Zaleramancer

Thanks for responding, I appreciate it. What you're saying makes sense.

When you say that about her being mentally ill with no empathy, what exactly do you mean? I'm asking because it's easy to draw a lot of different conclusions from that statement, and I'm trying to make fewer assumptions when I don't know people well.

Yeah, it's a nightmare looking for jobs online right now. You could not design a system more unfriendly to neurodivegent people if you tried, it's miserable to use your limited focus to put together a very effortful thing and it's just being tossed in the blender.

You're expected to tailor your resume, re-enter your resume information, pass personality tests, prove you have years of experience for an entry level position, make yourself maximally available for interviews, risk scams and exposing your information to botnets, write cover letters that are never read, do research into the company to be prepared to show interest in it- only to just... Never even hear back

I have never felt more like an animal performing for the amusing of a jeering, abusive crowd that this.

Part of the problem is that sufficient wealth seems to destroy people's understanding of consequence. They don't experience them very often, and so reach a point where they can simply pursue whatever their feelings tell them to do and the world magically restructures itself to allow them to do so.

Combine this with how the incentives of the social system result in the people who are most likely to pursue a selfish course being the most financially successful- you get a recipe for short-sighted, ignorant and self-important nonsense.

Sounds like ADHD to me. Are you seeing a specialist in Autism/ADHD or a generalist? I saw a psychiatrist who specialized in ADHD, which made it a lot easier because she knew what to look for and also was really ready to listen to me and help me.

She also was much more understanding about appointments because of it.

Hey, thank you so much for your contribution to this discussion. You presented me a really challenging thought and I have appreciated grappling with it for a few days. I think you've really shifted some bits of my perspective, and I think I understand now.

I think there's an ambiguity in my initial post here, and I wanted to check which of the following is the thing you read from it:

• Generative AI art is inherently limited in these ways, even in the hands of skilled artists or those with technical expertise with it; or,
• Generative AI art is inherently limited in these ways, because it will be ultimately used by souless executives who don't respect or understand art.

Little high, little low. I'm adjusting to online discussions after not being part of them for quite a while. Had some fun conversations with my partner and I am writing again, which is great. Job hunting is such a drag though. Simply inhuman.

I'm not sure I understand your overall point here. It sounds like you're saying that the perceived emotional connections in art are simply the result of the viewer projecting emotions onto the piece, is that correct?

You make a compelling and very interesting point here. I'm still l considering it, because it's provoked a lot of thought for me. Once I feel like I can definitely make an argument against or in favor of your point, I'll get back to you.

Well done, I love intelligent discussions like this so much, I really missed them when my online communities started decaying. The pursuit of truth is so much fun!

The university I went to had an unusually large art department for the state it was in, most likely because due to a ridiculous chain of events and it's unique history, it didn't have any sports teams at all.

I spent a lot of time there, because I had (and made) a lot of friends with the art students and enjoyed the company of weird, creative people. It was fun and beautiful and had a profound effect on how I look at art, craft and the people who make it.

I mention this because I totally disagree with you on the subject of photography. It's incredibly intentional in an entirely distinct but fundamentally related way, since you lack control over so many aspects of it- the things you can choose become all the more significant, personal and meaningful. I remember people comparing generative art and photography and it's really... Aggravating, honestly.

The photography student I knew did a whole project as part of her final year that was a display of nude figures that did a lot of work with background, lighting, dramatic shadow and use of color, angle and deeply considered compositions. It's a lot of work!

I don't mean here to imply you're disparaging photography in any way, or that you don't know enough about it. I can't know that, so I'm just sharing my feelings about the subject and art form.

A lot of generative art has very similar lighting and positioning because it's drawing on stock photographs which have a very standardized format. I think there's a lot of different between that and the work someone who does photography as an art has to consider. Many of the people using generative art as tools lack the background skills that would allow them to use them properly as tools. Without that, it's hard to identify what makes a piece of visual art not work, or what needs to be changed to convey a mood or idea.

In an ideal world, there would be no concern for loss of employment because no one would have to work to live. In that world, these tools would be a wonderful addition to the panoply of artistic implements modern artists enjoy.

Of course! I didn't mean to suggest you are arguing about the soul thing. I'm sorry if that's the impression I created, since you've been very clearly arguing on a very different tract that I firmly agree with.

I did close my post by saying capitalism is responsible for the problems, so I think we're on the same page about why it's unethical to engage with AI art.

I am interested in engaging in a discourse not about that (I am very firmly against the proliferation of AI because of the many and varied bad social implications), but I am interested in working on building better arguments against it.

I have seen multiple people across the web making the argument that AI art is bad not just because of the fact that it will put artists out of work, but because the product is, itself, lacking in some vital and unnameable human spark or soul. Which is a bad argument, since it means the argument becomes about esoteric philosophy and not the practical argument that if we do nothing art stops being professionally viable, killing many people and also crushing something beautiful and wonderful about life forever.

Rich people ruin everything, is what I want the argument to be.

So I'm really glad you're making that argument! Thanks, honestly, it's great to see it!