I don’t understand people being so incredibly proud of the prompts they use for AI art. It’s like proudly proclaiming that you have found the optimal settings for microwaving a burrito.
Actually that makes it make more sense to me. But to make it fit, the microwave would have to steal the burrito in pieces from 50 of your neighbor's freezers
That’s okay, the rice, beans, salsa and chicken in the burrito were all produced by unsustainable factory farming practices that exploit marginalized people, so I think the metaphor holds up reasonably well.
An AI "artist' is basically using a glorified search engine. Now, I won't belittle a person for having a good grasp of Google-fu, but no one can convince me that the person who knows exactly how to search is the same—or even in the same ballpark—as the person who created what he is searching for.
I would replace "how many" with "how few". Glass half full vs. glass half empty. Why would anyone NOT want to learn how to use their tools more efficiently? I suppose that's the issue though, this is a tool that is not widely accepted at this time.
Determining by trial and error a magic incantation that will get a computer to produce the results you desire? They already have that, it’s called &SOFTWARE ENGINEERING*
Offended as a microwave enthusiast, I work hard to perfectly reheat leftovers!
(...it's 2 minutes on 5, 1 minutes on 7, 30 seconds on high. Mix in-between if it's a mixable thing)
The app won’t show it to me.
Nothing happens when I tap OK.
Is it worth my time to try to troubleshoot the problem, or is it just some worthless low-effort creation?
Fair is fair, that’s about as deep as their understanding of creating art goes.
And as sophisticated a sense of taste, for that matter.
I can’t wait until their toys break.
Quick way to say you don't understand real photography.
Granted, a quick snap of your friend isn't exactly art, but that just points to the fact that art takes effort.
Typing a bad description isn't art. It is asking for "art" from the plagarized art machine.
You made nothing. You did nothing.
I know that photography can be art, but it
- relies heavily on technology that does most of the work of actually producing the image
- the art of it involves both technical knowledge and choice of how to apply the technology
- the tech can be used naively
- people enjoy using it
Just like genAI
Superficial similarities aside, there’s a distinct difference between assembling/compositing images from a training set (GenAI), and recording an image created out of detected photons at a specific point in spacetime.
One requires skill, presence, reality, and zero precursors or predetermined sources. It relies on no preset data and one can spontaneously take an artistic, well composed photo with no prior training.
The other is a calculator that binds unmatching garbage together based on stolen images.
"Typing a bad description isn't art. It is asking for "art" from the plagarized art machine." I don't see prompt engineering like this at all. At its best, it's a dialog between the user and the artist, pushing the limits of expression with equations and other abstruse non-language.
So... It is a bad description that you tell the art plagiarism machine to make the "art" for you.
There is no artist to have a dialogue with. You have no skill. It is a machine that calculates pixels. You put in 2+2 and it gives 4.
You did nothing. You asked for it and it was generated. Poorly.
Maybe a different perspective. I see AI art prompts more like a baker tweaking a known recipe. It’s about creatively combining tools and pre-processed ingredients, like using a microwave for perfect chocolate cream, to craft something unique. It’s skill and imagination, not just pressing buttons
A baker still needs to bake even if he uses a recipe. A baker is an artist, using his skill to transform a recipe in a unique way. AI prompter is reheating a microwave burrito. There's no skill involved. The original metaphor is spot-on.
