I find it hard to justify the value of investing so much of my time perfecting the art of asking a machine to write what I could do perfectly well in less time than it takes to hone the prompt.
And a professional guitarist can probably pull off a better solo than an audio model, in real time.
And a professional artist can certainly draw exactly what they want faster than talking the robot into rendering it.
Why do we keep comparing the robot to expert humans? You already learned how to do the thing the hard way. No shit the tech isn’t superhuman. There’s still obvious value in a tool that does things for people who know what they want but not how to do it.
Those using the model to do what they haven’t learned to do are ensuring they never learn to do the thing. Art is a representation of human experience, without the struggle, without challenges, the expression is meaningless.
Does the professed difficulty of getting the robot to draw what you want impact that glib treatise on the nature of art, or are we instantly in words-don’t-matter territory?
Most code is not art. I certainly don’t care what someone experienced while making a program; I just need it to work. If a jumped-up chatbot lets people make something with only a shallow understanding of my field of expertise - great. That is the dream of BASIC, realized. If that shit works then we’ve successfully made computers a bicycle for the mind.
Just don’t let them touch networking or cryptography.
What did I say in my response that made you feel we were in “words-don’t-matter” territory? I shared my opinion on what I personally think about the meaning of artistic expression, with human experience being a vital component. You are free to hold your own opinion, and to share it, and act in whatever way you like, so long as you aren’t harming others.
Then meaning does not simply come from ‘the struggle, the challenges.’ Art is a sprawling complex aspect of human existence, and once again, a new thing has people making grand assertions for why only the old ways are real art. Directly addressing these philosophical declarations often results in open hostility. I’m not sure passive-aggressive ‘agree to disagree, good day’ is much better. Why’d you say anything if you don’t wanna talk about this?
Never once implied that the meaning of art is simple, or stems only from one area of human experience. What I said is that without struggle, it is meaningless. That isn’t to say art is always a struggle, not even close, it certainly gets easier as you hone your craft, whatever that may be. But it is from the struggle against each challenge along the way that the artist grows more resilient, more passionate; it is through that struggle that their personal flair takes shape. And unless you quit, there will always be some new challenge to overcome. Life imitates art or whatever… The difference between advancement in tools throughout history is that it never once took the doing part out of the process of the art, or stripped the artist of their agency with what is to be done after the doing of the art is finished. A chatbot prompter is not creating anything, instead they are paying a company to proliferate the continued theft of actual artists. True creatives aren’t going anywhere. We do what we do because we love the doing. Destination is not everything, it never has been, and for some (I’d wager most) it is the least enjoyable part of the process. Thank you for sharing your opinion, and thank you for entertaining mine.
I think, the problem is that management wants the expert humans to use the non-expert tools, because they’re non-experts and don’t recognize that it’s slower for experts. There’s also the idea that experts can be more efficient with these tools, because they can correct dumb shit the non-expert tool does.
But yeah, it just feels ridiculous. I need to think about the problem to apply my expertise. The thinking happens as I’m coding. If I’m supposed to not code and rather just have the coding be done by someone/-thing else, then the thinking does not occur and my expertise cannot guarantee for anything.
No, I cannot just do the thinking as I’m doing the review. That’s significantly more time-consuming than coding it myself.
Idk I’m in college and every time I try to use chatgpt to write something I don’t want to learn, I spend like 10 hours prompting and getting nowhere but when I try to read the docs it just works after 30 mins
With music “sounds good” is a sufficient judgment for completeness. With generated code, someone that is an expert has to review it to make sure it does what it’s supposed to, covers edge cases, doesn’t have any security flaws etc. Only an expert is capable, and it is generally faster and produces better quality for the expert to just write the code instead of fixing up what the slot machine dispensed. It’s a cute analogy but all it does is make it obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
And a professional guitarist can probably pull off a better solo than an audio model, in real time.
And a professional artist can certainly draw exactly what they want faster than talking the robot into rendering it.
