These absolute dimwits clearly never watched Bob Ross.
The point of Bob Ross’s entire career was You Can Do This.
The point of AI is You Can’t Do This.
Relevant Sarah Andersen comic
Bob Ross taught you that you could paint if you applied yourself. It wasn’t the domain of neurotic weirdos in the throes of creative agony, stabbing canvases in paint-splattered lofts to distract themselves from the super-gonorrhea they picked up from their last model: you could just sit down and paint a thing and enjoy yourself.
AI bros are claiming that they’re bringing art to the masses. Bob Ross actually did it.
I dont think I have ever seen his paintings in a gallery. Why? Because Bob Ross’ art form wasnt painting, it was performance. The paintings were formulaic because the goal wasnt to create paintings but create painters.
The paintings were formulaic because the goal wasnt to create paintings but create painters.
Alternately I’d say the goal was also to paint more than to produce a painting.
Obviously you’re going to be proud of finishing the actual painting, but like people are saying, the finished painting is more a reminder of the experience than an object to appreciate on its own.
Almost all of them are in possession of his estate who doesn’t seem to even lend them out. Though a few are part of the Smithsonian’s collection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDs3o1uLEdU
Except if Bob is actually painting it, he’ll explain color choices or brush choices in order to get you to try painting. AI just vomits something, and if you asked it about color choices, it’d only share a comment from another painter.
The AI is not conscious nor aware. And if it is, then we may have imprisoned souls and it should be dismantled asap before we get judged.
deleted by creator
They are simultaneously some of the most self-important, thin skinned folks on the matter.
Reject their slop comic? That’s tantamount to rejecting a cure for cancer.
Slopping out a zero effort comic? That should be as well regarded as Bob Ross.
Despite putting in the least effort, they seem to think their stuff is hot stuff, and are way more pissed at people not liking their work than people who put in crap tons of effort.
deleted by creator
That isn’t even the thing that bothers me the most, there have always been folks who want a short cut to talent via any means possible. What bothers me is that others just accept this stuff, it is a large part of society has just agreed to a total disregard for anything creative. That is just depressing.
The idea is the art. What the AI slopper doesn’t realize that the level of talent isn’t what makes something art, but the expression of that talent. No matter how small.
Asking a machine to execute your idea, is what makes it not art. Even first graders are making art when they put crayon to paper. Even if it’s only their parents who appreciate it, to those parents, it’s as valuable as the Mona Lisa
Thank you! Said it better than I could.
I don’t understand why no one was impressed when I used an e-bike to win a marathon.
Art (in the broad sense) is communication. I don’t mean that in the sense of delivering a moral, though of course it can do that too. It hit me recently that that’s why I hate AI generated content, even if it’s indistinguishable from the real thing. There’s no other person at the other end of that communication, no intention to provoke a particular feeling, impart a lesson, or engage with a good story.
People call it parroting but I think that’s an insult to parrots. Sure a parrot isn’t inquiring about your day when he says “How ya doing?” But he is trying to socialize with you by calling out to you like he would another flock member.
The point (from the AI industry perspective) is humans are obsolete and irrelevant as soon as they can arrange it.
And they have trillions of dollars to back it up.
If we want society to continue to be about human beings, and not about money or computers, we may have to change the attitude of those in power.
The sole point of AI is to devalue people and their skills. Any futurist image of a work free utopia is just an oasis level mirage used to dupe people into walking into the meat grinder.
I have hope for post-scarcity communism — or, rather had. If the greed of the plutocratic class wasn’t so severe they’d rather let the global ecology die off and let humanity run out of water than actually act to sustain the society and infrastructure that allows them to flourish, then maybe we’d have a chance to see it.
But then we might collectively recognize aristocracy as a catastrophic existential risk that we need to not only separate from their ill-gotten riches, but assure such a class never forms again.
Once they’re done plundering the world, they won’t exist, but then neither will the rest of humanity.
There is the argument of the ‘bend not break’ model which I think is admirable. It is the path we should take but are unlikely to do so. The pessimistic take is that we don’t avoid the problem, we have to endure through it. Basically the entire capital enterprise crumbles under its own weigh as the resources to maintain it diminish. This is a rough path down but there is a bright side. We won’t be extinguished but we shall be greatly diminished. The meek shall inherit the earth.
Think of the Lodgepole pine cones. They are the seed of the tree that have sap so dense that you cannot break into them. And yet when the forest fire comes through, the heat of the destruction melts the sap and they are free to seed. I am starting to feel the is the path through. You cannot prevent the disaster but you can provide a parachute on the way down so that something can be rebuilt on the other side.
The stories of the greedy are going to be the myth of the future and they will not be kind to the people of our times.
This is why I talk about degrowth, I don’t believe we will do it by choice but by force. But it is best that we have a structure in place for the worst of the fall.
Also, the way this is framed, it looks like the robot painted it first and then Bob copied it.
In reality, Bob painted it first, the robots scraped the data and used it to copy his work, style, etc., and then all the little Bob Ross’s of the world have their original work buried under a pile of slop that ripped them off to begin with.
Yeah. There’s no way any of those bot-fucking clowns will ever understand this. The see the slop they have their AI/LLM/OpenGPT make for them as their fast-track ticket to Pretendville, where they can stand beside skilled musicians, artists, poets… and loudly claim:
“I am one of you!”
… while being entirely unaware that all of them, and most everyone they know think they are a colossal joke.
And the fact that they seem to think that simply punching adjectives into a prompt is the exact same thing as spending all of your life up to this point in time- just to learn a craft, is all the proof you need that what I just said is 100% factual.
They’re fucking idiots. They don’t know better.
yep. it’s the ultimate evolution of the ‘idea guy’. no talent, no effort, no pain, no investment necessary.
deleted by creator
yup. they don’t realize this poison will kill the giving tree, or do, and hope to corner the market on premium slop.
wild shit.
I’d argue that Bob Ross’s art wasn’t the point at all. At least for me, it was listening to what he said and how he said it that was the point of the show.
Ross said things that weren’t even FOR me that I needed to hear- that people in my life didn’t.Oh yeah this [digital artist] is so good but if I copy the SAME EXACT IMAGE suddenly It’s “uninspired” and “plagiarized”…
/s
It is far, far too late for that now—I have already instructed the Managing Director of Art of my Agent Conglomerate to depict you as the seething histrionic carbon-based Agent. You lose.
A large part of art - and I would argue, the majority of it - is the sapient being behind the art who understands the art they are creating.
Doesn’t matter if it is a painting, a novel, or a sculpture, the art is a product of the artist.
And when a non-sapient and even non-sentient machine makes said “art”, it isn’t art any more than if a salamander accidentally dropped from a tree onto the freshly-loaded palette, and then crawled over the canvas.
Too many people have an instrumental view of art. They want an image of a tree or anime tiddies or whatever and as long as the object functions as such. they don’t care about anything else.
“thing is pritty” is all that matters.
This is the core of it, really. AI lets you skip the creative process and fast-forward to the end product, and people always forget that “the boring parts” are where a lot of important decisions happen and the art is lesser for letting a statistical model make them.
That fact is why I am immensely disappointed, but not surprised, by how popular LLMs are among programmers.
I would prefer the salamander artist TBH
It’s the same images in both panels, so it seems justified to call the hypothetical plagiarism machine’s theft of hypothetical Bob Ross’s hypothetical art, slop. Considering Bob Ross has been dead for 30 years, and how absurd the supposed shade being thrown at anti-ai’ers is… you almost have to expect this is parody meant to mock ai bros and not an actual argument being made.
