate images that we do not want hiding everywhere. Good and accurate reference is becoming harder to find because of the generative ai shitting up the internet (and google searching by date hasn't been accurate for a good 8 years or so). And so it's actually making art harder to do, right at the very start of the process.
It's a huge shame the right ceded the arts to the left, because this then creates a lack of understanding of the process on the right, and a desire to hurt them (artists), or at least an indifference to their struggles. And that's natural. But I would rather see good art reclaimed by the right, and the left's trash thrown out, rather than have both burnt down. Generative Ai is not helping make good art. It is hindering it.
(UVs are the squares that determine the surface of your 3d model, that you then paint or project the textures onto, once you’ve sculpted everything. Think of your model as an orange, and you want to unpeel it and make it flat with as few seams as possible and with those seams on the rear side or up at the naval of the orange, so there isn't a nasty seam in the colours. And you want all the squares generally even in shape and size so any textures aren't stretched out. It's just tedious to do)
Because it is good for prototyping and concept art.
All your yapping following doesn't matter to that. Small inconsistencies are not important for that.
All of that, and it would still be preferable to dealing with the internet "art" community.
They are just that obnoxious.
Cool story.
Not really AI, is it? More like an automated script that actually knows what you want doing.
AI got over the "six finger" thing about two years ago, my man. Provided you have a competent, trained model the errors you'll experience won't be that much worse than an average paid artist's.
I'm not going to address every point individually, just that most of the slop you see is the natural end result of granting internet access to hundreds of millions of turdworlders who lack the brain capacity to know what's good and what's slop, or even what's real and what's fake (as the three-headed African talent show singer has recently proven). You cannot grade what people with functioning neocortices desire over the basal lusts of those who are barely above animals.
The progression of AI as it develops is not going to be stopped. And the leaps and bounds it's made in the last 10 years is an incredible feat of engineering, given that in 2015 it could barely draw a cow in a field. And leftists are running scared because they thought they could colonize all of the arts and charge whatever they wanted for any old shit.
A decade ago the 'creative class' believed the working class would soon be made obsolete through automation, and all the right-wing factory workers and coal miners would have to either grovel for entry level office jobs where they'd be at the mercy of browbeating HR commissars, or become destitute and starve. Turns out replacing everyone with robots isn't going to happen for a while because that shit is expensive and difficult (can attest, I work at a plant where they've been trying to automate and it's been a boondoggle). Meanwhile AI is advancing so much that it will seemingly make many writing, illustrating, animating, and coding jobs obsolete soon. A lot sooner than manual labor jobs, that's for sure.
You've not seen databricks helper fuck up the way I've seen it fuck up.
We are in no danger of AI becoming the next UNISYS MAPPER (the marketing pitch), because AI is the next UNISYS MAPPER (the actual product): great for the trivial cases, and fucking terrible at anything else.
So it makes pajeet codemonkeys obsolete.
It's the exact same Stack Overflow -> production pipeline, but with fewer typos and cut/paste errors.
Sounds good to me!
What do you think it's trained on?
This is pretty much my take on it. Everyone singing its praises has never built anything of worthwhile complexity. There are a handful of people I trust who endorse it, but when pressed about it you'll discover that their process for extracting useful results from it involves so much fiddling and exacting specification that you may as well just write the code yourself because you pretty much already have and the extra time it'll take to debug the hallucinations makes it a wash or net negative.
Uhh ... I'm currently using Grok to help me work on and analyze a novel algorithm. ~2k lines of pretty dense C++ code with lots of math, bit twiddling, and custom data structures (think interleaved linked lists stored in a single std::vector).
I'm continually astounded by how deeply it understands the operation of the code. I ask it to generate unit tests for edge cases and it just does it. I point out a bug in the output and ask it for a solution and it nearly always gives me a good starting point to get it fixed, if not an outright fix.
It's really damn impressive. It's definitely not perfect, but if I'd had access to this earlier on the project, I have already identified several months worth of hacking and experimentation that it would have saved because its suggestions are that good.
I've not touched Grok so maybe that's better than the handful of models I've tried. I think there's probably some measure of utility in using it as a summary generator, but I remain steadfast in my wariness of it as a tool to generate code.
As a code generator? No, not there yet. I've had it generate some code and it's not terrible but you really have to prod it a lot to not generate extremely inefficient slop (e.g. doing dumb stuff like auto foo = bar - baz; if (foo < 0) ... instead of if (bar < baz) ... ). In general, writing the code isn't the hard part; it can just be tedious in some situations.
But as an analysis tool, it's absolutely fantastic. And given that, it's only a matter of time until the code comes with it.
I'd recommend giving it a try. Hit it with the trickiest bit of code you've ever written. My jaw was on my desk for the first week I was using it, and I paid for the subscription after I hit the 2-hour-15 question limit because I could immediately see the utility.
Leftists hate AI because most leftist artists are worthless hacks.
The pushback against AI has been so otherworldly levels of strong because the current crop of gatekeepers realize that a parallel industry isn't only about to spring up, it's about to leave them in the dust.
