27
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
27 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
1485 readers
153 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Creativity is a lie. You heard it here first.
I keep hearing this shit from creatively bankrupt folks and fash billionaires, because it’s very important to them that art and creativity isn’t for us — it’s an expensive relic of the past and a commodity that only they can afford. it’s fucking ghoulish, but that goes without saying with Sammy
what none of them seem to have an answer for is the obvious chicken and egg problem that their weird fucking conjecture leads to. if creativity isn’t possible, where in fuck did all the art come from? these assholes assert that modern artists just remix their inputs like a fucking generative AI, which is plainly false to anyone who knows artists or has even objectively evaluated generative AI outputs, but where in fuck did historical artists get their inputs from if we’re supposing that’s true? generative AI copies, but there’s nothing to copy from when there’s no original.
and that’s not meant to give a single inch to these shitheads and allow the fash idea that true art comes from some fantasy version of history either. modern artists do fucking fantastic creative work — when they’re not shackled by the capitalist systems that keep shitheads like Sammy boy buying expensive, unchallenging art pieces purely as a tax dodge
I’m starting to think that this Sam Altman guy just might be a giant asshole.
It took you this long to suss that???
First they came for the eyeballs, and I said nothing.
--Sam Altman, probably
It's hard to understand what Samuel Alternativeman hopes to accomplish by making such statements. Does he want everyone to give up on being creative and just defer to AI? Does he think that without a source of real creativity for training, his products have any value at all?
He’s either trying to generate new critihype by making Clippy intelligent again (“It learns just like those pesky hoomans do!”), or slither his way out of that lawsuit by claiming it couldn’t have stolen original ideas when there have never been any original ideas in the first place.
I’m still trying to figure out what’s stupider.
It's Furbies all over again