Shawn- I fully appreciate your pointing out how art is somehow often more than the end goal. Animations, and more, Iād agree tactile work is a way of seeing, and in a strange way, molding the person taking on the act of art. BTW, Love the Explora rocket-launch pic! šš¼
What a thoughtful, surprising essay. Surprising in that I too had no idea how much human work went into a particular art form unfamiliar to most of us.
"In Praise of Slow Art" struck me personally. I'm a writer and once a novel or a non-fiction work is published and out there, it lingers for a while and after the initial comments, pretty much sinks into oblivion. Occasionally though, you hear from a reader as I did three days ago, telling me how much a long ago piece meant to him. This kind of affirmation forms an instant connection between reader and writer, heart warming and precious. Not something AI can enjoy.
As usual, an excellent post, but I disagree with the proposition āGenerative AI can already do ācreativeā work of this caliber much more efficiently than humans, and weāre just at the beginning of this revolution. People working in these jobs are already using AI to produce their deliverables, and increasingly it must feel like they are helping to train their replacementsā.
I donāt think this is happening anywhere near as much as these statements seem to indicate. Every marketer I know did their ChatGPT experimenting two years ago, found it soulless and completely lacking, and went back to human writing. Artists and writers of the type that you and I revere arenāt using AI to do much of anything, which is really the point of your piece, and there seems to be a huge gulf between what media SAY creatives are doing with AI, and what they are actually doing. Thereās a ton of slop on the internet, sure, but Iām seeing evidence that the backlash to it is fierce and very real. The verdict on AI is, shall we say, still out.
Shawn- I fully appreciate your pointing out how art is somehow often more than the end goal. Animations, and more, Iād agree tactile work is a way of seeing, and in a strange way, molding the person taking on the act of art. BTW, Love the Explora rocket-launch pic! šš¼
What a thoughtful, surprising essay. Surprising in that I too had no idea how much human work went into a particular art form unfamiliar to most of us.
"In Praise of Slow Art" struck me personally. I'm a writer and once a novel or a non-fiction work is published and out there, it lingers for a while and after the initial comments, pretty much sinks into oblivion. Occasionally though, you hear from a reader as I did three days ago, telling me how much a long ago piece meant to him. This kind of affirmation forms an instant connection between reader and writer, heart warming and precious. Not something AI can enjoy.
As usual, an excellent post, but I disagree with the proposition āGenerative AI can already do ācreativeā work of this caliber much more efficiently than humans, and weāre just at the beginning of this revolution. People working in these jobs are already using AI to produce their deliverables, and increasingly it must feel like they are helping to train their replacementsā.
I donāt think this is happening anywhere near as much as these statements seem to indicate. Every marketer I know did their ChatGPT experimenting two years ago, found it soulless and completely lacking, and went back to human writing. Artists and writers of the type that you and I revere arenāt using AI to do much of anything, which is really the point of your piece, and there seems to be a huge gulf between what media SAY creatives are doing with AI, and what they are actually doing. Thereās a ton of slop on the internet, sure, but Iām seeing evidence that the backlash to it is fierce and very real. The verdict on AI is, shall we say, still out.
I hear you, and "of this caliber" was probably doing a little too much work in my assessment of things.