The working class cannot afford basic art commissions anymore; paying some faggot on DeviantArt $90 for a basic line drawing, $150 to have it colored, and $200 for shading isn't a worthwhile investment for someone who has much more productive avenues to spend their money in. Especially if the quality of the art isn't frankly worth an investment of that size.
Similarly, the answer isn't just as simple as "picking up a pen" (read this so many times the past two years I want to take that pen and shove it up their asses) when you've got a job to do >50 hours a week or more that your livelihood depends on. Broke my back on bricks for 8 hours - what do I want to do now that I'm back? Rest, or draw? Rich faggots like Pewdiepie can take up art whenever they want because the worry of money is completely gone for them. Furthermore, not only do you have to be well-rested and flush with cash, but you also have to have a degree of innate skill that no amount of tutelage can bestow you that you can then build on. If you're shit at drawing at age 14, you'll probably still be shit at 34 because the development your skill should have underwent by that point didn't happen. It's like playing pro football (or any type of sport); if you're not good at it as a kid, you aren't magically going to become a god at it as an adult. The same goes for art. We don't tell football enthusiasts who can't even do a basic tackle to learn to play the sport before they're allowed to appreciate it.
Then there's all the other drawbacks that come with hiring a flesh and bone artist; delays, injection of personal political views, and the worst of all, flat-out rejection depending on what it is you actually want. Take something like lolicon for instance; regardless if there's sexual content in there or not, no artist in the Western hemisphere is going to touch such a commission with a 20 ft barge pole these days and will likely even rat you out to the authorities. So why take the risk? Just create an AI model in your preferred artstyle and churn away. Cut out the money-grubbing middleman and spare yourself the blowback.
Grey DeLisle's chimpout over that one animator who used a synthesized version of her voice is another good reason as to why so many of these fuckers need curbstomping back to reality and shut out now that we hold the cards, no matter how famous they may be. Where was this homewrecking harpy's objections in the days of YTP when we manually sentence mixed material such as hers?
The worst part is, so many of the chucklefucks who spread the biggest amount of propaganda concerning AI (such as "stealing" artworks - if that's the case, then tracing and sampling are also types of stealing by the same logic, or the supposed environmental impact it causes) are the people who stand to benefit the most from it. If you're already a great artist, there's no reason you shouldn't be seeking to maximize your profit by creating a model to replicate your style and rapidly cut down development time by letting the machine get the basic line work down for instance.
In the next 10 years, Ideas Guys will inherit the Earth and its many arts. And it will be infinitely all the better for it.
Artists think they are the shapers of culture, see also intelligentsia.
They thought they were untouchable until some years ago, they don't care if robots replace blue collar workers because they see them as uneducated.
I've used AI to generate some concept art for myself. Then I did the actual animation work myself. It's a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't want to generate everything through AI, but you're a fool if you don't see how useful it can be for kickstarting and assisting with art.
i've generated filler art and used it directly in a product. of course i could've scoured the internet and buy some fitting stock art, but quality wise there's no difference
to be fair, I can respect miyazaki's position on the issue. he's been relatively consistent on his stance against using ai.
Vibe Coding destroys their industry as well. AI makes the code, assets, and other parts and you put it together. Suddenly a skilled idea guy can take over an entire buildings worth of people.
"Vibe coding" is like having an army of juniors committing straight to master. You can shit out a lot of code quickly but the errors and technical debt compound over time.
My colleague and I have surmised that it's the equivalent of creating legacy code and all the associated tech debt in real time. Once that code starts making it back into the training data it'll just compound on itself and bring the whole thing tumbling down.
I was already mad at people for writing godawful code and this technology is only going to make everything worse.
We've needed something like that since modding and flash have been overcomplicated or killed.
As a leftist I don’t like A.I. because the i is on the right side of the keyboard. You are literally going from left to right while typing it in. This is an alt right dog whistle.
"Just pick up a pencil waaah!" Is also another reason, but who cares? It's fun making shitpost material lol
That is 100% the reason
Nobody likes AI because it produces slop. Slop code, slop art. It's not intelligence. It's an algorithm vomiting out mashed together assets. Only corporats prefer it to hiring humans, and the consequences will be felt.
Literally describes over half the people in the entertainment industry.
You're not wrong, but that doesn't mean we need to replace garbage with slop. Just get rid of the garbage.
Can't escape Sturgeons law. 90% of everything is shit. No exceptions. At least this way we don't have to deal with the glorified prostitutes with the over inflated sense of self worth.
I wonder how many contortions he had to go through to trick the AI into making this, and how much better the video could've been if AI wasn't jewed to the fucking hilt.
I watched it through xcancel. The EU doesn't have freedom of speech.
It's mostly the same friend vs enemy political divide as everything else. You can identify an enemy 100% of the time if they started saying "slop" last year.
Chuck Jones: "Each of you has 100,000 bad drawings inside you. Start getting rid of them now."
Us: "Work smarter, not harder."
On the one hand, AI devaluing the "work" of leftists is a huge plus. On the other hand, I’m sick and tired of seeing AIslop everywhere. It was a nice novelty a couple years ago, but that’s about it, and no it hasn’t improved exponentially as many people claim.
I think most good, politically non-left artists will be apprehensive at least either because they're too set in their ways to change or because they'll see too many faults of the tech before seeing the benefits.