Depression, notably, saps all interest in doing anything. Interest isn’t a choice either, it’s just something that happens to you.
Or doesn’t.
There is a fundamental unfairness to talent that I just don’t think you’re acknowledging.
What I do agree with is that AI isn’t some instant-win cheat code to making great art. If they lack the interest, the motivation, to put in the work then their AI slop is only ever going to be slop. Though, maybe, they won’t have to put in quite as many thousands of hours. It can be like the difference between being talented with hand sewing vs being talented with a sewing machine. Making a beautiful dress requires hard work whether you do it by hand or with a machine, but it’s certainly a lot easier and faster with a machine.
Also, executive function disorder is hell. It doesn’t matter if you have interests and want to do things. You just don’t do them, and hate yourself for it.
I don’t see what there is to acknowledge here? The argument is semantics, we’re saying the exact same ultimate thing in terms of outcomes. Every point I’ve made about AI remains the same. These people still remain bad at creating because they do not practice and improve due to their lack of “talent” as you put it, I feel that I put in the much friendlier terms by saying it is lack of practice due to motivation and I very much dislike this “talent” shit because it feels like bioessentialism.
It doesn’t matter which wording is used here either way, the outcome is literally the same, a bunch of hacks being given AI doesn’t produce good content. The people with the “talent” to improve are already producing content and improving their skills without it.
Depression, notably, saps all interest in doing anything. Interest isn’t a choice either, it’s just something that happens to you.
Or doesn’t.
There is a fundamental unfairness to talent that I just don’t think you’re acknowledging.
What I do agree with is that AI isn’t some instant-win cheat code to making great art. If they lack the interest, the motivation, to put in the work then their AI slop is only ever going to be slop. Though, maybe, they won’t have to put in quite as many thousands of hours. It can be like the difference between being talented with hand sewing vs being talented with a sewing machine. Making a beautiful dress requires hard work whether you do it by hand or with a machine, but it’s certainly a lot easier and faster with a machine.
Also, executive function disorder is hell. It doesn’t matter if you have interests and want to do things. You just don’t do them, and hate yourself for it.
I don’t see what there is to acknowledge here? The argument is semantics, we’re saying the exact same ultimate thing in terms of outcomes. Every point I’ve made about AI remains the same. These people still remain bad at creating because they do not practice and improve due to their lack of “talent” as you put it, I feel that I put in the much friendlier terms by saying it is lack of practice due to motivation and I very much dislike this “talent” shit because it feels like bioessentialism.
It doesn’t matter which wording is used here either way, the outcome is literally the same, a bunch of hacks being given AI doesn’t produce good content. The people with the “talent” to improve are already producing content and improving their skills without it.
I dont see how AI makes any if this better