25
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by plinky@hexbear.net to c/technology@hexbear.net

Fairly recognizable arguments, but in case people have not seen them before shrug-outta-hecks

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] robot_dog_with_gun@hexbear.net 4 points 2 weeks ago

i disagree with the premise: i'm pretty sure we have dozens of art shitposts and cia nonsense made by people where they remove the influence of such choices to make some point that's entirely lost on me because the "art" doesn't represent, convey, or look like anything.

a generative model is trivially not an artist, but there's no reason actual (as opposed to marketing scam) artificial intelligence, if that ever exists, couldn't produce art.

[-] plinky@hexbear.net 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

or you could read the article and find that it agrees with you comrade-birdie (at least on second point). On the first point, if you mean modern art, eh its still represents some arcane choices for author or some point they try to make

this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2024
25 points (96.3% liked)

technology

23179 readers
261 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS