|
USENET, as I recall, was really dominated by the very small minority of the populate of mostly college students/faculty who had access to the then tiny internet. It wasn't until AOL that the internet was turned into shite.. by letting the unwashed masses online. As for AI images being horrible, I disagree 100%. If I, as an independent artist, had made some water colors, chalk, or line drawings of the Hollywood sign burning, would that be so horrible? What if I did a photo-realistic oil painting, like John Baeder's, "that couldn't easily be distinguised from the real thing" - and they were widely circulated as "photographs" and confused with same - would that be so horrible? Is there a real need to see real images of the Hollywood sign aflame versus an AI generated one? As long as it happened, the two images tell roughly the same information. And even if it's untrue, it's not like a burnt or unburnt sign matters that much either way. And there's an idea that all mediums produce a certain bias, I think McLuhan's Medium is the Message had some ideas along those lines. The act of taking a particular photograph is, itself, a subjective and biased action. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's an idea. |