Ask Lemmygrad

1. This is not directed at you, but AI is such a shit term. Its just too broad and I feel like it feeds into that tech/finance bro thing of making things sound more complex than they actually are.

2.Im not super anti-ai, but I wouldn't publish anything with ai in it. At least in my experience it's not great. For brainstorming or personal use it's fine, but for public consumption I'd just make it myself

3.The idea of ai "proletarianizing" artists is just really wierd. Its a very, very tiny amount of the world population who make their income from art commissions online or making murals and such. Other artists actually make income by being part of teams, whether that is game design, movies, TV, advertising, etc.

4.I do stand by what I said that ai art just has a fundamental flaw of being unable to generate anything new (as in, ai could not make a new art form or movement. It couldnt make realism if you gave it all the romantic paintings, for example), meaning that human artists, even individual artisans, still have to exist.

5. Honestly, it's just ugly a lot of the time. I'm not saying that it might not get better, but seeing so many on social media is honestly not very great. Not even because i have a personal crusade against it, and I get why people in china (for example) like it, but I do honestly think it looks like crap in a very unnatural, uncanny valley way.

Edit: also, ai summarizing articles and books for people is just stupid. Youre missing the point if you read an ai summery of something, same if you were to read the cliff notes of something (except the ai is probably gonna do worse anyway).

Edit 2: It's good for coding, at least as someone who isn't good at coding. That's something reasonable to publish with ai, because it makes a lot of sense why ai is good at it (for the most part, although at the same time to my knowledge on larger projects you spend as much time bug fixing as you would writing the code without ai)