I feel I’ve been pretty respectful throughout this conversation.
I wish to disabuse you of that notion. Every response has been condescending repetition of your apparently dogmatic opinions - and insistence upon your right to hold them, as if anyone challenged that. Conversations are supposed to pursue a mutual understanding of reality, instead of spitting conclusions at one another. You can’t make declarations about all art with a sweep of your hand, and then flinch in confusion when the person you’re talking at has a follow-up question.
You “don’t feel the need to convince you or anyone of anything,” but boy howdy you sure keep yapping. And then cannot imagine why that’s not the end of it.
Meanwhile, I’ve held the vain hope this interaction might be productive in some way. From the very start, I asked you: do words matter? And you clutched pearls as if the answer was obviously yes. But then ev-er-y sin-gle response, that one included, ends with useless ‘agree to disagree’ fluff, and some sign-off like you’re just going to nope out, and then you keep coming back to do it again. I’ve made it crystal clear why I’m still trying. I for one give a shit about this topic, enough to constructively discuss it. Why the fuck are you still here if you’re not even listening?
Recognizing that no tool is immune to human expression. So even if a stick-figure single prompt isn’t art, some weirdo pouring their time and energy into an iterative process should be.
Distinguishing capitalist implications of a technology vis-a-vis material impact on existing professions, versus people running some jumped-up chatbot and renderer on their own desktop for their own purposes.
I see what you’re saying, my issue with this is the product is (as I understand) no more than an amalgam of its inputs. I do understand the similarity to human artists, where one’s art is building from reference (either directly/indirectly/cumulatively). The difference here for me is that current models, don’t/can’t comprehend the meaning behind the components of their construction. They also don’t or aren’t able to add any additional meaning to what they produce. I’m not sure that makes much sense. What I’m trying to communicate is more of a feeling behind the art, which is either really difficult to describe, or I lack the words. Maybe you can help with your own thoughts/corrections?
That second paragraph makes perfect sense, especially tying in to the first sentence of your first paragraph. I wonder if it might be possible to escape the necessity for human produced data for training? That would certainly alleviate a lot of my concerns with the tech, especially when talking local.
I wish to disabuse you of that notion. Every response has been condescending repetition of your apparently dogmatic opinions - and insistence upon your right to hold them, as if anyone challenged that. Conversations are supposed to pursue a mutual understanding of reality, instead of spitting conclusions at one another. You can’t make declarations about all art with a sweep of your hand, and then flinch in confusion when the person you’re talking at has a follow-up question.
You “don’t feel the need to convince you or anyone of anything,” but boy howdy you sure keep yapping. And then cannot imagine why that’s not the end of it.
Meanwhile, I’ve held the vain hope this interaction might be productive in some way. From the very start, I asked you: do words matter? And you clutched pearls as if the answer was obviously yes. But then ev-er-y sin-gle response, that one included, ends with useless ‘agree to disagree’ fluff, and some sign-off like you’re just going to nope out, and then you keep coming back to do it again. I’ve made it crystal clear why I’m still trying. I for one give a shit about this topic, enough to constructively discuss it. Why the fuck are you still here if you’re not even listening?
I see what you mean. I have been pretty condescending and dismissive of your stance. That wasn’t cool for me to do and for that I am sorry.
Can I ask, between our views, what might a shared understanding of reality look like?
Recognizing that no tool is immune to human expression. So even if a stick-figure single prompt isn’t art, some weirdo pouring their time and energy into an iterative process should be.
Distinguishing capitalist implications of a technology vis-a-vis material impact on existing professions, versus people running some jumped-up chatbot and renderer on their own desktop for their own purposes.
I see what you’re saying, my issue with this is the product is (as I understand) no more than an amalgam of its inputs. I do understand the similarity to human artists, where one’s art is building from reference (either directly/indirectly/cumulatively). The difference here for me is that current models, don’t/can’t comprehend the meaning behind the components of their construction. They also don’t or aren’t able to add any additional meaning to what they produce. I’m not sure that makes much sense. What I’m trying to communicate is more of a feeling behind the art, which is either really difficult to describe, or I lack the words. Maybe you can help with your own thoughts/corrections?
That second paragraph makes perfect sense, especially tying in to the first sentence of your first paragraph. I wonder if it might be possible to escape the necessity for human produced data for training? That would certainly alleviate a lot of my concerns with the tech, especially when talking local.