Didn't say otherwise, cry about it.

Sorry, did you take this as me coming at you? I was genuinely interested in your take on the banana's relevance because high conceptual contemporary art is very easy to dismiss as "not art" by the layperson which makes it an interesting touch point for the AI value debate. I very much understand and agree with what you've said here, and you've described me at two separate stages of my career.

I find it fun that you mention a 100,000 word novel because I keep going back to thinking about how "a picture is worth a thousand words" is probably seeing some major economic volatility nowadays. That adage is very much in question now. Some of these prompts are getting way up there and, personally, the results very rarely look like they're worth the effort.

As it exists, AI isn't even a keen new tool, yet. But I am biased as someone who routinely creates visuals from scratch and uses a lot of different tools. It's clearly mind-blowing for the folks who don't. It is a kinda fun gadget, but it's really no more sophisticated than good old "content-aware" and just as fiddly and commercially not useful. The prompt engineers will have words for me, but really: this tech is laughably dumb at this stage.

But I don't believe it ever really will be keen with this mode of operation as it's basis - all this will ever do is force the homogenization of visual anything/everything. We've already seen similar thanks to Pinterest and ArtStation and any other community drawing for the same reference points. Fantastic if you don't care about visuals but uh, hope you're really into hyper-mainstream media because that's all it will look like.

Because you're right, it's only the non-artists who think it can replace artists -because they don't actually value art, just the benefit it grants them. Not that they value the artist either, obviously. These are people who agree with AI developers that not only can visual design be formulated, but even worse that it should be to make it easier/cheaper/whatever.

But the sad reality is that it's here. And it's impressive enough to convince those with resources that it is worth pursuing further down this path of development. It isn't, but they're definitely not going to go back to carve out protections for the creative community. So we are stuck with a few options.

-adapt - work it into your flow because you'll have to at this rate. Sucks, but they fucked the game.

-abolish - yea, we're not going get that far, but we might be able to maintain this copyright denial which will keep it from replacing jobs by way of being unusable content.

-compete - obviously it's going to be impossible to do so directly as an artist versus an AI for output, but keep in mind this still just the first wave of this concept. Future iterations of the concept (I'm talking specifically not future versions of current tools) can still be about challenging the basis this technology operates on. Something ethically designed to respect and reward the human behind every element the AI interacts with. They'd love for us to think they're too dominant to challenge, but look at how many copycats exist already. There's tons of room for sending this wave to the obsolete pile.

Here, you're using the world to mean something completely different. Hence why it is preferable to use analogue

No, I use the world to live on. Your entire argument is now invalid, oh shit.

I used the word analog because we're still talking about an electronic tool vs not electronic set of things.

I just exist in observable reality, try it some time.

Yea, we're well into DADA-ist territory to find interesting reference points for the timeless question of "what is art" in this discussion.

I'm curious: how do you feel this relates? Does the banana feel like it should or should not be art and/or copyrighted? Is it an energy/effort quality being compared to the end result? Or just the concept vs physical manifestation of the concept?

Not at all, I've laid out reasons for why:

1. Your suppositions are incorrect, sorry to be the messenger, but my working understanding of my career definitely does outweight your "I think" in regard to what my peers do for a living.

2. AI is not as viable as people want to believe it is (yet, at least) which happen to be the very same reasons behind the lack of copyright viability and why commercial teams are not using it. Because anyone working in the industry who has experienced these tools or put out any actual product is already laughing at how obvious it is. The courts are right, and the discussion is about how AI works and why it does not. Not "should it tho?"

You on the other hand, opened with an attempt to shut down my working experience with suppositions because I contradicted you, belittlement and attempts to claim intellectual superiority (by hilariously being wrong on both counts) then when called out, you tried to swing everything to your interpretation of how someone must feel if they're telling you you're wrong and dumb for thinking that was an "intellectual exploration" of the topic at hand.

I knew I was talking to a fool, but damn. This is impressive.

There is no bias to have, AI as it exists is not a viable tool for commercial use, it rightfully does not meet the requirements to be copyrighted. Your apparent interest in denying that truth seems to be the root of this projection.

My livelihood is not at risk. At worst I'll be tasked with laying out what my team will need to populate our own in-house AI in order for them to utilize it for low priority bulk assets. The chances it would be used for anything of importance are very low because it's just another route to a goal we can already achieve easily.

So at worst, my job is even more secure and all I have to do is spend a week getting paid for adding yet another tool to my set. None of my teams livelihoods are at risk either because we all understand the parts AI and a prompt engineer will not know could or should be described. If they did, they'd understand that writing and editing prompts out is slower than just doing the work directly.

No, you're just talking out your ass and trying to claw back a win for yourself by pulling out grammar rules and now trying again to avoid addressing anything of substance I've said. Take your L and sit down.

