Eric Nemchik

You're missing the point.

That's where I agree with you, and I think it's very unfortunate. My prior points were more about the ethics of use rather than the corporate interest.

Practical or CGI when starting out, but beginning with a generative tool might allow them to get traction in their creative process and later learn how to get into effects that would be seen as more valuable skills in the industry.

I don't think current generative AI is a substitute for modern CGI or practical effects. I think both CGI and practical have their place and purpose and are appreciated for different reasons. To expand on my original post, someone trying to get into effects might not have the skills or budget to do

Life is rough sometimes.

He eventually did though. I love the VA's other work. Demon Lord 2099 is brilliant and his performance makes it! He's also fun in Solo Leveling. I really enjoy hearing familiar voices killing it in roles I wouldn't have expected. Sabat as All Might is hilarious.

I watched Super in JP with subs first, and it was my first time watching anything from the Dragon Ball franchise in JP, and I loved it! It was jarring to switch to EN because of one character. Whis. My brain had no issue hearing any others, but it took a while for EN Whis to grow on me.

@dorianlynskey.bsky.social regarding the OGWN AI discussion, there are lots of nerds who are deeply concerned about the current AI push, because we understand how it works and its limitations, and it's terrifying how *certain* people are about anything ChatGPT tells them.

we want it to get better at, and how that happens.

ways to encourage the makers and users of AI to improve in positive ways is more helpful than taking the stance of "all AI is bad all the time". We can find creative ways to improve it and use it, and it can be done ethically. AI today is the worst it's ever going to be. The real question is what

Ok, here we go. I'm not as pro AI as you probably think. I think the current tools aren't great and are being used in shitty ways. I think they have potential to be valuable as they improve. I think they aren't going away no matter how many people protest on social media. Given that, I think finding

This is definitely a bad idea. Generative AI (text, images, whatever) are nowhere near human decision making levels. Trusting it with decisions about politics is a disaster waiting to happen. Using it for information gathering to aid in human decision making, sure, but fact checking is still needed.

I hope an agreement can be reached with the struck companies. If that happens, would non-union projects that weren't on the list being struck be a case-by-case situation with each VA? Or would GR1 be a barrier?

That's a fair assessment all around. I will say my intention isn't to make anything seem bigger than it is, but to focus on specific points rather than scatter the discussion. The topic of AI as a whole is complex, but people see it as good or evil and ignore all nuance, context, intention, etc.

I engage knowing this, and it doesn't deter me.

The crowd discussing this topic are passionate and unfortunately assume any form of critical question of their position means I must fully support or even represent everything they stand against. If you've read any of my exchanges with others I imagine you'll see that pattern.

I think context/intent is extremely important, and a very intriguing topic. Many anti-AI posts seem to not care about any of that if AI is involved. Art is subjective, but many claim generated images are objectively not art or inferior in various ways.

I agree that the way it's being marketed is an absolute mess.
bsky.app/profile/did:...
Link for context. And not just with art. The current tools are in my opinion not good enough to replace most things they are being sold as capable of replacing.

I agree with most of what you just said (except maybe the me missing the point part). I think genAI has value aside from monetary. I think it's a tool. Current models haven't been ethically created. Many people are misusing it, which is a drain on society, but I don't blame the tool for that.

Which is why I disliked the "AI bad" vs "AI good" mindset that most people discussing the topic seem to have. People are boiling it down to picking a side and going as far as making it "you vs me" with anyone who doesn't fully agree with them.

I disagree that having the ability to describe something in detail using words means you have the ability to draw or otherwise create a visual representation. I don't think generative tools are the only option, you could provide the description to an artist. Again, this isn't black and white.

Again I agree about the ethics. I think there's a distinction between the value of generative tools and the value of the output of generative tools.

I agree about chatgpt, but on image generators, if someone put so much thought and creativity into describing what they want (again, let's say 10,000 words) because they lacked the skill to visually create what they want but have the skill to describe it, is that not an expression of creativity?

I disagree there. I think generated art and professionally made art are closer to each other on a value scale than a child's drawing. Context is important though. A child's drawing will be infinitely more valuable to their parents than to a company wanting content.

I will concede, making a microchip is a hell of a stretch. Software development (the second part of my post) is not. Children drawing is a long way from the creation of a professional artist. People use generative programs to substitute years of devotion to a skill. This isn't always malicious.

bsky.app/profile/nemc...
The first thing you replied to. I don't find this take to be ridiculous. It was a response to "just grab a pencil and learn" which I feel is a bad take. It is similar to "just build your own phone" or "just code your own bluesky". Is there room for clarification here?

I'm not saying it antagonistically. It's not a challenge. It's an open invitation to continue discussion. You have no obligation to accept that invitation if you don't want to.

I don't feel that anything I said was ridiculous. I do feel like some people may not have understood what I was saying, but clarification of my position seems to have changed your view. So with that, if you point out something I said that you find ridiculous I wouldn't mind clarifying further.

I am a software developer professionally. I cringe every time C-level says "let's use AI to ..." But not because I hate AI, I just don't believe it's the miracle pill it's being sold as.

Not all tools are used for good, but that doesn't mean we should hate the tools.