a common genre of tweet on here is "why are people attacking me just for not liking a movie? all i said was that the only people who could possibly like it are illiterate mouth-breathing brain-damaged morons!"
This is mental illness. If your personality is composed solely of your sleep stats and macros consumption, then all you’re telling people is that you are pathologically vain and *extremely* boring. This stuff should be heavily stigmatized.
Teenagers have started calling AI art "boomer art" and consider it cringe, and YouTubers have stopped using AI-generated thumbnails because teenagers find them cringe and won't click on them. I honestly couldn't be happier.
If you’re in a relationship and you are regularly having consensual, enjoyable, sex and you decide to stop just to prove that person still loves you, YOU are a creepy, manipulative weirdo.
Despite 3 years of progress, AI is still worse than me at stuff I understand, but unfathomably brilliant outside my area of expertise. Wonder why this is
Since people seem to be confused about this, here is a more complete explanation:
I thought the point of the OP was that it is important (for any reason) whether or not something can be determined reliably to be a Monet painting or an AI derivative of a Monet painting - as in, if given an A/B test, can an average (or even well-trained) human tell the difference between something painted by AI and something painted by Monet? Will they misidentify a Monet as AI? Will they misidentify an AI as Monet? Etc.
My point in saying Monet is a bad example (or any famous painter, I might say) is because that criteria has not historically been important even before AI, as far as I can tell. Humans seem to care whether a painting was painted by Monet, not whether anyone can tell by looking at it that it was painted by Monet (including themselves). They will happily invest in a painting if they are assured it is Monet, whether or not they themselves could ever tell the difference between that painting and a forgery, and they will be very upset if it later turns out it was not painted by Monet - even though they clearly could not tell the difference in the interim, etc.
So to me, they were trying to prove one point, but accidentally proved the other point. Can most humans figure out if something is a genuine Monet or not? No. Do most humans care if something is a genuine Monet or not anyway? Absolutely.
And I would argue this is a very important thing to understand about "AI art". Humans care about the origins or things - they don't just care about the things, even if they cannot themselves determine that origin definitively.
I’m learning that many straight women really do just want their boyfriends to lie to them constantly. They don’t want honest, vulnerable admissions of desire & predilections, they want to be deceived & manipulated because they prefer the egotistical fantasy that their man only ever thinks sexually about them as opposed to actual intimacy. It’s very childish, actually. Teenage girl mentality
There are more misogynistic straight women out there than there are total gay men—scratch that, total queer people in the world, period. All of this talk about an "epidemic of misogynist gays" comes from y'all being unable to accept that basic fact
gen z are literally insufferable to even attempt to converse or debate with.
not only are you wrong but your brain is so rotted from the internet and your phone and AI that you can’t form a real coherent debate.