The exploded one was about 15-story building.

Here is the wording I was reacting to:

>> and ai art can be good.

> What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

To me, it feels like you are having it both ways. First, you treated my wording - “even worse” - as meaningful according to its normal English meaning, and even after I explained what I meant, you still went back to the dictionary definition. But when your own wording was quite loaded: “the yuckiest of gore,” “to the right person,” and “cult following” - and I read it that way, you dismissed my reading as assumptions in my head.

That feels like a double standard. I was expected to accept the normal meaning of my wording, but your wording was supposed to be judged only by your later explanation of intent. I should’ve known, obviously, that you like gore.

I accept your clarification, but I do not accept that my reading was unreasonable. We clearly read tone and meaning differently here.

I started updating my comment above as soon as I saw that I posted reply (the one that your answer addresses). Hope that clarifies my position and gives you an explanation where I disagree with your comment.

For “even worse” - I meant different, and I think your analogy is unfair.

One can say something like “this is not your best job. It is solid product of a carpenter. Even worse, I know you could do much better, like a woodworker”. And nothing here says that the job is _bad_.

But again, my native language is not English and the way I say things may surely sound unnatural.

——

How going back to your argument. You already subtly move goalposts and give humans mich more benefit of the doubt and leeway than you give to ai.

> There’s no technique involved to typing words in a box.

There sure is. And that’s what separates results. Most of the things that I enjoy are clearly have good deal of thought in inventing lyrics (again, I watch lore channels and the way the lyrics are made is clear that there is a good amount of thought, prompt and maybe even manual tinkering), in doing montage of videos. I’m skeptical about prompt engineering but your criticism here is as same as painters criticizing photographers: “they just press the button”.

> created with prompting can look technically competent (e.g. faking an oil painting) but not be technically competent.

I used to thing along this line too, but later I realized that this is not an argument in any favor. Look at like any professional reviewing let’s say old movies. Thousands of errors - costumes of wrong epoch, or made wrong way, or worn wrong way. Wrong guns, wrong ammo etc etc etc. I saw some pro criticising ai generated picture of a woman on a horse, and it was about same - the things used to steer the horse are like upside down, some other things don’t make sense. And then it clicked to me - it doesn’t matter. It isn’t unique to ai. Humans did same stuff forever. As long as result is enjoyable, it’s fine.

> and ai art can be good. What is “good” here? Aesthetically pleasing? Then sure, that’s a subjective matter of opinion. Even the yuckiest of gore can be aesthetically pleasing to the right person. Cronenberg has a cult following for a reason.

This is strawman and arguing in bad faith by subtly associating my position with liking gore etc. On first albums of Metallica you almost can hear how they are learning and getting better (except drummer). Yes, if it’s pleasing enough people and bringing joy to their life then it’s ok. It doesn’t matter is it ai or human. Again, there are many cases in music when apparently the solos weren’t played by artists but by uncredited session musicians. Is it slop? Musician acted as tool here.

> Again, what is “great” here? Does it mean you like it?

Fans like it. Not only me. It brings new fans or even casuals may enjoy it

> Personally I believe “greatness” has to stand the test of time at least for a few decades, so we may never know for sure.

You do you. It’s fine.

> I do highly doubt your scenario, though. Why would an old star be interested in generating a simulacrum of their old music without doing it themselves? Apart from a shameless cash grab, that is.

Why Metallica does new albums? They already have enough super hits, that stood test of time even By your definition (decades) to not care. Why other bands do the same?

—-

In very short. To me it feels that there is an attempt to steer into public conscience that

    Ai = slop

    Human Slop = Ai slop = slop

There could be lazy, uninspired but technically competent as ai art (my pet peeve is many “instrumental guitar albums” that are just pentatonic scale and standard licks in all shapes and forms) and ai art can be good.

I will say even more. I’m sure that soon we will get new albums from old stars (like let’s say) that will be great. Critics will be in ave “triumphant return to old form” and everybody will avoid looking in the eyes and say the truth about how they were able to write new good songs, given that they weren’t able to do it in like decades.

I clearly see talented author who just didn’t had chops or resources previously to realize his vision, and now he can and I can enjoy it.

At the same time I probably feel and define slop slightly differently, for myself.

In my birth city there was a street that was closed every weekend for art sellings. You walk about 1km (or less), and there are tables with sculpitures, paintings, crafts etc. In the beginning it’s fun, but after some time (and especially after several visits) you see how repetitive and formulaic it is. Somebody chooses kittens and draws 100s of things with them, somebody chooses nature etc etc etc. I didn’t even know the word slop then, but looking back - it was it.

After watching Bob Ross (and I love the guy) it’s clear that many “creators” were producing slop that is technically similar to what Bob Ross was teaching. Did Bob Ross produced slop? No. Do people who just reuse same approach over and over again (here is how we will paint the tree by using this then than brush) produce slop? In my book - yes. And it’s fine, if they or somebody else enjoy it. I don’t judge them and I don’t judge people who use and enjoy ai.

For me art’s purpose is to invoke some emotion in person, experiencing the art. The way how art is produced is secondary.

You can have buckethead who does music, and you can have someone (even highly technical, with great timing, control, mechanical chops) who “produces song” while sitting on a toilet and an “instrumental album” in a day, by running pentatonic scale all over again. And this is the slop for me. And it has nothing to do with ai.

The writing is on the wall for next development.

“For the foreseeable future, the Go team will stop pursuing syntactic language changes for error handling. We will also close all open and incoming proposals that concern themselves primarily with the syntax of error handling, without further investigation.”

Like this, made by a guy who clearly understands who to use ai?

https://youtu.be/6YTjH_7QUT0?t=42

Ai is a great enabler for people who have ideas but don’t have chops.

There are several channels with pure ai Wh40k music. Some Star Wars creators are doing similar stuff.

I’m actively resisting desire to dump bunch of YouTube links, but if you want to hear what many people already vetted great, I’m happy to share.

and the fact that you mention it means that you haven't used it too, because the tools are screaming in logs that it is deprecated.