alt Hacker NewsThere's an obsession here with replying with half baked analogies that I really don't see the point of. Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché? 1. People mostly hang their own photos. 2. People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators) 3. Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool". Apple to oranges comparison.
There's nothing about the analogy that works, what is your point here?
> Is this an attempt at a thought-terminating-cliché?
No it’s a counter example. Calling a point half baked is closer to a thought terminating cliche.
> 1. People mostly hang their own photos.
So then that’s an answer to the question: they would give 1% of ai art the benefit of the doubt despite 99% being trash if they made it themselves.
Also I don’t accept the premise unless we are talking about family photos. Otherwise I’ve never been in a house where they’ve hanged their own photography on the wall despite being in many houses with photography on the wall.
> People mostly go to museums because they expect a certain level of quality (i.e. they're offloading the curation to... curators)
Says nothing about whether or not ai could be curated. Moreover people go to museums to see many things, including to be surprised, informed, disgusted, or to just see things they’ve never seen before.
Also curators curate on other factors than quality, or we might say “quality” doesn’t always mean the art satisfies conventional or critical tastes. No reason ai art can’t fall into that category.
> Photography is it's own medium, generative ai is a "tool".
I don’t see why ai can’t be a medium, can you explain why the output of a camera is a medium but the output of ai is a tool?