-2 points

His statement is so weird. No one said there is no merit in “real” artists. AI just makes it easier for non artists to add pictures into their projects. Like every industrial revolution it just takes work off of us.

permalink
report
reply
19 points

I would love for robots to take over the boring jobs like making art, I think it’s a great advancement that our overlords have engineered for us. Now we can get back to things we really enjoy like shoveling shit and suffocating in mines.

Thank god they didn’t make robots more useful for everyday life tasks, freeing up a portion of the day. I have a hard enough time deciding what to do with my free 25 minutes every week as it is.

Got to go, my mining shift at the shit factor… Never mind they made robots to mine shit now, guess I’ll go starve to death in line waiting for free bread crumbs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points

Robots and automation have been cutting ‘mundane’ jobs for literal centuries.

Artists are frankly out of touch and callous when they imply other people’s jobs should be replaced.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Software to “make” 2d artistic images is much easier to develop than robots to do household tasks. Not that we don’t see advancements there either, for example robot vacuums are becoming more commonplace.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-4 points

Or you could just… learn to draw? Sure it takes a while to learn, sure it takes a lot of time to make things, but it genuinely is worth it for the journey alone.

permalink
report
parent
reply
144 points

Disqualification seems appropriate. If it is against the rules to use AI photos in a normal photo category and the winner gets disqualified for that, which has happened, and it is against the rules to use a non-AI photo in this category, then the person should similarly be disqualified.

Not sure if the person behind this actually made the point they thought they were? Because it just shows that being consistent in rules and disqualification is good and the contest was consistent.

permalink
report
reply
-32 points

Did you even read the article?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-20 points

This is Reddit 2.0. So, no.

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

Did you? It seems to me the above commenter summed up what has happened quite correctly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

It’d be nice if you actually pointed out what in the article contradicts their statement.

permalink
report
parent
reply
99 points
*

The stated point listed in the article was to prove that manual photography has merit and that ‘nothing is more fascinating than Mother Nature herself’, which he proved by winning the people’s choice award. He didn’t say the disqualification was inappropriate nor did he criticize the contest for inconsistent rules? It seems quite clear that he expected to be removed from the contest after making his statement, actually.

Personally I hope this doesn’t become a trend of machine generation and manually shot/created work spoiling each other’s contests.

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points

So, does that mean that AI photos have merit when they win photo competitions, as has happened in the past? Seems like the point he was trying to make would go both ways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points
*

Sure, AI photos have their merit. I believe manual and ai generated photos are their own categories and can be appreciated seperately as such.

Why limit AI photos to being a clone of real photos? Push expression of the subconscious, the psychedelic, the eldritch, etc. Make something creatively unique from the photoreal, something manual photos would struggle to recreate.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

You’re right. I’m trying to figure out what all the controversy is in this. I’m not seeing anything.

permalink
report
parent
reply
36 points

his entry has been disqualified in consideration for the other artists.

What artists? The ones who’s photographs have been scraped from the Internet with no consideration or credit to provide free artistic labour to techbros and companies?

Or the talentless hacks who think asking a machine to draw them a picture holds the same merits as creating the image themselves?

permalink
report
reply
12 points

who’s photographs

‘who is photographs’ makes no sense.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Gottem!

That’s what you’ve taken away from this thread? A spelling error? You’ve got nothing to say on so many topics, except for the pedantic correction of minor spelling errors or word choice.

Argue my point, not my grammar.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

nuance matters. brute

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

HERE HERE!! Proofreading is the last retreat of COWARDS!!!

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Whom’s*

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Whomso’es*

permalink
report
parent
reply
-18 points

Sounds to me like the right thing to do would be disqualify the winner and cancel the category entirely.

permalink
report
reply
21 points

What’s the point?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

The artist proved that right now, AI art cannot compete.

If a horse wins an auto race, don’t give a prize to the #2 motorist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

But the ai art won…

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

That’s not what he proved at all. What he proved is that an actual photo can’t compete with AI. Literally, because it’s not eligible to compete in an AI contest. His photo wasn’t the best in the category, because it wasn’t in the category to begin with. It’s no different than submitting a photoshopped image in a contest for untouched photos. The disqualification was appropriate, because if he’s willing to break the rules once, he can’t be trusted to be a part of any contests going forward.

permalink
report
parent
reply

This is more like the other way around and a car won a race against horses.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

So, the photography competition that was won by an AI image shouldn’t have disqualified the image?

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

That’s not how sports work, even Motorsport has classes, often in the same race, e.g. of course LMP-3 or GT3 cannot compete with LMP-1, and the latter cannot compete with F1 (unless you’re whatever madlads made the 919 Evo at Porsche), but it’s still things people watch. Hell classic motorsport can be a ton of fun and there’s rally classes that drive in 100hp cars that make my overweight nerd heart flutter just watching them

permalink
report
parent
reply

I mean I feel like this is the same as entering a soap box derby and coming to the race with a gas-powered go-kart.

permalink
report
reply

Not The Onion

!nottheonion@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome

We’re not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from…
  2. …credible sources, with…
  3. …their original headlines, that…
  4. …would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

Community stats

  • 7.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 1.1K

    Posts

  • 37K

    Comments

Community moderators