It’s interesting, with a human made piece of art, I’m always drawn to « zoom in », to see how you did little details, if you have hidden something here and there, how you connected different parts.
With AI generated stuff, sure it looks amazing at first glance but I definitely don’t want to zoom in, since I know it’s all a cardboard facade with no passion. Look a bit too closely and you’ll see the bridges that make no sense, the bunch of nonsensical threejs cylinders etc.
I always consider AI-generated content to be a draft — or, in its parlance: something that takes the shape of the final product.
I don't dismiss the ability of models to create. I dismiss their ability to create finished goods. Humans should always be involved, especially with creative works. Models are great at modeling existing creations and solutions — head starts on long roads — but it's the person that needs to walk it and take the journey.
This pairs well with the saying "art is never finished, it is abandoned."
Abandoned one-shot drafts are akin to speaking words but never finishing a sentence before moving onto the next thought. There's no there there.
Are they really? Nothing of value is produced unless the exact artifact is transmuted into a professional good? There’s nothing to be gained from sketching preliminary drafts or notes because they’re never polished for publication?
Not what I meant. The point was work under a certain grain size of effort has very little (or negative) value to others.
We're in an environment awash in 'content' where every person has an infinite slop producing machine, and a lot of people are publishing nearly zero effort drafts, awed by the appearance of meaning.
What happens when you zoom in to a human-made painting and notice an error?
Depends on whether it is a happy error.