> In case that happened then the rest of the world would probably appreciate the art

What art?

We’re talking about generated pictures, aka slop, not art made by a real human.

And I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but people seem to be pretty tired of the slop. I don’t think it would be appreciated nearly as much as you think.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is possible to use generative AI in nonslop ways btw

▲

TeMPOraL a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This definition of "slop" doesn't cut reality just quite at the joints.

People are tired of marketing. AI generated slop people are annoyed with, is garbage produced for marketing reasons, and it's distinctly noticeable precisely because all the bottom-feeder marketing houses switched to using it. But it's not the AI itself that's the problem here. Slop was here before, but it was made with cheap protein-based image generators. Silicon-based generators are just cheaper.

	▲	solid_fuel a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> This definition of "slop" doesn't cut reality just quite at the joints. > People are tired of marketing. You know what, I'll give you that one. I find most generated art pretty tasteless, but I have enjoyed the occasional piece of fiction with small generated elements for atmosphere. I still hesitate to call it 'art', but I will grant it's not all 'slop'. But for the second part: > But it's not the AI itself that's the problem here. Slop was here before, but it was made with cheap protein-based image generators. Silicon-based generators are just cheaper. I think the problem is how much cheaper it is now. I would estimate generating a picture is at least 2 orders of magnitude cheaper than paying even a cheap human, so with the same amount of money being invested into slop we are due for - and seeing - a huge tidal wave of it, because the same amount of money turns out way more crap now.
	▲	a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]