Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
This is an obvious misstatement. If you actually believe this then you’re not qualified to have opinions on art in general.
“AI” (in this context meaning generative algorithms, because there is no intelligence) can no more “make art” than it can think, or care.
“At this point, the only thing that makes money is garbage. It’s just fascinating. It makes a fortune, and that’s the bottom line,”
"writers have been trained to eat and make the garbage too. As long as they are in that arena making that shit, then you might as well have AI do it,”
-Charlie Kaufman
https://deadline.com/2023/08/charlie-kaufman-ai-wga-strike-hollywood-sarajevo-1235498089/
spoiler
You’re probably one of the people that enjoys cookie-cutter art which is why you get defensive when someone says AI can make it.
Not sure at what point will you realize that what you quoted/said has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic.
Probably never.
Learn to read.
Could you define what you mean when you say the word “art”? I think this may be a semantic disagreement. I think the people you’re arguing with are using a definition similar to “human creative expression” while you seem to mean something different.