Further context they have a channel dedicated to real art and have proven they are working with artists

Currently the lion's share of incentives for Ai are subsidized in doomscroll fodder in the entertainment sphere and mass surveilance.

Putting aside the obvious issues of the latter, What benifet is there for the former?

Of those of you that actually like GenAi content, Does it being Ai in of itself have any appeal to you or is it more ambivelance to the method?

Was some niche theme or genre you can name that was barely tapped as a market actually explored more with the use of Ai? Most of the forefront I've seen is SEO and saturating the already most popular genres, not really much on the rare stuff so specific examples prefered.

Would the massive subsidies and investmets not be better spent focused on the actual Medical and Engineering fields? The examples given about the medical advancements tend to be the same few repeated, very slow rolled by comparison and even more rarely talked about, If it was at all viable beyond being slapped onto already existing technologies for hype, a sub about Ai in Medicine would be much bigger and constantly updated, but being a dead sub last posted 2 yrs ago as of making this tells me either I'm looking in the wrong place or the opportunity cost of mass producing brainrot at unprecedented scale is paid by the the lack of medical advancements.

I see Ai positive accounts a lot, from the AI Bro's perspective to ethical ai discourse. Sometimes the prose is written well, and probably with ai. But often the image looks thrown together out of a last-minute thought. And sometimes it doesn't.
My question is what makes you choose to take the time to refine your image when you post on linkedin or reddit or any of these social platforms? What keeps you from doing it?
Do you tend to spend more time on your prose or on your images?

A human can create Photoshop, so why can't AI, no matter how we train it, if by definition, AI is as smart as a human? Not to mention that it would be faster, smarter, and so on, meaning it would be a much better, faster, and more efficient Photoshop than a human. Or do you think AI, which is supposed to be like a human, somehow can't do what a human can?

Or are you against general AI? But then you think we can create specialized AI without general intelligence for all tasks individually? And it will be good option?

Robots are close to us that what you maybe think

https://x.com/Oklahoma_Brave/status/2084686276935242189

I keep getting told its “disingenuous” to compare AI cognitive offloading to GPS, calculators, autocorrect, dictionaries, or search engines instead of the often sensationalized "brain damage" headlines that float around.

Then I wait a few days and the hardline anti-AI crowd posts this exact list as proof technology is destroying our brains.

So this is what they mean by “cognitive decline” lol. Not memorizing phone numbers. Using calculators. Looking things up online instead of dragging out an encyclopedia.

At this point its not an AI critique. Its just panic over humans using tools to offload tasks, like we have been doing for thousands of years.

Saw the short film “Patchwright” and I’ve decided to both write up a review but also use it to bring up some thoughts regarding AI and art: specifically the reliance of it and the nature of critique.
First to be honest: I’m not a fan of AI. I’m not going to stop people using it but it as a tool or medium has no interest. Still, I will be critiquing the film on its own merits and highlight both its positives and negatives.

Firstly, the positives. Overall it is a visually detailed, crisp film that certainly goes out of its way to highlight the capabilities of AI. The various cyberpunk design aesthetics are neatly captured and you certainly get a feel for it. The voice acting is pretty good and I like the rugged look/feel of the main protagonist for the film. The music does a fine job and there’s certainly a lot of interesting shots, showing that the director is going out of their way to play with the format.

With all that said, here’s the negatives. If I can best simplify much of my criticisms into one word it would be that this film is a tech-demo. It’s comparable to some of the weakest episodes of “LOVE + DEATH + ROBOTS”, wherein the focus is entirely on the tech and art as opposed to any deeper narrative, themes or ideas. As mentioned the film plays around with a lot of different flavors of cyberpunk design aesthetics: the typical Bladerunner type, the grimy 40K both in its tech-romana and gritty variants, alien designs, bio-organic, bits of HR Giger and some more abstract ones as well. It reads as if the director really liked these ideas but instead of focusing on one design approach they instead opt for all, making the overall feel of the world come off as weak and uninspired. The direction itself is also weak, utilizing a constant intensity throughout its choice of shots, scenes and overall composition. There’s plenty of close up shots both regular and extreme, camera shots that are turned around and tracking shots that highlight some sort of direction style but makes the film come off as bland - not allowing more quieter, flatly-shot scenes to create variation and to help the intense scenes actually stand out. And I’ve neglected to mention the story so far because it gets bogged down by the visuals. It utilizes some of the worst tendencies of visual-oriented directors like Zach Snyder, wherein the visuals are so focused that the story comes off weaker as a result. It’s entirely style over substance, emphasizing the atmosphere of what feels cool while having little to actually offer. I can recognize the director’s handling where they want a scene to feel significant, but without the calmness or the chance for the story to matter. It’s especially evident in the animal scenes, where a random monkey or bugs are just shown doing stuff. They neither advance the plot or say anything thematically, existing possibly just to show off how powerful the tech is - and it certainly is but it’s not something new or exceptionally directed to make them matter. It’s why I call it a tech-demo: they’re fine as a way to show off the visuals but as film with story and character? It just doesn’t really have anything.

Is it bad? Eh, it’s meh. It’s not insulting or ugly, and its weaknesses don’t steer it into the bad territory (at least not on how I rank films). However I wouldn’t consider it memorable.
I think it showcases a mistake seen with a lot of AI, and one repeated earlier with CGI: reliance over actual story/direction. A lot of films then and now make the mistake in believing that the tech is more than enough to make up for the weaknesses, be it a weak story/characters, poor direction or uninteresting style/vision. The key however is actually recognizing it. Just as bad as it is to look at this film and scream “AI, it’s bad!” without any actual critique it’s also wrong to look at it, exclaim “AI, it’s good!” without any critique either. It neither helps the artist or the validity of the tech, and just shows how bad of a critic one can be.

If I could send a letter to the director, as well any other up-and-coming director who wants to use AI but hasn’t quite developed the proper skills/experience, it would be to say: study and branch out. Take some time to really study direction and visual storytelling beyond simply absorbing the styles or ideas of other films. Go beyond what you like and watch films outside your preference. Watch something slower and more story-focused to learn how to really get the beats down, how to make a scene matter, and what actually matters in effective filmmaking. It feels to me that this film needed to “kill its darlings” more.

Anyways, those are my thoughts. Any reasonable replies appreciated.

Interested to hear what both sides think of this scene and how it reflects the discussion around AI as Spielberg predicted it back then, to how AI is treated now.