Twonks | Bluesky

Transcript

TW😶NKS

A comic in four panels:

Panel 1. White text on black

AI Design Logic

Panel 2. A guy sits in a restaurant at a table with a checkered table cloth. A waiter stands near, hands behind back waiting attentively.

Guy: Get me a cheese pizza

Panel 3. The waiter returns with a pizza in hand.

Panel 4. The guy gestures proudly at the pizza. The waiter looks less than amused.

Guy: Wow, look what I made!

  • PhenomenJan@lemmy.today
    3·
    1 day ago

    I think most people leading a team would say “we built this”. Personally, if I hire someone to build something for me, I’d say something like “I had this built” intead of saying I built it myself.

    I think there should be a short form for “I had AI do this for me”… “I prompted” maybe?

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      1 day ago

      People very comfortably say “Company made this”, or “we made this” regarding a place they work even if not on the team if talking to someone external.
      When people get houses built they often say they’re building a new house, even if it’s actually someone else doing every part of it.

      There’s a part of our language that lends itself to having the cause of a thing be responsible for the thing.

      The closer it gets to being something you could have personally done every part of and another person is involved the more we tend to draw back, which is why the AI art language grates a bit.

      My coworker said he’s building a cabin up north: I have no uncertainty at all that he’s approving a design and someone else is doing it.
      I wouldn’t say I put up a handrail on my stairs: it’s plausible I could have, but I didn’t (it’s an awkward space with weird stud spacing, and I have older family I want to be able to rely on it, so I paid someone with licensing to do it right in 20 minutes). I don’t want to take credit for what I didn’t do.

      With the art, only one person actually caused it to be made. But it also feels like taking credit for something more difficult than it was.
      If I drop a bucket of paint off a balcony, I wouldn’t say “I caused a giant mess to be made”, but “I made a giant mess”.
      If I pointed at it and said “I have made art”, people would assume I was joking, despite a surface similarity to some art. The amount of effort is disproportional to the claim.

      • qarbone@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        12 hours ago

        I believe the “part of our language that lends itself to having the cause of a thing be responsible for the thing” (in the contexts you give examples for) is just the human desire to be included in what’s happening, even if you shouldn’t be. If we were honest, we would callout these inaccurate claims. But it is a component of social lubrication that we ignore minor inaccuracies. We allow white lies because the cost of pursuing them is greater than the value of uncovering them.

        That is not the case with people falsely claiming ownership of things genAI has made for them. Presumably because we understand that the person “building their house” is not building their own house from scratch. And so it doesn’t erode the foundation of architecture to allow that inaccuracy. Carpentry as a profession won’t be written off because Business Chett heard someone say “anyone can build a home (by having someone else do it for them).”

      • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
        22·
        1 day ago

        If you drop a paint bucket you made high class modern art worth tens of millions. If you bullshit hard enough. But in all seriousness.

        There is to a point a matter of art being entirely “valid” only to the eye of a beholder. Ai “art” is by all reasonable arguments art and made by who ever is piloting the bot. That is how it is. With out the willful intent of a human the bot is innert and can not create anything. So even the most slop or slop is still a willful human creation. A tool can not act on its own.

        The problem is people saying it’s not real art or that the person piloting the bot isn’t an artist are doing so based on a personal belief. Not a hard fact. Which because of the nature of art is entirely valid. People have argued what isn’t and is real art for decades. People argued digital art was fake for a decade. People argued photography was fake art for decades. And the further back you go you can find endless examples.

        Some of the “best” art work in history range from extremely hard and demand decades of skill and dedication. While others took a few mins and no real skill at all.

        Intent, reason and personal subjectivity are the defining facets of what is or is not art. If someone lazily has an ai generate something and takes the first pass then that’s on them for making low effort art. No different then if I draw a stick man and call it a day.

        Someone who uses a bit to draft, create and literate over and over and pushes a bot to its absolute limit. Is vastly different.

        Sometimes the art is in the process and not the result as well. So even if the bot shits out something mediocre, the ability to get something that actually passes for acceptable instead of slop is in and of it self an art.

        AI art to me personally is a problem of quantity letting everything because of ease of access to Creation. Never before. Has humanity had the ability to create faster or more efficiently. And people are taking advantage of that to simply not try to not push the tool and to not see what can be done with the tool.

        And to be very clear this is entirely aside to the legal issues around how early models were trained as well as the copyright problems, which is an entirely separate issue to all of this. It’s related but it is very much its own problem and a solvable one. We just got to convince the multi-trillion dollar companies to stop being assholes…