Well, maybe those reviews came from reddit, and maybe they came from passersby moved by outrate at the misrepresentation of the content.
Regardless of anything else, if the art is AI art, it should be labeled. I'd feel the same about art done by a human artist. The author of the text shouldn't be claiming credit for the art. Credit where credit is due.
But whether from reddit or not, these reviews do indicate that not everybody is cool with AI. I see the same kind of reactions on Substack, which, whatever else it may, isn't a hellscape.
All that seems to matter to most consumers is if the end product is entertaining, inciteful or has artistic merit.
AI is incapable of original insight.
Sometimes, even beneficial tech languishes. We've had the know-how to clone organs (for transplant purposes) for a long time. The process has never been implemented because of fears about cloning complete human beings. I understand the fear, but lives are being lost because of it.
Ai is really popular with people--as long as it doesn't threaten them. As unemployment grows, and the economy teeters toward another recession, that won't long be the case, particularly not when politicians start calling it AIcession. (Of course, the US being so polarized, they'll disagree on what to call it and blame each other for it.)
Recent Posts