OMG! Immediate subscribe! This is like you read my thoughts and put it on paper. Idgaf if you had your AI write it for you, the thoughts are yours, the ideas are yours and that's what matters to me.
This was an iconic read. You nailed it - use your brain first, then let ai help you take it bigger, faster, etc. and yeah, also why does anyone care?! Most people aren’t even willing to plaster their work online, original thoughts or not. Wild how many opinions people have when they won’t even share their art.
I think AI is a great tool. I also understand that every time we use it we destroy the planet a little more because of the resources. I also see that people get mad for artists using it for music but then original artists are ignored when they are original. I also see that it steals from artists and doesn’t credit them. Many things can be good and bad it’s just the polarity of life. Currently it is what it is. But this piece is great, I loved reading your perspective nonetheless.
You wrote this as if other musicians had an advantage over you by knowing how to play an instrument but every musician started by not knowing how to play an instrument or knowing the process behind production and songwriting. The only difference is that they decided to put in the pain staking work to learn and you were too lazy to. You wanted to skip over the entire process of learning to make music and claim that you "needed AI" when there are thousands of independent artists out there who are currently working everyday to hone their craft, learning how to play new instruments, use different DAWS, mix, master and record their own records without using AI to skip over the entire creative process.
I opened this article out of curiosity, because yes, using AI is typically seen as shameful and I was surprised to find a writer who openly admitted to using it. I was open to hearing out the argument, and I liked a lot of points. Something I'm not loving, however, it's the degrading tone you seem to be using for people who don't like to use AI, or disagree with AI. This post isn't simply explaining why *you* use AI, it's the rudeness towards the other side of the debate. You ignored AI's impact on the environment as well, which is a huge part of why I dislike AI. I do agree with you that AI could be used in amazing ways to aid and enhance humanity, but some things are just not it. For one, AI generated art. It's clearly stealing the art of real artists, something I just can't be okay with. I think AI is fine in moderation, to help organize thoughts or fix grammar (like you stated), but the tone you're using in the comments was my final turn-off. I'm not unsubscribing or hating or anything-- I'm debating, something you don't seem to be open to in this comment section due to many angry, irritated, rash replies I've seen directed towards people who dislike AI. Disagreements are fine and natural and create helpful debates where you can learn from both sides, but it takes an open mind.
First, I'd like to thank you for sharing this peice. It was a refreshing brake from the anti-AI rhetoric that is usually hammered out.
Second, I was reading through the various comments here and decided to share my own insight on the efficiency debate.
It reminded me of when I was in college. We used the inefficient methods to learn the basics. These basics could then be built on so that once we had access to the more efficient tools and formulas, we understood how to use them. In some instances (such as my thermodynamics class), access to the efficient tolls were restricted based on the teacher's preference and preferred teaching method.
I won't say if either method was right or wrong, but the point is that I feel that the argument still comes down to preference and individual goals. Here, the focus is on visual and written art. Your essay---while a decent read---mostly read as a rant against "art police" more than a discussion for the acceptance of AI in the art community. For this post, I'll focus on treating it as the latter.
AI is a tool, yes. It helps with organizational tasks, brainstorming, and searching for general information and resources. But just because someone can use it as an efficiency tool, does not make it efficient. The tool itself needs vast improvements, the kind that would reduce its heat output and reliance on fossil fuels.
The ethical side of it's training shouldn't be wholly ignored either. Instead of web scraping, public domain and licensed works should be used correctly according to copyright laws. Corporations could be hiring content creators to fuel the learning algorithms, but instead they are replacing them with poeple that use the current large language model (LLM) to generate "good enough" art for a cheap price. To the corporate life, that's what efficiency looks like.
I believe the corporate model of efficiency combined with the environmental inefficiency is what triggers the most anti-LLM fires. It's great that the tool helps you and other creators that are genuinely experimenting with it as a creative tool. And I do agree that we need a lot less hate regarding those that use it for their work since all of that energy would be better used trying to solve other uses of AI.
As an artist it is always said to see someone use or generate AI art when it is widely known now that it steals from artists to work. You are not an artist. You are just another AI bro who was to lazy to learn art.
High key fuck you, fuck your pixels, and fuck your mediocre writing (which wouldn’t be a problem if you had the balls to write it, but you couldn’t even do that)
But all in all this read was interesting to read, never knew people were this out of touch
I'm a bit late to the party, but I do think it's both mildly amusing and somewhat disheartening that many didn't seem to get the overall point of the piece. I mean, it's right there on the cover of the book (so to speak): a middle finger and “I'll use AI if I want to.” You can't get much clearer than that 😂
OMG! Immediate subscribe! This is like you read my thoughts and put it on paper. Idgaf if you had your AI write it for you, the thoughts are yours, the ideas are yours and that's what matters to me.
