> People said this about cameras. About digital cameras. About digital photo editing software.
Did they? Because I don't think they did. I think most people were amazed by all these technologies.
Did they? Because I don't think they did. I think most people were amazed by all these technologies.
Research beats idle speculation.
Google "photography skeptics early history"
> As long as “invention and feeling constitute essential qualities in a work of Art,” the writer argued, “Photography can never assume a higher rank than engraving.”
Ha, dissing engraving at the same time as photography.
Though I wonder if the 'write' meant engraving of a design someone else already produced, or any engraving work at all.
These hot takes generally tell you more about the opiner (or the audience they're playing to) than the reality to come. It turns out it's hard to model en entire universe using 3 pounds of meat.
[1] Heinlein listed some of them way back in 1952: https://archive.org/details/galaxymagazine-1952-02/page/n19/...
Others are interpreting my original comment as "this is not art", but I'm not really trying to make that argument. Art is entirely subjective and i don't presume to define what is or isn't art.
I guess my point is more specifically "what itch does this scratch"?
It's really cool, and that may well be the answer tbh.
That’s 99% of the people. I mean even to learn prompt engineering will probably be too much for majority of those 99% people, but it’s a huge step forward in user friendliness, compared to, say, photoshop.
”what itch does this scratch"?
How many people post pictures on social media? Many of those pictures are not personal, they show something pretty, cool, or interesting in some way. All of those people can potentially use image generators to achieve the same effect.