Absolutely not. People might give you reasons Americans are but that’s because they don’t know about the crazy shit people believe elsewhere but there’s nowhere that’s immune to conspiracy theories.
The thing that differentiates America is that it’s a major country (so on TV a lot, in English) and a low-trust society. But Italy and Uganda and Japan all have wild ass conspiracy theories. (Italy has some actual conspiracies like Propaganda Due.)
A lot of AI art is highly controlled. Control net, manually redrawing the noise to guide output, additive models just to name a few ways artists control the output. It’s genuinely more art that some people give it credit.
Americans are mentally ill by nature. You just need to be in America and you are infected with mental illness and obesity. This is the reason why Americans are more prone to conspiracy theories including the idea that if you are fit you will fluctuate to space, thus most Americans become comorbidly obese to keep them in the Earth’s ground atmosphere. The solution for this is to deny Americans having crazy children who shoot schools and other types of mass murders.
Yes, it is actually a geopolitical issue that affects the biology of Americans. The Pacific Province has active volcanoes that expel smoke and when inhaled makes Americans in the region feel lightweight and as if fluctuating. The Columbia Plateau terrain is formes by basaltic lava that erupted millions years ago; this terrain has special characteristics that make it smoother than other types, so Americans feel like fluctuating instead of being in the ground. The Appalachian Highlands were formed by colliding the North America Plate with the African and Eurasian plates, so when American walk through these places they feel like being in a continent other than North America. The list goes on, but we shall also remember America is a capitalist neoliberal country which is a modern framework for society, so Americans are very stressed out by this system that’s very different from when they were hunter-gatherers; this difference creates an environment prone to the development of mental illness and believing in conspiracy theories. The result: children shooting schools.
I’m fascinated by the range of discussion here, thanks to everyone for weighing in. Im particularly bemused by the discusssion of whether the subject even classifies as “art” which was not really the purpose of my question. I never questioned that it can still be called “art”, even if I don’t like it. However, a lot of commenters here seem to accuse the whole AI Art explosion as a charade; devoid of being in the conversation at all. Lot’s to think about going forward. I still think it counts as art though…
Thank you for raising this interesting topic. It is nice to discuss this matter together - even if our insights will have no influence at all on future developments. It is certainly a complex issue. If only because AI is not just image generation, or text generation. Not that I want to start a fundamental discussion here, but I think that one way or another this technology is in the world. So Pandora’s box has already been opened; there will be no turning back. I think the most sensible thing Lemmy can do is find a workable way to deal with all the consequences. This is extremely difficult, as evidenced by the fact that even a multi-billion corporation like Google doesn’t have the right answers (because of Google’s business model, this company has to be interested in making its search results as useful as possible, because only market leadership promises the highest profits - and that’s only possible if the usebility is somewhat right). Back on topic: I don’t think that all the things that someone does with an AI image generator can pass as art at all, simply because a lot of it is nothing more than an attempt to create low-efford and therefore cost-effective reach. I hope and am reasonably convinced that this model won’t work because it’s completely transparent - little amount of time invested still results in poor quality content (or even just staight up plagiarism). On the other hand, I have the impression that many Lemmy users (and not only them) have a completely wrong impression: It is simply not possible to generate high-quality content within a few minutes using generative AI - well, it is but the result would just be plagiarism in most cases. These attempts are quite rightly rejected here. On the other hand, it is quite possible to create high-quality content with AI support that cannot even be recognized as such (and is not a plagiat in any known sence). However, this is not done in a matter of a few minutes, but requires considerable effort. Certainly less than designing/writing/whatever yourself from scratch; but still far more effort than copy/paste or the usual low-effort shitpost. So overall, I think the question should be less about whether content is AI-generated or not. The question should rather be whether it’s good/helpful/informative/funny/… content or not - if it is, you won’t recognize that AI is in play anyway. I think everyone should be aware of that. Not because I think this is in any way fair or desirable, but because I think generative-AI-created or supportet content will dominate the internet in the future. I think the key question is how to make it at least somewhat fair for all those not compensated till day.
You’re being a bit too paranoid. You’re very safe using Google services since they are the most secure. They offer many good services for free and are very democratic, even Chromebooks are so cheap. Please OP, maybe you should seek therapy for dealing with such irrational beliefs.
American culture, and I’m generalising, there are a million sub cultures obviously… Emphasises the individual. The American dream of you working hard to get some payoff, is an example. As such there is a lot of cultural pressure to not correct people when you are in conversation, it’s more polite and acceptable to play along. Their stupid ideas, their problem.
And that’s where Americans (again I’m generalising) are weakest here. Because stupid ideas are everybody’s problem. Because once people go off-the-deep-end there is no easy way of getting them back. And a large amount of people involved in conspiracy fantasy is legitimising it.
So no Americans are not more prone to conspiracy fantasy, but American culture does permit fast growth of ideas. MLMs are another example of this. You can use cultural taboos and cultural elements to sell bullshit.
It’s not that different than other media. There is really good analysis out there but you have to really go out of your way to avoid the bullshit. The stuff that really gets eyeballs is the low hanging, drama oriented, sound-byte-y stuff.
In F1 they’re usually great. More grounded observations / opinions, from either former drivers or at least people who have been around the paddock for decades. They feel more “objective” regarding what they talk about and what they’ll allow themselves to hypothesize about.
I don’t watch much NBA and NFL but the analysts / opinion guys seem goofy and way too loose with opinions. I think they’re all entertainment so the more outlandish their statements the better the engagement.
In chess the players and analysts are all way above my level, but as far as I can tell, they do a good job at breaking down the position and giving you an idea of what super grandmasters are thinking. But this is more commentator and less analyst.
Funnily enough, my mind jumped to Martin Brundle as a classic example of a good analyst - or at least he was in the 90s and 2000s. He’s still good, but it just isn’t as new or exciting anymore - he was a fantastic counterpoint to Murray Walker’s boundless enthusiasm with a lot of sensible chatter and in depth knowledge.
Another guy I quite like is Jimmy Bullard, particularly on Sky Sports News or Soccer AM - no bullshit, everything in layman’s terms, and has a laugh with it.
I don’t find the designation to be that much of a thing. There are former players that are great and there are former players who are completely awful clickbait clowns. Same is true for non former athletes.
The good former pros definitely have a valuable perspective though I think there’s also something to be said for a bit of a removed perspective.
asklemmy
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.