You asked, and the author of the article asked, by proxy “buhwhy no one mad at apple for same thing” and I’m saying they weren’t the same thing. Apple deserves distinctly different shit. It’s not only my “characterization,” it accords with reality, and is why the author and you don’t see people as mad at apple for doing a different, differently shitty thing.

it’s also funny how you can tilt an average lemmy user by somehow saying bad shit about MS and Apple at the same time, I guess

Apple dropped a whole lot of vague shit that they “promised” would have some sort of holistic and on-device/private benefit to users if they pulled a full data profile of you together, kept it on-device, kept it secure, etc, etc.

Windows stealthed an update onto PCs that suddenly started capturing and processing unsecured screenshots of everything that users were doing without ever telling anyone why or what it’s for or how it would work. People found out that it was unsecured by looking in its unsecured folder. It wasn’t the same thing.

That said, obviously, Apple Intelligence is bullshit and doesn’t work or do anything of any use other than making Siri slightly prettier.

that’s because “Apple Intelligence” is nearly 100% vaporware

Sure but it gets back to “Nobody wants to see anyone’s shit art”. No one wants to see anyone’s shit photos either. If it didn’t take like 5 minutes for a photo I bet most early photos would have been of tits, too. It doesn’t mean the tech can’t have a purpose and couldn’t be used in a flourishing, artistic way. It just means we need to do what we’ve always done and tell people with bad art to fuck off. :)

Yeah fair enough, I don’t disagree with you. I think for AI artists of the future it’ll be more about them asserting their subjectivity through the lens of each model (if that’s possible). Sort of in the same way that each camera has a character to it that is palpable across multiple people.

For example, take Adolf Hitler. He was a terrible artist. He had no understanding of proportion. His paintings don’t make logical sense. And you know what? That suits the man. Hitler was an idiot who couldn’t make logical sense of the world. His paintings reflect his terrible mind. There is that much value in them as an endeavour of self-expression. I can look at a painting by Hitler and say “that’s a Hitler”.

But I do disagree with this, though. Hitler may have been a terrible artist but he might be an equivalent artist in skill level to any number of other humans who might or might not have a “logical sense of the world”, “no understanding of proportion” etc. I don’t think Hitler’s art is good enough to even be able to tell anything about him other than that he doesn’t have an original voice yet.

I don’t think most (any?) AI artists have an original voice yet. Can they make one, even though the instrument makes most of (much of?) the music? I’m not bearish on the idea that humans can use this tool to make something useful I guess.

Any idiot with a pencil is an artist. The pencil only does what you tell it. You don’t have to work to make it yours.

I don’t like that we’ve settled here in defense of “human art” because that’s simply not true. No one, in the course of human history, has ever sat behind some kid doodling stupid pictures and clapped for them unless it was their mom. It’s a trope that real human artists are generally ignored through their lifetimes. Let’s stop pretending we’re all patrons of the arts and love everything that comes out of a person with a paint brush.

That said, you’re totally right, there’s 99% of people who don’t do shit with AI art, and don’t know what to do with it. There’s still an infinite capacity for a thing that makes whatever you can imagine to actually make something useful, I do truly believe that. If you haven’t seen “great AI art” it’s probably because there hasn’t been a great AI artist yet. Likening it back to photography, which was mostly a carnival trick and a thing for bored rich people, it took a long time before anyone ever identified a photographer who they thought actually showed them something that showed their subjectivity. We’re in the “old people staring at a camera looking bored” phase of this.

I guess photography is just going “Camera, capture the perspective of the world for me”. There’s no human element in it at all, no choice, no subjectivity, just “Ask computer for thing, hit print, call it ‘my art’”. That’s a totally accurate depiction of what’s going on. Yup.