I think you can't tell the difference until the "art" shows details of something you know well -- a place you've been, out a hobby or sport you do.
I'm thinking of this awful slop "art" I saw on Wayfair yesterday. As a surfer, it's hilarious. That's not how you stand on a board. It's not even a board. And the wave is terrible-- nobody wants to surf shorebreak like that! https://www.wayfair.com/decor-pillows/pdp/design-art-4-hawai...
I guess it could be a useful signal-- if you meet someone and they have it up in their home, you know they don't surf.
More generally, I think anything AI produces that's dense with factual details is inherently trash.
I was just reading comments the other day where people who dragging a company because they apparently used AI for some low level copywriting stuff. No art assets, no code (so far as anyone knows), not actually writing copy but more like "is everything spelled right, does the copy structure flow, have all these points been addressed, etc." Not only that but the only reason anyone even knew is because the company was completely up front and transparent about what they used AI for and what they didn't.
There is a visceral hate in the artistic community toward AI that doesn't really make sense to me tbh.
I would imagine it is like transcribing, an industry I was in for a little bit when I was younger. I saw the same transition there and imagine it will be elsewhere. First it's a bunch of people saying "AI can't take our jobs, our jobs are thinking jobs." Then it's "Sure, you could use AI, but there's no real advantage to it because it makes so many mistakes."
But pretty soon after that it's "Why am I paying a transcriptionist $3/minute when I can just have the machine auto-transcribe it and then my admin assistant can just scan it for mistakes."
Even if there still IS a quality difference between great writers and AI product, "good enough" is good enough for most customers, especially if you have to pay professional rates to get better.
I go back and forth on it a lot myself; and it's not just in the office context.
Grandkid's sports club had an AI-made song about the group at Christmas. It was "good enough" for that. Did they steal the job of a local band? Well, in the sense that the club would have had to commission a song. But in reality, the club wouldn't have paid money for that.
They won't pay money to commission Anthropic (or in that case I assume something like Suno) to make the song in the future either. They just won't pay the money at all. A lot of "valuable" human work will be replaced, but it won't be profitable for the companies. I bet more stuff is being transcribed now than ever before -- but not much money is being made on it.
> There is a visceral hate in the artistic community toward AI that doesn't really make sense to me tbh.
Really? Have you seen how the CEOs marketed it and talked about people in that community? Artists hate it, because they listened to what AI community and leadership were openly saying.
The weirdest thing on this all is how people find the hate puzzling considering initial rhetoric coming from the industry itself. And current rhetoric for that matter.
Right? AI evangelists never seem to miss an opportunity to be clueless about this
"Why do you guys hate AI so much? All I did was tell you it's so great that it makes your skills worthless and how glad I am that I won't need people like you around in the future to make art and designs. What's wrong with that?"
What I noticed was that it was not just about money. It is not like people could live out of art last decades anyway. Artists actually know it better then anyone. But the disdain toward things artistic people value and like was noticeable. Even when one has bad economic news, surely it should be possible to say then without being gleeful arrogant jerk. Which is exactly what the message was.
It is just ... we insulted those people, told them they are worthless, when they want to talk about things they like doing we tell them they should use AI and then we act all puzzled they hate us. How could that happen.
There's a large amount of voices, both online and off, that are sneering. Between crabs in a bucket happy that software devs are being clawed down, and people happy thinking they no longer need us
I'm worn down by a cacophony of voices telling me I'm no longer wanted or needed. I'm very tired.
Have you seen the arrogance of artists? They acted as though they were above replacement, above automation. They acted as though they were superior.
We're all facing very hard times ahead of us, but I would be lying if I said it wasn't at least a little cathartic to watch this unfold. Programmers, too, were just as arrogant until only a few years ago. As were doctors, lawyers... The list goes on. How the mighty have fallen.
Now we just gotta allow AIs to replace all these lavishly compensated CEOs too. Now that'd be epic.
I certainly do. The only point I'm making is those people are sending plenty of messages of their own. You say that AI proponents sound like cartoon villains. To me the AI detractors sound a lot like elite lords being forcibly deposed from their titles. People who thought they were superior, but were proven wrong.
The only crime here would be stopping the AI onslaught just short of replacing the really powerful people. Let it happen.
I don't think I've seen anything that smacks of elite lordship. Artists don't generally believe that other people should have their livelihoods taken away for the crime of not being artists.
I'm thinking of this awful slop "art" I saw on Wayfair yesterday. As a surfer, it's hilarious. That's not how you stand on a board. It's not even a board. And the wave is terrible-- nobody wants to surf shorebreak like that! https://www.wayfair.com/decor-pillows/pdp/design-art-4-hawai...
I guess it could be a useful signal-- if you meet someone and they have it up in their home, you know they don't surf.
More generally, I think anything AI produces that's dense with factual details is inherently trash.