[tovej]

The premise of those comments, just like the premise in this thread, is ridiculous and fantastical.

The only way generative AI has changed the creative arts is that it's made it easier to produce low quality slop.

I would not call that a true transformation. I'd call that saving costs at the expense of quality.

The same is true of software. The difference is, unlike art, quality in software has very clear safety and security implications.

This gen AI hype is just the crypto hype all over again but with a sci-fi twist in the narrative. It's a worse form of work just like crypto was a worse form of money.

[entrox]

I do not disagree, in fact I'm feeling more and more Butlerian with every passing day. However, it is undeniable that a transformation is taking place -- just not necessarily to the better.

[mattmanser]

I still can't get over how bad the coca cola AI generated Xmas advert was. That someone approved it for release too boggles my mind.

And, bizarrely, I've really not bought any since. It's diminished my desire for the brand.

[topocite]

I just don't understand this line of thinking.

Gen AI is the opposite of crypto. The use is immediate, obvious and needs no explanation or philosophizing.

You are basically showing your hand that you have zero intellectual curiosity or you are delusional in your own ability if you have never learned anything from gen AI.

[tovej]

I play with generative AI quite often. Mostly for shits and giggles. It's fun to try to make it hallucinate in the dumbest way possible. Or to make up context.

E.g. try to make any image generating model take an existing photo of a humanoid and change it so the character does a backflip.

It's also interesting to generate images in a long loop, because it usually reveals interesting patterns in the training data.

Outside these distractions I've never had generative AI be useful. And I'm currently working in AI research.