This feels like a misreading to me — we value sampling, remixing etc because they include an interpretive act. There is a creative role in the transformation, which makes the transformation meaningful. LLMs are completely uncomprehending, indifferent.
All artists remix and transform other people's work. But the test here is that their work can itself be interpreted and transformed by others. The fact that LLMs are corrupted by LLM output kind of gives the lie to the idea that they are doing the same thing.
@halkyardo is a stranger to me, but is the first person I thought of when I saw this amazing hobby website that uses computer vision to stitch together still photos of trains passing by someone's apartment.
https://t.co/LH15ulY1vm
@tylerangert I really agree, and I see the same thinking around UI responsiveness/speed. It seems like it's a matter of degree, but there is an invisible threshold that breaks from dialogic to monologic interaction.
Thinking again about the early 2000s (?) ad where the camera pans lovingly across a new Volvo and Donald Sutherland says “My goodness”
Great line readings in history part 46284
Network is an incredibly depressing example of the social limits of art. It sends its message loud and clear, in a great story, great performances. Critics loved it, made money, enduring cultural legacy. Totally powerless to prevent itself from coming true.