Right, so tell me what is the course of action?
GoodEye8
joined 1 year ago
Perfect is the enemy of good. You're not at home while you're working and if you do full time then a third of the day you're not using your home, why don't you let others use your home while you're not using it? You're also putting your individual needs above giving someone else shelter, the only difference is where you've drawn the line.
I don't consider it unethical. For example if my father dies and I inherit his house where I grew up, he grew up, his father grew up and his grandfather built. That house has a lot of sentimental value in it. I have settled down very far from there. What am I supposed to do? Throw away the family legacy or uproot my entire life?
I think as long as I don't rent it out it's acceptable to own it. It's just extra cost for me to keep something of sentimental value in the family. I'd even be okay with paying extra tax on it considering I think every house you own that you don't live in should be taxed extra.
Yeah, it's not about monetization. I think for content creators the biggest limiting factor is the user base. If you make a video but nobody sees it then what's the point of making a video? You want people watching your creations and the more users a site has the more likely you're going to have people watching your video. So a real suggestion would be something like video visibility which is kind of a hit or miss on Youtube since the magical Youtube algorithm pretty much throws only clickbait.
I think diamonds get a bad rep because of shitty companies like De Beers who artificially pump up the price of diamonds. I don't think anyone would have an issue with diamonds if their price range was comparable to amethyst and made ethically.
It seems like you're agreeing with me on the reasoning why AI art is art, you just refuse to accept AI as art. So let's try a different way. Who says art has agemcy or intent? Clearly it's not just "everything made by humans" because if I showed you the toilet paper I used to wipe my ass we can both agree that it's not art. Neither is the comment I'm writing right now. So there needs to be something more that separates not art and art. The two most common ways would be the intent of the artist and the perceived intent of the viewer.
If it's what the artist intended the am artist can prompt AI until AI generates the image the artist intended. Since the artist intended the AI generated image to look that way the intent is inherited from the artist.
If it's what the viewer perceived we can reach the original question I postulated. If an image makes you feel something and you can't know if it's made by the artist or by AI, how do you know it's art or not? If we take by whether you perceive intent of not then you're attributing intent to art and it doesn't matter how it was made. If you feel something and after the fact you find out it was AI generated image then it doesn't invalidate what you felt.
You can come up with whomever to validate intent or agency and I'll show you how AI wouldn't play a role in that decision because AI isn't sentient. It's a tool like a camera or a paint brush or just chalk. We give the intent by using the tools we have.
there's something's highly suspect about someone not understanding the difference between art made by a human being and some output spit out by a dumb pixel mixer. huge red flag imo.
Translation. I can't argue your point so I'm going to try characters assassination.
if the original Mona Lisa were to be sold for millions of dollars, and then someone reveals that it was not the original Mona Lisa but a replica made last week by some dude... do you think the buyer would just go "eh it looks close enough"? no they would sue the fuck out of the seller and guess what, the painting would not be worth millions anymore. it's the same painting. the value is changed. ART IS NOT A PRODUCT.
Pretty ironic to say art is not a product and then argue that its monetary value would decrease, which can happen only if you treat art as a product.
Imagine if instead of a physical painting Mona Lisa was a digital file and free on the internet, would people think Mona Lisa is less impressive as an art piece because anyone could own it? I think it's artistic value wouldn't decrease, only its value as a product would decrease because everyone could get it for free.
As a thought experiment let's say an artist takes a photo of a sunset. Then the artist uses AI to generate a sunset and AI happens to generate the exact same photo. The artist then releases one of the two images with the title "this may or may not be made by AI". Is the released image art or not?
If you say the image isn't art, what if it's revealed that it's the photo the artist took? Does is magically turn into art because it's not made by AI? If not does it mean when people "make art" it's not art?
If you say the image is art, what if it's revealed it's made by AI? Does it magically stop being art or does it become less artistic after the fact? Where does value go?
The way I see it is that you're trying to gatekeep art by arbitrarily claiming AI art isn't real art. I think since we're the ones assigning a meaning to art, how it is created doesn't matter. After all if you're the artist taking the photo isn't the original art piece just the natural occurrence of the sun setting. Nobody created it, there is no artistic intention there, it simply exists and we consider it art.
Valve didn't invent lootboxes. The concept has physically existed for decades, they're called trading card packs or kinder eggs or gashapon. The latter is the inspiration for what became known as lootboxes. The first "lootbox" was actually in the Japanese version of MapleStory in 2004 and it spread in eastern markets (because pay to win is more normalized there) and in mobile games. It wasn't until 2009 when EA added card packs to FIFA. Hard to say if they were inspired by the lootboxes from the east of the insane football trading card market in the west, or by both. It was only after a year and a half later in 2010 when Valve added loot boxes to TF2. So Valve definitely didn't invent lootboxes, they weren't even the first in the west to use them. You could argue that they popularized loot boxes but even there is an argument to be made that Overwatch was a much bigger cultural hit than TF2 or CSGO or EAs FIFA games and normalized lootboxes.
I don't mind the "Valve is bad" narrative, but at least keep your facts straight. The "strongest DRM" is also BS but others have already somewhat covered that part.
Up there as one of the most dangerous chemical compounds in the world, near 100% fatality rate.
Maybe in some very broad strokes, but in very broad strokes legs and cars are also the same because they move you from point A to point B.
This is why nobody listens to people like you. Someone has a legitimate grievance trying to do what you want them to do and what is your response? Completely ignore the grievance and go "I can't believe how fucking stupid you are, just do the thing." Really helpful.