Dear Linux community,
In these unpredictable and often challenging times, I feel it’s more important than ever to pause and share heartfelt wishes. Merry Christmas to each and every one of you!
Let this holiday season be a moment of peace, where you can step back, breathe, and find some calm amidst the chaos. Take the opportunity to reconnect, reflect, and perhaps even find inspiration for the year ahead.
May your days be filled with joy, your systems stay secure, and your kernels remain stable. Here's to a festive season full of positivity and open-source spirit!
Warm wishes,
Your fellow penguin at heart.
P.S.: I had very little time, so the whole thing, was AI accelerated! Please forgive me :-)
You could have not using ai slop to illustrate your post.
Could they? What if they don't have the skills to draw it themselves?
Adding an image to your post is not mandatory.
There's something called a "stock image" and "editing tux onto the stock image"
a mspaint black and white trackpad drawing would be better than this shit
A text post without a picture would achieve the same result just fine, without stealing work from artists and regurgitating it into a soulless, artifact-ridden and generally ugly picture.
I'd have taken a crayon drawing instead.
It’s just a sign of carelessness, a shitty drawing would mean more as OP would have put effort into it and willingness to learn a skill. And it’s not just the drawing, the text is AI as well, so OP just wants some free internet points with as little effort
I disagree with this sentiment; I'm inclined to believe that AI has actually lowered the bar for meaning.
Before AI, typically only skilled artists drew pictures for the web. But now that AI is making art that's less meaningful than crayon pictures, there's the growing sentiment of
which could actually mean more people have the ability to go on and artify.
Of course this is anecdotal; it's the reason I started drawing again :)
This is selective memory at best. There's a lot of so-called art by real humans and text wishes that are way way worse than what OpenAI's algorithms produce.
I'm not sure I agree but I'm happy to discuss! :)
Why are you calling my statement "selective memory" (am I intentionally excluding something?), and what do you mean by "way worse"? Do you consider unskilled art as not art at all (i.e. "so-called")?
What I was trying to say, is that on social media, skilled artists formerly dominated attention (likes, upvotes) because viewers wanted well-constructed, pleasing-to-the-eye artwork. I wasn't trying to say that they were the only art posters (sorry for my wording!). Continuing, now that AI is in the arena, "technically-decent" art is no longer the lower bound for pleasurable-to-see -- now, viewers are more partial to knowing that a human was vulnerable when they expressed themselves with art.
It's an intensification of internet-ugly aesthetic, which Douglas (2014) called "an imposition of messy humanity upon an online world of smooth gradients, blemish correcting Photoshop, and AutoCorrect” (p. 314). Now, online, handmaking art at all is a declaration of humanity, because you could corporately fake something full-colored and intricate, but arguably soulless, with lower effort.
Of course, I'll try to take it from your perspective. I've seen really bad human art (I like art!), and I've seen less-artifacted AI art (have you ever seen Even_Adder's generations on lemmy.dbzer0? they don't have the overshading issue at all). Of course, some may disagree that the latter is art (is art only human expression?), but supposing I do consider the latter art, my point still stands -- viewers are more on the lookout for genuineness now.
Happy to see what you think!
References
Your initial wording made me mistakingly think that your point was in showing that AI made creations worse but before, when humans made it themselves.
Now that I see your real point, I still cannot agree. Your arguing has a false premise of thinking that everyone wants genuine human expression everywhere and eye candy images are no longer enough. Yet proofs of that not being the case are right before your eyes - look at the amount of upvotes on this post. The ones posting comments like
are a vocal minority. Most people see the good enough image generated by AI and pass on. They never bother to zoom in and look for the artifacts that it has. Most don't have the time to look for the ChatGPT wording, they read the post diagonally for 10 seconds and move on with their life.
The argument has its roots in the problem of our different social surroundings. Maybe your life is full of people who have the time and energy to enjoy art that is not just looking decent but has a meaning, a message to it. Mine has a lot of people who are overworked and undereducated to play the game of being culturally superior, to look for humane expressions.
Sometimes, technologically decent is enough. For some people, a simple eye candy that your view for a short period of time is enough to improve their mood during a break. It does not erase the point of high art. It does not threaten it. Thus, I find people that come barking at every AI-generated piece of imagery or text or whatever, claiming that posting this is stealing from others, that such posts serve zero purpose, that it's better to be shown something poorly drawn with crayon, ridiculous and pitiful.
good thing that you can learn skills.
So because they don’t have the skills they should steal and claim it as their own?