You know what irks me the most? The idea that the AI will eventually make “things” better than the “things” made by humans. Just because bazinga, or whatever.
Based on what evidence, exactly? All it has produced is inferior imitations. The imitations get better at imitating but they don’t get better.
And maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel where this technology is paired with the greatest theoreticians and the Hall of Justice and all the Power Rangers in whatever jumpsuit-bound scifi fuckhole bazinga suck future they envision.
But tell me how in the fuck it writing shitty articles and making piss filtered comics and clips of Trump flying the poo-poo jet are in any way going to achieve this? Where is the connection? Do they just shrug?
I’ve come to the conclusion that these techno-utopia types don’t care about the details of how whatever tech “revolution” they’re glazing at the moment will make everything better, or even if it actually will. They’re just addicted to the feeling that it will, that there must always be more progress and more technological breakthroughs that fundamentally change society for the better. It’s why they can go from “crypto is to banking what the car was to horses” to “NFTs are to assets what the car was to horses” to now “AI is to creative arts what the car was to horses” despite being wrong every time.
It’s like evangelicals that get all giddy over the idea of “God will provide” when so many go without. The truth of the matter isn’t important, the euphoria of the idea is what matters to them.
AI art has absolutely no emotion to it whatsoever because AI does not experience emotion, emotion is the core component of what makes art so enjoyable and meaningful. Otherwise it has nothing to say, and in the words of Tom Lehrer, if you have nothing to say, then you should just shut up.
![[CW: Suicide] A world without art](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/69e42712-dae7-4c04-80c6-da4f886576f9.jpeg){kind=link}
You know what irks me the most? The idea that the AI will eventually make “things” better than the “things” made by humans. Just because bazinga, or whatever.
Based on what evidence, exactly? All it has produced is inferior imitations. The imitations get better at imitating but they don’t get better.
And maybe there is some light at the end of the tunnel where this technology is paired with the greatest theoreticians and the Hall of Justice and all the Power Rangers in whatever jumpsuit-bound scifi fuckhole bazinga suck future they envision.
But tell me how in the fuck it writing shitty articles and making piss filtered comics and clips of Trump flying the poo-poo jet are in any way going to achieve this? Where is the connection? Do they just shrug?
I’ve come to the conclusion that these techno-utopia types don’t care about the details of how whatever tech “revolution” they’re glazing at the moment will make everything better, or even if it actually will. They’re just addicted to the feeling that it will, that there must always be more progress and more technological breakthroughs that fundamentally change society for the better. It’s why they can go from “crypto is to banking what the car was to horses” to “NFTs are to assets what the car was to horses” to now “AI is to creative arts what the car was to horses” despite being wrong every time.
It’s like evangelicals that get all giddy over the idea of “God will provide” when so many go without. The truth of the matter isn’t important, the euphoria of the idea is what matters to them.
AI art has absolutely no emotion to it whatsoever because AI does not experience emotion, emotion is the core component of what makes art so enjoyable and meaningful. Otherwise it has nothing to say, and in the words of Tom Lehrer, if you have nothing to say, then you should just shut up.