AI as it exists is commercially useless. I speak from experience because of course we looked at it immediately. It may grow into something actually useful for production work but that will never happen so long as it's pulling everything from the internet - no studio or art director worth their weight will accept the legal risk or the indirect volatility of AI generated art when they can just tap Derek to make the exact requested adjustment directly. The very thing that allows people to feel like they are artists for using it is exactly why it cannot become a viable tool and this article shows exactly why.

This will hold true until a tool is developed isolated from the wider internet and only fed with your studio's original material OR the copyright laws get ratfucked by someone with more economic might than individual artists.

Now I'm just hoping some idiot out there is trying to copyright melting crayons down a blank canvas.

because I think it makes you sound more smarter 😅

Brilliant. I don't give a damn what you'd recommend, you're a pedant who's clearly out of their depth.

What are analog tools? Strictly speaking, these are tools that don't use electricity. They don't require user manuals, and are easy to use.

Like pencils and brushes you dolt.

Any idiot can create AI art. That's the whole point. I have yet to see anything good or interesting come out of it because you're right, not every idiot can be an art director. AI just let's them think they're doing any of the work and "good" is subjective.

Speaking as an art director, and a digital artist who actually knows what they're talking about: it is true for all working artists. Your concept only holds true for kids dabbling in technology with no background in art. They might make digital art, but they are not digital artists.

That being said, I do acknowledge that logically, there is not much difference between a digital artist and an AI artist. Neither of them could produce anything of value without their software of choice.

Uh, no. The vast majority of skills utilized by digital artists apply across any software and with analog tools as well just as we've used them for hundreds of years. They are quite capable of producing similar works without digital tools at all. You cannot say the same for someone refining a prompt for a piece of software that scrapes everything from other people's creativity.

The closest analog would be an art director for a collage project. That is what an AI artist does.

No, genuinely, you're reading it wrong and taking it personally because others already started the downvote train. Yes what they suggest isn't immediately realistic, but it's easily achievable if people actually wanted to do it.

Like are you under the belief that all of our social structures were borne out of the natural order of the universe - entirely immutable and incapable of change?

Is it truly not possible in your mind that we are arbitrarily subjecting ourselves to unnecessary cruelty for the comfort of people who think change can't happen?

They never said the problem isn't real. They said the way society is structured is what make it manifest as a problem because society is not equipped to accommodate you as you deserve. You don't deserve to be treated as a broken individual, you deserve to not have an unjustly difficult life because of something you were born with. Giving it a negative connotation label as a disorder affects the way people (without a clinical understanding of the word) behave toward you. The label is enhancing the harm you face and would be the first step toward altering the public understanding of ADHD.

How's that paranoia going for you?

Take a genuine interest in their obsessions. Not a performative "I want you to see I like this for you" but a real "I've been going out and doing this on my own for the past few weeks/months and I want to talk about it"

You do actually have to do it, they'll spot your bullshit before you speak it.

Try to keep in mind how many redditors are now on lemmy.

They get emotional and want to fight over semantics and anecdotes constantly especially when they realize they've assumed intent incorrectly. They only know how to double down. It's not their fault.

They're only hearing "your problem isn't real" because they're not listening.

Ok troll

Firstly, I have ADHD, and have lived with it for 40 years.

You're looking at it on a different scale than they are. You are looking internally, while they are talking about external social pressures which force you to accept that there is no alternative to trying to be the triangle in the square hole (which conveniently comes with extra fees and stress.) Our inability to regulate dopamine is an issue exacerbated by the environment we exist within. The simple short is we're fucking bored, we need a partner/hypeman/twin to bypass chemical shortcomings, and NTs can't relate so they don't care enough to make changes, which is unfortunate because they're in charge, usually.

You are not an island. There absolutely are environmental changes to be made. A good start would be a supportive partner who understands and doesn't judge you for your inability to make the brain chemicals happen as expected. This means they're not hounding you over things they find more urgent than you do, they're not holding you to unrealistic expectations, and maybe they don't even mind cooking for you.

That is still hindered by the social connotation of being "disordered" making everything more difficult because you're different. Going out on a limb and assuming relationships have been difficult for you as well? Same root problem, that still isn't you or ADHD but other people's perceptions of you as a result of your ADHD and their lack of understanding.

Have you ever had the opportunity to live your life for a week or a month without alarms, without a schedule, without someone telling you what you should be doing or when? Just what you want?

I recognize that's a lot, and most couldn't afford to entertain the idea but that's kinda what they're talking about with environmental changes - people can't afford to not conform to unnatural/arbitrary schedules and routines.

You might be fascinated by what will happen. My sleep schedule regulated to 7-8 hours, granted it was offset by about 14 hours from everyone else's schedules - but for the first time ever, I had regular sleep patterns. What followed was a burst of energy, creative output, excitement for the future and a somewhat on-demand hyperfocus state.

