polnoner

I think you are too close to the trees though to see the forest.

I have made digital art for 30 years and this all just sounds like what people use to say about digital art in general.

The main problem I see with generative art is not that you can tell it is generative. It is that most the art is shit. The same way if you gave a 1000 random people a blank canvas and paint, most the paintings would be shit too.

The counter example is there is a billboard that I see driving sometimes that is obviously AI generated graphics. It is so eye catching compared to any of the other billboards because most billboards are boring.

You are just puppeting the standard gate keeping bullshit to a new art form and personally I sick of reading this.

Who the fuck are you to say what art is or what art can be?

If you actually look at the statistics the income distribution is not much different than the US.

The well off narrative makes it an interesting news story. There is no news story about how burning man has the same income distribution as the US.

I have wanted to go since 1996 but never have. When I was younger, being on the east coast always made it so very remote.

Now with age I wouldn't even want to go to some weekend festivals I went to as a kid let alone burning man.

I think if you are young and really want to go you have to seize the moment. The moment might not come again and not because you can't but because you won't.

It is certainly not sustainable but that is exactly why I want to use $400-$800 of resources a month for $20 while the deal last.

It is really a once in a lifetime deal.

Once the deal is over the local models will be better than what I am using now anyway and the hardware will be all the better than what I can get now for the price.

You were probably exposed to a wide range of art, music, culture and ideas growing up.

I think there is a whole generation of people who were so culturally starved during their formative years they can only see a blank canvas as a useless white square.

"Who is going to buy a painting of a white square?"

I think there has always been a gate keeping minority that liked the dysfunction. Or more specifically, they liked that they could figure out how to correct the dysfunction while others struggled. That really obnoxious, insecure, computer nerd personality type. So glad I can just block those motherfuckers now instead of begging for their assistance.

Exactly. I have forgot at this point how things use to be with how well everything just works.

I am typing this on a gaming laptop with a Nvidia card that probably would have been a nightmare trying to use linux not too long ago but instead it is an absolute dream machine.

There is really a more fundamental problem related to housing/real estate.

You can't arbitrage the real estate market to add to your UBI savings by living on the street.

Maybe a tougher problem is any solution here would have to collapse real estate prices nationally. You would have to undo the massive inequality that the real estate market would represent at the start of UBI. You would have to ban the owning of more than one home and have a force liquidation for the people owning second homes. Whatever is attempted would create all kinds of loopholes that would just be gamed unless now we are talking about all apartment buildings being government ran.

Any time UBI comes up the economic discussion is just so hopelessly naive. It isn't even at the level of homo economicus stupidity. It is the level of a teenager who has read that back of Capital at Barnes and Noble then thought about solutions after stopping at the dispensary.

There is a brand and that brand is really a type of call option that is very hard to price. If you are doing the valuation using the tools of Ben Graham it is not really going to work. Damodaran's the Dark Side of Valuation is the text for this.

Exactly. Adam Neumann figured this out with WeWork Labs.

It sounds cool because people in our age are almost obsessed with scientistic performance.

At least AI labs are actually doing experiments.

We are really good at figuring out how to make toys that are in short supply so you have to invest all this time in acquiring the toys, for nothing more than the social signal involved that comes from the circular reason that the toys are hard to acquire.

We will figure new methods of scarce toy production. To believe otherwise seems delusional to me.

There is also this problem with UBI that I don't know how it can be solved. I see it in a certain percentage of people I know. Maybe 15-20%. As soon as they get paid that money is spent and usually spent on bullshit. Any hint of credit worthiness was used up a long time ago because it is the same process. If you gave them a daily morning UBI amount they would be broke by dinner and hungry. It is very hard to explain what causes this. To pretend this doesn't exist also seems completely delusional to me.

It is really a deeper problem that "productivity" works in a factory producing widgets as output per labor-hour of widgets.

The Principles of Scientific Management was just wrong that these ideas extend universally but we are still doing this stupid Barnesian performance as if they do. It clearly makes no sense with knowledge work. It is stupid.

Then the efficient market hypothesis provides a type of circular proof because since the market is always right, if this didn't work we wouldn't be doing it. Another stupid idea we are not able to get past.

I am Claude fanboy but don't work in IT.

For my job and basically everyone I know outside of programming, the productivity from AI is literally zero.

I think what this says is the productivity is in specific silos and why the experience of the utility of AI is so vastly different for different people.

Current Opus and Fable simply don't do this. You post is stupid.

This is nonsense.

Modern art is modern art because by the early 20th century, it was hard to do anything original in something resembling a traditional style.

It is the same reason for serial/12 tone music.

Arnold Schoenberg wasn't a psyop. If anything it is a comment on the lack of modern cultural sophistication and the way people relate to the world in terms of sensationalist narrative for click optimization.

Opus 5 one shot an access virus B synth clone for me as a single page index.html that is more impressive than anything I have seen as a VST synth.

That is also because I have been obsessed with this synth for almost 30 years. I built clones of it 20 years ago in reaktor. I know how to spec out every aspect of this synth and I gave Claude a 150 page pdf on digital filter design too.

The results are far different than someone who has never used a virus prompting "make me an access virus B synth as a single html page".

We are calling both of these processes "one shot" but this is not even close to the same process.

I suspect this is the LLM discourse in a nutshell. People are using the same vocabulary for wildly different processes.

It is obviously too early for any of this. Technologist have a highly distorted view of the overall economy. Most things just don't move that fast outside of information technology.

I routinely talk to people at my current non-tech job who don't even know what Claude is.

Technologist talk about tokenmaxxing while I can't imagine more than 10% of the non-tech workforce could even explain what a token is.

This level of automation is going to have an extremely slow roll out because of regulatory and sociological reasons.

There is no equivalent to the contagion of AI coding agents outside of programming. I am still fighting just to get access to Claude Cowork at work. I have quite a few automation ideas but there is not much in it for my manager. They have to sign off on something they don't understand with the best outcome their department shrinks. I can understand from their perspective, the status quo is perfectly fine. The risk is long term to the whole business not being competitive but neither my manager or I will be at this company by the time that materializes.

There is this cultural sorting function too that if you don't like change you probably don't work in tech. The culture that creates is night and day different to the non-technology workforce culture. Most people outside technology hate change. Time and time again, I have seen that even the most simple and obvious changes don't get made, even if it makes the task easier because of this bias against change.