• 24 Posts
  • 245 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 22nd, 2023

help-circle









  • Interesting, 18 up and 16 down as of this comment. Because this started with ~2 downvotes (the first image had terrible jpeg for a few minutes), we either have

    1. my taste did not land
    2. early downvotes beget more downvotes

    this comment is here for notetaking. let’s see if i’m a moron or if iambs are stronger than herds.



  • That’s an interesting perspective actually

    Maybe it’s because of who’s giving them? If my little cousin gave me an AI Christmas card, I’d be happier than if a stranger gave me one on the street. (Though I’d feel bummed if they didn’t even marker in a single custom sentence)

    i.e. higher standards of creativity/effort from a stranger than from a family member.

    Also the stranger isn’t stuffing a tenner in the card lmao




  • Ty for feedback :>

    Your paragraph read well. I definitely agree – grammar with risks, outside of hyper-formal sitches, is just stylized diction. ChatGPT could scarcely come up with an e.e. cummings poem (just tested now, it never gets the style about right), nor dare to abuse parentheses, nor remove cruft for conciseness (e.g. to start a sentence with “Kind of changed” instead of “This kind of changes” for compression (woot)). It’s a “wrong” but not quite “wrong”, and I’m glad that “riskless” manages to carry that feeling

    And I edit a lot too :) it’s the “post-email-send clarity” effect




  • edit: updated accordingly for clarity

    Ah, I mean proper grammar as in formal, largely riskless grammar. For example, AI wouldn’t connect

    monolingual + educated + have access to technology

    with pluses, like a human would.

    Not sure how I’d phrase that though. Maybe “perfect, risklessly formal grammar” as I just tried to call it? (i.e. if AI trainers consider using +‘es a “risk”, as opposed to staying formal and spick n’ span clean).

    Perfect grammar is humanly possible but there is some scrutiny that can be applied to GPT-style grammar, especially in the context of the casually-toned web (where 100%ed grammar isn’t strictly necessary!).





  • I’m not sure I agree but I’m happy to discuss! :)

    Why are you calling my statement “selective memory” (am I intentionally excluding something?), and what do you mean by “way worse”? Do you consider unskilled art as not art at all (i.e. “so-called”)?

    What I was trying to say, is that on social media, skilled artists formerly dominated attention (likes, upvotes) because viewers wanted well-constructed, pleasing-to-the-eye artwork. I wasn’t trying to say that they were the only art posters (sorry for my wording!). Continuing, now that AI is in the arena, “technically-decent” art is no longer the lower bound for pleasurable-to-see – now, viewers are more partial to knowing that a human was vulnerable when they expressed themselves with art.

    It’s an intensification of internet-ugly aesthetic, which Douglas (2014) called "an imposition of messy humanity upon an online world of smooth gradients, blemish correcting Photoshop, and AutoCorrect” (p. 314). Now, online, handmaking art at all is a declaration of humanity, because you could corporately fake something full-colored and intricate, but arguably soulless, with lower effort.

    Of course, I’ll try to take it from your perspective. I’ve seen really bad human art (I like art!), and I’ve seen less-artifacted AI art (have you ever seen Even_Adder’s generations on lemmy.dbzer0? they don’t have the overshading issue at all). Of course, some may disagree that the latter is art (is art only human expression?), but supposing I do consider the latter art, my point still stands – viewers are more on the lookout for genuineness now.

    Happy to see what you think!

    References