Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ExasperatedEE t1_j9ijpww wrote

There's nothing fake about it.

And garbage is garbage, whether its created by humans, or created by AI.

If ChatGPT is generating garbage, and this magazine can't tell the difference between the work an AI is spitting out and what humans are putting out, then what the humans were putting out was also garbage.

−7

Clairvoidance t1_j9islc2 wrote

Well if they closed it because of the amount of people that submitted AI content, they must've been able to tell

a likely explanation is that they didn't want to sift through it

10

Ehgadsman t1_j9isomq wrote

its not the quality, its the ability to deal with the shear mass of AI generated content versus content humans take time to produce.

5

Zer0pede t1_j9ix7nj wrote

Yeah, before if a bad writer wanted to submit something, they’d actually have to take the time and effort to write it. That slows them down and weeds out the lazy ones. Now they just have to write a prompt. Nothing to slow them down and nothing to weed out the laziest. Having to read the first several paragraphs of hundreds of submissions just sounds miserable—literally more work than it took them to “write” it. I would absolutely ban everyone who wasted my time like that.

8

K----_ST t1_j9lnojp wrote

Just had this convo in the Midjourney sub. Not only is it creating entitled, low-effort individuals, it's also teaching them to use descriptive words and phrases of concepts incorrectly. But they don't care because it yields the output that looks good to them.

2

Zer0pede t1_j9lom1q wrote

“Write me a book in the style of Leonardo DaVinci. Greg Rutkowski. Not ugly. Anatomically correct hands. Masterpiece. Beautiful woman. Greg Rutkowski. Makoto Shinkai. Anime. Greg Rutkowski. Normal fingers.”

2

ExasperatedEE t1_j9k5b7k wrote

500 short stories in one month is not an insurmountable amount of content. That's the amount of reading a child is expected to do in a month in school.

0

Shelsonw t1_j9jcyx5 wrote

AI wins art contest in Australia, even the judges couldn’t tell it was AI generated. Right up there with top quality images. So much for all of it being garbage; or is the very best we can do also garbage?

https://www.theinertia.com/surf/ai-generated-surf-image-wins-australian-photo-competition/#

0

ExasperatedEE t1_j9k3ibt wrote

Well, in that case you could argue the AI cheated. It didn't take a photo. It PAINTED the image. If a human used photoshop to create a photorealitic image that won a photography competition, they would also be cheating, and lose, if caught.

> or is the very best we can do also garbage?

It's photography. It's a hobby where if you are wealthy enough to afford the equipment and travel to exotic places and hang out for long enough to spot a cool looking animal, you can win prizes by pointing, adjusting focus, and clicking a button at the right time. It doesn't require a huge amount of skill. Someone can be a naturally talented photographer with almost no training, whereas being a highly skilled artist requires decades of practice. Don't tell me that the award winning photo of the afghan girl isn't a photo that almost any portrait photographer in a mall couldn't have managed to snag, had they been in the right place at the right time.

So maybe the problem really is we're giving wealthy people awards for mediocirity? Even art is not immune to this. There is a hell of a lot of "art" that sells for a lot of money which is literally just a pile of garbage in a corner. But hey, the AI can't produce that, yet, right? That's a physical thing.

So maybe the solution here is for artists to go back to mediums that are physical, like acrylic paint on canvas, and then sell those works for a lot of money instead of just mass printing their stuff on a laserjet? I know I wouldn't buy a laserjet image, human or AI generated, but something with acrylic or oil that has depth to the brush strokes? That's something worth hanging on your wall and paying for.

2