Great piece!
This was an iconic read. You nailed it - use your brain first, then let ai help you take it bigger, faster, etc. and yeah, also why does anyone care?! Most people aren’t even willing to plaster their work online, original thoughts or not. Wild how many opinions people have when they won’t even share their art.
I think AI is a great tool. I also understand that every time we use it we destroy the planet a little more because of the resources. I also see that people get mad for artists using it for music but then original artists are ignored when they are original. I also see that it steals from artists and doesn’t credit them. Many things can be good and bad it’s just the polarity of life. Currently it is what it is. But this piece is great, I loved reading your perspective nonetheless.
I wonder how many people in the comment section have chat gpt installed on their phone
this is utter bullshit that doesn’t deserve anyone’s time!!
good girls are amazing
You wrote this as if other musicians had an advantage over you by knowing how to play an instrument but every musician started by not knowing how to play an instrument or knowing the process behind production and songwriting. The only difference is that they decided to put in the pain staking work to learn and you were too lazy to. You wanted to skip over the entire process of learning to make music and claim that you "needed AI" when there are thousands of independent artists out there who are currently working everyday to hone their craft, learning how to play new instruments, use different DAWS, mix, master and record their own records without using AI to skip over the entire creative process.
That was painful to read haha even more painful to read those AI generated responses from the author lmao
I opened this article out of curiosity, because yes, using AI is typically seen as shameful and I was surprised to find a writer who openly admitted to using it. I was open to hearing out the argument, and I liked a lot of points. Something I'm not loving, however, it's the degrading tone you seem to be using for people who don't like to use AI, or disagree with AI. This post isn't simply explaining why *you* use AI, it's the rudeness towards the other side of the debate. You ignored AI's impact on the environment as well, which is a huge part of why I dislike AI. I do agree with you that AI could be used in amazing ways to aid and enhance humanity, but some things are just not it. For one, AI generated art. It's clearly stealing the art of real artists, something I just can't be okay with. I think AI is fine in moderation, to help organize thoughts or fix grammar (like you stated), but the tone you're using in the comments was my final turn-off. I'm not unsubscribing or hating or anything-- I'm debating, something you don't seem to be open to in this comment section due to many angry, irritated, rash replies I've seen directed towards people who dislike AI. Disagreements are fine and natural and create helpful debates where you can learn from both sides, but it takes an open mind.
this is well said!
First, I'd like to thank you for sharing this peice. It was a refreshing brake from the anti-AI rhetoric that is usually hammered out.
Second, I was reading through the various comments here and decided to share my own insight on the efficiency debate.
It reminded me of when I was in college. We used the inefficient methods to learn the basics. These basics could then be built on so that once we had access to the more efficient tools and formulas, we understood how to use them. In some instances (such as my thermodynamics class), access to the efficient tolls were restricted based on the teacher's preference and preferred teaching method.
I won't say if either method was right or wrong, but the point is that I feel that the argument still comes down to preference and individual goals. Here, the focus is on visual and written art. Your essay---while a decent read---mostly read as a rant against "art police" more than a discussion for the acceptance of AI in the art community. For this post, I'll focus on treating it as the latter.
AI is a tool, yes. It helps with organizational tasks, brainstorming, and searching for general information and resources. But just because someone can use it as an efficiency tool, does not make it efficient. The tool itself needs vast improvements, the kind that would reduce its heat output and reliance on fossil fuels.
The ethical side of it's training shouldn't be wholly ignored either. Instead of web scraping, public domain and licensed works should be used correctly according to copyright laws. Corporations could be hiring content creators to fuel the learning algorithms, but instead they are replacing them with poeple that use the current large language model (LLM) to generate "good enough" art for a cheap price. To the corporate life, that's what efficiency looks like.
I believe the corporate model of efficiency combined with the environmental inefficiency is what triggers the most anti-LLM fires. It's great that the tool helps you and other creators that are genuinely experimenting with it as a creative tool. And I do agree that we need a lot less hate regarding those that use it for their work since all of that energy would be better used trying to solve other uses of AI.
Anyone else shocked this was on their feed? Crazy take and a majority of people disagree. Take this convo elsewhere thank you!
As an artist it is always said to see someone use or generate AI art when it is widely known now that it steals from artists to work. You are not an artist. You are just another AI bro who was to lazy to learn art.
High key fuck you, fuck your pixels, and fuck your mediocre writing (which wouldn’t be a problem if you had the balls to write it, but you couldn’t even do that)
But all in all this read was interesting to read, never knew people were this out of touch
I'm a bit late to the party, but I do think it's both mildly amusing and somewhat disheartening that many didn't seem to get the overall point of the piece. I mean, it's right there on the cover of the book (so to speak): a middle finger and “I'll use AI if I want to.” You can't get much clearer than that 😂
you’re just weird