Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
Screenshot of this question was making the rounds last week. But this article covers testing against all the well-known models out there.
Also includes outtakes on the ‘reasoning’ models.
The tools are trash not because they are unreliable but because they are actively destroying human society and culture. They are destroying art, science, journalism, open source software, the internet at large, and the environment we all live in. It wouldn’t matter if the generative models were accurate, they would still be garbage.
The fact that they are unreliable just serves to highlight what a colossally destructive waste of time and resources this entire exercise has been.
Removed by mod
This is an obvious misstatement. If you actually believe this then you’re not qualified to have opinions on art in general.
“AI” (in this context meaning generative algorithms, because there is no intelligence) can no more “make art” than it can think, or care.
Removed by mod
Not sure at what point will you realize that what you quoted/said has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic.
Probably never.
Removed by mod
Could you define what you mean when you say the word “art”? I think this may be a semantic disagreement. I think the people you’re arguing with are using a definition similar to “human creative expression” while you seem to mean something different.
Removed by mod
If you see it all the time, respectfully, you might be the problem. This isn’t effective communication.