Human favoritism, not AI aversion: People’s perceptions (and bias) toward generative AI, human experts, and human–GAI collaboration in persuasive content generation - Volume 18
I mean, the study is kind of saying that. I don’t have a particular reason to doubt the result, since I’ve seen some pretty spectacular AI content.
Edit: On further thought, maybe it’s more that human content is a mediocre wine, and AI content is a similar but maybe slightly better wine, but “human” is the expensive label.
it’s definitely better than the average “artist”, even the average artist, but the top artists are still leagues above.
Anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves, as evidenced by this study.
What I hate most is that this discussion is so black and white. If any amount of AI is involved it’s allegedly garbage. You can create 99% of an artpiece on your own, add some detail with AI and it’s automatically garbage.
Makes no sense. People will just have to accept that the nature of making art has changed forever and realize that it’s not about the process, but about the end result. And if you like doing art 100% manually, no one is stopping you.
You average person won’t be able to create good art even with AI, as evidenced by the AI art communities on Lemmy. Being an artist means having an eye for beauty. You can’t teach that.
That’s one of the main reasons why people think AI art is garbage, because it’s mainly created by people with skill or zero taste. In the hands of real artist, AI art turns out amazing. I wish I had anywhere near that aesthetic gift.
Any idiot like me can tell you if art is good or bad, but creating good art is an entirely different beast. It’s extremly rare, even among professional artists.
That still requires the human touch. AI can’t come anywhere close.
so you’re saying human made art is cheap swill?
I mean, the study is kind of saying that. I don’t have a particular reason to doubt the result, since I’ve seen some pretty spectacular AI content.
Edit: On further thought, maybe it’s more that human content is a mediocre wine, and AI content is a similar but maybe slightly better wine, but “human” is the expensive label.
it’s definitely better than the average “artist”, even the average artist, but the top artists are still leagues above. Anyone saying otherwise is lying to themselves, as evidenced by this study.
What I hate most is that this discussion is so black and white. If any amount of AI is involved it’s allegedly garbage. You can create 99% of an artpiece on your own, add some detail with AI and it’s automatically garbage.
Makes no sense. People will just have to accept that the nature of making art has changed forever and realize that it’s not about the process, but about the end result. And if you like doing art 100% manually, no one is stopping you.
You average person won’t be able to create good art even with AI, as evidenced by the AI art communities on Lemmy. Being an artist means having an eye for beauty. You can’t teach that.
That’s one of the main reasons why people think AI art is garbage, because it’s mainly created by people with skill or zero taste. In the hands of real artist, AI art turns out amazing. I wish I had anywhere near that aesthetic gift.
Any idiot like me can tell you if art is good or bad, but creating good art is an entirely different beast. It’s extremly rare, even among professional artists.
That still requires the human touch. AI can’t come anywhere close.