I don’t think we’re making ourselves sufficiently understood to each other, and if you keep lobbing accusations at me without understanding what I’m saying, we’re not going to have a productive discussion. I’ll address just a couple of quick points.
> Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors
Mistakes are not the same thing as slop. It’s not at all related. Here’s the definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_slop
> This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc.
I like gore. I find Cronenberg and old Japanese movies and anime aesthetically pleasing. I have done work based on gore. Not only am I not making a straw man or arguing in bad faith, I’m not insulting or discrediting you in the slightest. Please stop making assumptions and responding to those assumptions in your head. I didn’t use gore as an example to discredit you, I used it because it’s an example of a niche art that I understand and respect. It‘s the exact opposite of what you took from it.
> Why Metallica does new albums?
Metallica is not making new albums with AI, are they? That has nothing to do with your original point of an artist coming back to make a new album after decades using AI. How can you, in good faith, accuse someone else of shifting the goalposts while engaging in such a textbook example yourself?
Ok, it could be a language barrier again, but this thread started with you interpreting my words in a way I didn’t mean. Then, when I interpreted your wording differently from how you intended, you treated my reading as if it were completely baseless and unfair.
Here is the wording I was reacting to:
>> and ai art can be good.
> What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.
To me, it feels like you are having it both ways. First, you treated my wording - “even worse” - as meaningful according to its normal English meaning, and even after I explained what I meant, you still went back to the dictionary definition. But when your own wording was quite loaded: “the yuckiest of gore,” “to the right person,” and “cult following” - and I read it that way, you dismissed my reading as assumptions in my head.
That feels like a double standard. I was expected to accept the normal meaning of my wording, but your wording was supposed to be judged only by your later explanation of intent. I should’ve known, obviously, that you like gore.
I accept your clarification, but I do not accept that my reading was unreasonable. We clearly read tone and meaning differently here.