Why do we keep comparing the robot to expert humans? You already learned how to do the thing the hard way. No shit the tech isn’t superhuman. There’s still obvious value in a tool that does things for people who know what they want but not how to do it.
Those using the model to do what they haven’t learned to do are ensuring they never learn to do the thing. Art is a representation of human experience, without the struggle, without challenges, the expression is meaningless.
I did a really good Google search once, please respect me as a creator.
Does the professed difficulty of getting the robot to draw what you want impact that glib treatise on the nature of art, or are we instantly in words-don’t-matter territory?
Most code is not art. I certainly don’t care what someone experienced while making a program; I just need it to work. If a jumped-up chatbot lets people make something with only a shallow understanding of my field of expertise - great. That is the dream of BASIC, realized. If that shit works then we’ve successfully made computers a bicycle for the mind.
Just don’t let them touch networking or cryptography.
What did I say in my response that made you feel we were in “words-don’t-matter” territory? I shared my opinion on what I personally think about the meaning of artistic expression, with human experience being a vital component. You are free to hold your own opinion, and to share it, and act in whatever way you like, so long as you aren’t harming others.
… so does it count or not, when someone spends just as long fighting these tools to express what they want?
I don’t see that as art, no. I am not the arbiter of universal objective truth though, so feel free to form and exercise your own opinion. Godspeed.
Then meaning does not simply come from ‘the struggle, the challenges.’ Art is a sprawling complex aspect of human existence, and once again, a new thing has people making grand assertions for why only the old ways are real art. Directly addressing these philosophical declarations often results in open hostility. I’m not sure passive-aggressive ‘agree to disagree, good day’ is much better. Why’d you say anything if you don’t wanna talk about this?
Never once implied that the meaning of art is simple, or stems only from one area of human experience. What I said is that without struggle, it is meaningless. That isn’t to say art is always a struggle, not even close, it certainly gets easier as you hone your craft, whatever that may be. But it is from the struggle against each challenge along the way that the artist grows more resilient, more passionate; it is through that struggle that their personal flair takes shape. And unless you quit, there will always be some new challenge to overcome. Life imitates art or whatever… The difference between advancement in tools throughout history is that it never once took the doing part out of the process of the art, or stripped the artist of their agency with what is to be done after the doing of the art is finished. A chatbot prompter is not creating anything, instead they are paying a company to proliferate the continued theft of actual artists. True creatives aren’t going anywhere. We do what we do because we love the doing. Destination is not everything, it never has been, and for some (I’d wager most) it is the least enjoyable part of the process. Thank you for sharing your opinion, and thank you for entertaining mine.
Agreed. Tools aren’t the problem generating all the slop, it’s the vibe coding mentality.
I think, the problem is that management wants the expert humans to use the non-expert tools, because they’re non-experts and don’t recognize that it’s slower for experts. There’s also the idea that experts can be more efficient with these tools, because they can correct dumb shit the non-expert tool does.
But yeah, it just feels ridiculous. I need to think about the problem to apply my expertise. The thinking happens as I’m coding. If I’m supposed to not code and rather just have the coding be done by someone/-thing else, then the thinking does not occur and my expertise cannot guarantee for anything.
No, I cannot just do the thinking as I’m doing the review. That’s significantly more time-consuming than coding it myself.
Idk I’m in college and every time I try to use chatgpt to write something I don’t want to learn, I spend like 10 hours prompting and getting nowhere but when I try to read the docs it just works after 30 mins
With music “sounds good” is a sufficient judgment for completeness. With generated code, someone that is an expert has to review it to make sure it does what it’s supposed to, covers edge cases, doesn’t have any security flaws etc. Only an expert is capable, and it is generally faster and produces better quality for the expert to just write the code instead of fixing up what the slot machine dispensed. It’s a cute analogy but all it does is make it obvious that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
As if amateurs never code stuff the normal way.