Not at all. AI gen is touchy though; like the camera, while at first any photo had novelty (wow! Instant painting!), low-effort point-and-click photos quickly got commoditized. Those who got deeply interested in the mechanics, and manipulated them (along with being interested in timing, composition, etc.) made what I’d be more willing to call interesting art. Process matters, it’s where you find all the intention that reflects the story.
Similarly I think for AI, novel ghibli-ification of things for example will quickly become boring. What will be interesting comes from thise who get deeply interested in the mechanics to create something new and interesting. We’re yet to really see that.
Great questions btw!
Excellent use of AI. Let people decide if they want to hear what AI has to say, and their appetite for it should naturally increase the more they think AI is smart.
Great product discovery too; do customers actually want AI opinions? If they don't click button then no.
@francip Well I definitely wouldn’t. But for me art is not about just the surface look. I love it for the story, context, and person. What led to the creation. The fact that a deeply interested person chose to create it in this certain way in response to their life.
@eladgil Manny’s in The Mission! Great coffee, drinks, and food if you get hungry. Coffee shop vibe. Rotating local artists on the walls. On weekends, cultural and social events.
@gregorykennedy Mistype; i just really doubt this actually happened. Great content to get people to like tho
Also i do agree with the premise that people write great copy, and out of the box LLMs do mot. Almost every founder i know thinks this, in SF and Palo Alto…
@SpencerHakimian It’s called finalizing the team! Too big of a team is bad. Small cracked team is good. E.g. Simmons medallion fund and many many other examples that signal small cracked team= best results.