![Your bad art is better than AI slop [Sophie Labelle]](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c2feca8b-da2b-4e53-9ec3-04b436e86a0d.webp){kind=link}
Sophie Labelle | Instagram | Bluesky
Transcript
four frame comic.
first frame shows a typical AI poster that says : All chatgpt flyers look the same, especially with this font! the text above it reads : I won’t go to your event if the poster was made by AI.
second frame shows a still frame from a Hank Green youtube video. text above reads : I won’t read your post or email and I won’t watch your video if they were made with AI.
third frame shows an AI restaurant poster of burgers and chicken in a window. text reads : I won’t patronize your shop or restaurant if it is advertised with AI.
last frame shows an MS paint window with badly written : Your bad art is better than AI slop. text reads : if you can’t take the time or make the effort to interact with me yourself, then why should I do it?
What a terrible argument of false equivalence.
Why do AI advocates always assume the generative auto-complete machine is the future? The tech was made through theft of IP and forced on a public that doesn’t want it.
Isn’t he just predicting the future, not advocating for it?
Imagine you’re a 6-year-old right now. Someone tells you, yeah, you could spend the next 10 years of your life drawing 1000s of pages of art until you become an ok artist. Or you could dictate your desires into this prompt. Sure, some will still find joy in physically creating visual art. But the vast majority will take the easy way.
Same thing with pen->typewriter->computer. Same thing with horse->automobile. The easiest thing will always win.
Sure, what’s next? “Hey, also, we made this AI robot that can assemble all of your Legos for you, so you don’t have to do that, either! Think of all the time you’ll save!”
Drawing isn’t some obstacle to making a picture. It’s the point. People enjoy drawing.
Yes, but no one HAS to learn to draw any more. My entire life, if I couldn’t figure out how to draw it, the picture stayed locked in my head. Now, I just dictate it into a prompt.
Nobody ever HAD to learn to draw, just like nobody ever HAD to learn to play the flute or how to make paper cranes.
Why, though? What motivates you to make the picture?
I had mandatory art classes.
Imagine you’re a 6-year old right now. Someone tells you, yeah, you could spend the next bullshit quantity of years learning to do basic math until you bitch about not knowing how to do taxes later in life. Or you could just use a fucking calculator that hands you the answers.
Same thing with pen -> calculator-> computer -> phone
Your argument is a shit one.
AI isn’t progress.
AI robs people of their ability to think critically and creatively.
If it was just you dumbing yourself down I wouldn’t care, but it’s not. It’s a machine that steals others hard work and mashes it all together while it demands land and precious resources to feed it all so you can feel better about your lack of ability. It’s a masturbation machine for the unmotivated.
I didn’t say it was progress, I said it was easy. And I’ve never met an accountant or physicist who didn’t use a calculator.
The difference is schools teach you how to get to the answer on your own and a calculator becomes a tool.
AI does not and just feeds you its best guess, passes it off as fact, and people take it at face value. It’s a glorified auto-complete machine.
I don’t really see the difference. Calculators give wrong answers if they get the wrong inputs.
Calculators are totally deterministic, which is the opposite of how LLMs work. If you put 1+1 into a calculator a thousand times, it’s going to give you the answer “2” every single time. You can’t say the same for an LLM. You can’t predict with certainty what answer it’s going to give you.
That doesn’t mean the answer is right. That’s why they allow calculators on standardized tests. It is a tool, but it doesn’t always give you the right answer if you don’t use it right. Exactly like an LLM.
Are you saying that there are some cases where 1 + 1 does not equal 2?
As I said, an LLM will give you different outputs for the same input. It’s non-deterministic. It has nothing to do with whether or not you’re “using it right”. That’s just how LLMs function. Whether or not it gives you the right answer is a dice roll. Sometimes the odds are very good, and sometimes they aren’t, but you never have a 100% chance.
Ai gives wrong answers no matter the input.
Sounds like a verifiable statement.
It is nice that there is a vocal minority so against any form of AI.
But that isn’t what the general trend is. More and more people, especially young ones, are using Gen AI for all sorts of tasks. And with the constant improvements, this number is only set to grow.
You may not like it, but that is how it is.
It isn’t going to constantly improve, though. We’re facing model collapse, and nobody has a solution for this problem.
The vast majority hate ai.
On Lemmy, maybe
Not just Lemmy. A good numbe of people don’t want AI.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
I don’t use anything Windows touches, not just AI. The last article is talking about how everyone is using it 😂
I included the last article as to not skew information towards a particular viewpoint.
One thing to note is the first couple links focus on adoption rates and hard numbers of users, where the last article is just an opinion poll.
The first question shows about a 50/50% split in on people’s view towards AI, which has steadily grown in distrust since the 2021. It’s likely to assume that pattern will continue and distrust will tip towards the majority based on what’s shown.
The second shows people overwhelmingly think it negatively impacts people’s ability to think creatively.
The third shows people overwhelmingly think AI will harm all industries except when it comes to healthcare.
The fourth shows most teens have used with many turning to it for homework including some using it to do all of their homework. That is a very concerning poll figure considering the harm AI has been shown to have on the learning process.
I’m not going to spell the whole article out, read it yourself. But it doesn’t paint a positive picture towards AI
AI is definitely harmful in healthcare. Recently a major hospital chain in New York is proposing replacing radiologists with AI (https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/radiology/nyc-health-hospitals-ceo-ai-could-replace-many-radiologists/). Turns out, AI is not adept at recognizing even simple visual patterns and shapes, but through a phenomenom called “mirage”, it pretends it is, even guessing correctly at xray intepretations on par with human radiologist even when presented with NO FILM. See here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2603.21687. From that study, the most extreme "…example, a text-only model trained without the X-ray images achieved the top score on a chest X-ray question-answering benchmark. Fortunately, some doctors are resisting the switch on the grounds of patient safety (https://www.doctorscouncil.org/news/doctors-council-response-to-comments-made-by-mitch-katz-on-ai-replacing-radiologists).
What is also interesting is Dr. Katz decribes his hospital system-ie, NYC public health) as being especially suitable for the replacement. Katz’s proposal isn’t simply “AI is better than radiologists, therefore replace them.” There is also an economic and access argument underneath it: if AI can perform some radiology work at much lower cost, a safety-net system may see it as a way to stretch scarce medical resources. But that also creates an interesting question: is it appropriate to use a population that already has fewer healthcare resources as the place where a highly consequential AI substitution is implemented?
Already, populations such as the incarcerated are seeing their therapists replaced with chatbots. Though some may not mind or even see it as preverable to dealing with a human, I see, once again, the destitute and disadvantaged being cheated with inferior and shoddy goods.
Personally, i jettisoned the healthcare complex years ago.
It doesn’t really matter how people feel about it if the majority of Americans (as an example) are using it. I think cars are shit, and I would be happy never using one again. Guess how I got to work today?
Again, false equivalence. But sure city planning has been built around a car centric approach forcing you to use a car. Nothing however (except some short sighted middle managers maybe) is forcing you to use AI, or more specifically to use it to generate slop art.
It seems to me you do care about how people feel, or more specifically how you feel about it considering I linked stats showing the majority of Americans are not using AI, but sure throw out sweeping generalizations based on your opinion and nothing backing it.