Replying to an earlier post

“Everybody wants to be a sleuth” or something, analog to “everyone’s a critic”.

I wish it was limited to visual artists; just a few minutes ago I read a lengthy & well-written comment right here in the fediverse, to which someone replied “they shouldn’t have used AI to write it”. Somehow completely ignoring the actual content.

This has been going on for a while. Partially because AI-generated imagery was really bad just a couple of years ago, so people feel competent, otoh it gets harder to detect, which is a challenge… not sure where I’m going with this, but I have a feeling that this is an aspect of human behavior that manifests in other regards, too, and has forever. And that I believe it will pass, although the downside might be that artists will start to create things that deliberately do not look “like they’re AI”.

Replying to @⁨A_norny_mousse@piefed.zip⁩

It will always be an arms race. If someone develops a new style that doesn’t look like AI, then it’s only a matter of time before an AI model can generate that style.

And the future I see for this arms race is eventually it will be better than humans at producing art that doesn’t look like AI.

I’m at the point where I think AI generated shit should be judged on its own merit rather than for whether or not it’s AI because eventually we won’t be able to tell from other factors and any attempts will end up hurting humans more than the AIs (because they have no feelings to be hurt and will just continue while some portion of the humans will get discouraged and stop bothering to try).

Plus, at least with programming, saying code sucks because it’s AI generated is weak. If a code submission is shit, there will be technical reasons that it is shit that have nothing to do with who (or what) wrote it.

en