There's no "good" or "bad" about it. Everyone is just wading through mountains of slop (man-made or ai made) and need a way to filter what's actually worth investing time and attention to. Effort, or percieved effort at least, is a good enough measure for most people. If 99% of ai generated "art" is low-effort garbage, why would people give the benefit of the doubt to the other 1%? What would they gain from it?

▲

ModernMech a day ago | parent | next [-]

99% of output from cameras is unmitigated low-effort garbage, yet people still hang 1% of photographs in art museums and on their walls.

▲

canelonesdeverd a day ago | parent [-]

There's an obsession here with replying with half baked analogies that I really don't see the point of. Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché? 1. People mostly hang their own photos. 2. People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators) 3. Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool". Apple to oranges comparison.

There's nothing about the analogy that works, what is your point here?

	▲	ModernMech a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché? No it’s a counter example. Calling a point half baked is closer to a thought terminating cliche. > 1. People mostly hang their own photos. So then that’s an answer to the question: they would give 1% of ai art the benefit of the doubt despite 99% being trash if they made it themselves. Also I don’t accept the premise unless we are talking about family photos. Otherwise I’ve never been in a house where they’ve hanged their own photography on the wall despite being in many houses with photography on the wall. > People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators) Says nothing about whether or not ai could be curated. Moreover people go to museums to see many things, including to be surprised, informed, disgusted, or to just see things they’ve never seen before. Also curators curate on other factors than quality, or we might say “quality” doesn’t always mean the art satisfies conventional or critical tastes. No reason ai art can’t fall into that category. > Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool". I don’t see why ai can’t be a medium, can you explain why the output of a camera is a medium but the output of ai is a tool?

▲

nfw2 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Thanks for explaining the another person's opinion using your own, entirely-different, opinion. "Shit sandwich" usually implies "bad".

> Everyone is just wading through mountains of slop

I'm not. What am I doing wrong? Should I be on TikTok more? LinkedIn?

▲

canelonesdeverd a day ago | parent [-]

> Thanks for explaining the another person's opinion using your own, entirely-different, opinion.

Not that different, just formulated in a tamer way.

> I'm not. What am I doing wrong? Should I be on TikTok more? LinkedIn?

You're not? You don't have to wade through mountains of grifters and "hot-takes" in your social media of choice? Or through a hundred garbage sites gaming SEO every time you need to search for something online? Or through the never ending catalogue of low effort drama in streaming sites?

If so I'm sure you realize yours is not the average experience on the internet.

	▲	nfw2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		> need a way to filter what's actually worth investing time and attention to nothing on social media is worth investing time and attention to. including hacker news, yet here i am so i guess my experience is not that different from the average experience, it's just not because of ai > social media of choice tiktok, x, linkedin, etc. have been garbage as long as they have existed. if ai slop made tiktok worse i would welcome that as a good thing for society. > search for something online just search on claude. the water is warm here on the dark side > low effort drama in streaming sites these are front and center because people like them. they have filters for acclaimed movies that aren't front and center because people don't want to watch There Will Be Blood on a random Tuesday after work. this seems like a reach