Something as simple as having the opportunity to just let my body dictate it's own schedule allowed my brain to focus during my actual peak hours that have always been wasted on exhaustedly trying to sleep prior. Feeling like the things I'm doing are making meaningful and exciting progress made it easy to stay interested, fueling the next days hyperfocus. And it all fueled a 6 month streak of 15-18 hours a day working on something I cared about.

Sounds a lot more like making life easier, just wish it didn't come with the additional challenge of getting to stores while they're open. Your grumpiness over being woken by alarms, while a functional tool, is a direct result of you being in a position where you have to force yourself to fit a schedule against your body's natural cycle. How do you think that undercurrent of frustration manifests throughout the day?

We aren't lazy and although we produce lower quantities, it doesn't mean we're incapable. We just have to have environmental conditions met (rested, not stressed, active during your peak hours, not being interrupted, and being supported by others to make executive shortcomings a non-issue.) while facing an idea or thought we find meaningful/fascinating/novel, whatever. Our motivations are outcome based, so every layer of stress sabotages our ability to envision a successful execution - we just do that evaluation before we've even started or recognized our stress levels. That becomes even more of a challenge when you're forced to accept arbitrary work for mere survival. I get it.

I know underlying stress is what sets off my need to problem solve and jump tasks until I find the solution to the stress - but the moment I eliminated that contributing factor I was able to align with my brain again with some other mitigating techniques, rituals, and acceptance that while I could invoke hyperfocus ( I still don't get to choose what gets it, at least not directly.) But I can actually function in the way I'm supposed to for once.

One person with ADHD to you: you're wildly misunderstanding or you're trolling. There is no alternative here.

They are not suggesting ADHD should not be recognized as something we deserve accomodations for. They are saying the exact opposite on a true but unrealistic level. They are saying it's only a problem that requires accomodations because of the way the world runs on neurotypical ideas and generally under neurotypical leadership. Everything.

Neurotypical folks will never question the 9-5 because it works for them. But it's a problem for them if you can't maintain working schedules.

They will never understand the constant executive challenges we face, so they cannot relate to our struggles. They don't care enough to empathize, so it's an ironic character judgement against you.

Finding a job that even tickles your interest is hard. Finding leadership that gets it is very difficult. Making it through the screening process to the interview can be almost impossible. But that's just how things are, right?

The environmental problem is neurotypical dominance at every level of life from the top down and the expectations you will held to by default as a direct result of that. The ease with which you are brushed off is a result of the combination of those unfair expectations, their lack of understanding, and the connotation of "disorder." It makes you a problem not worth considering to them.

The desire for freedom from the expectation of working like a robot on a rigid schedule doing something that doesn't interest you in the slightest, is probably universal. Sure.

There are plenty of ADHD folks who are able to outperform neurotypical peers when they have a suitable environment. They typically have quite a few accomodations being made by empathetic leadership to create the mental space they need. In my own case, this meant a near complete disregard for when working hours occur, judgements based on results as opposed to daily stand-ups and reports, and completely bypassing hierarchies of communication to limit people's access to pulling me out of hyperfocus.

Not like overwhelming people with needlessly repetitive information stretched out over long periods of time littered with small talk and nonsense doesn't have value, it's just completely counter to what the ADHD brain needs to work.

The almost complete lack of alternatives which align to your natural cycles and focus states is a social failing to recognize that you are not disordered at all. You just do not have viable options so they slapped disordered on you and make you jump through fees and hoops for accomodations. Because this is America: one size fits all or you're broken.

So here you are, demanding they close your cage and keep you in there. (which is a shitty band-aid you appear to recognize is the best we've got)

They're saying society is set up and engrained in a way where the best solutions for you and I are only as good as torturing ourselves with alarms and keeping a steady supply of frozen convenience fees.

They're saying it's only a "disorder" in a negative sense because society has failed to understand that the way things "work" and the traditional ways heavily favor the A-type extroverted morning people (sociopaths) who cannot comprehend how their routines might not be universal. Everyone is forced to live with it regardless because banking hours and business meetings exist for them.

You're complaining about the very thing he's saying is forcing you to be "disordered"

This is the same for me. Comes with downsides too, but I've found weed incredibly valuable for.. not really controlling or prompting hyperfocus states, but definitely a strong catalyst.

Still don't really feel in control over which single line of interest gets the focus, but at least it's not everything.

That sets prisoners up as underclass members of general society which is exactly the condition that leads to a lot of people becoming criminals in the first place

That's the unspoken point. The system is already so drunk on the exploitation of slave labor to the point that all involved actively seek to encourage recidivism. They want all of us for any reason they can shit out.