Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
In terms of the reaction, it’s because it’s not just about the tool, it’s about how it is used and who it is used by. A skilled craftsman shortening their work by using AI to handle menial/time consuming tasks is significantly different than a freelancer who has no business charging a dime using AI to do 95% of the work.
And when it comes to commercial usage, you see a lot of both, the former because AI has gone from an advantage to a competitive necessity in a very short time, and the latter because every idiot with Adobe fancies themselves a designer now.
It’s the nuance between AI allowing a skilled individual to further enhance the job they do with less effort and an unskilled individual relying on AI to do the job for them. A lot of creatives using AI do it in a way that is indistinguishable because they have the ability to do that exact work themselves and know what the result should be down to the small details.
I suggest you go through this thread to get a better understanding of the nuances here. Creatives using AI to do something they couldn’t otherwise do or producing easily identifiable slop should absolutely be shamed and laughed at. Nobody seems to issue when restaurants get bad reviews for #### food.
|
Minor quibble. "Creatives using AI to do something they otherwise couldn't do"... I half agree with this. Circling back to the part where you said someone uses it to shorten work they have the ability to do themselves, I think AI is valid for someone to do something they can't do if it's used as a smaller component of the work and not the vast majority of the work.
In legal and law based work, you can spit an scenario into AI and then it spits out a response. Then, it is the professional's responsibility to go through and review/revise the output to determine the appropriate response to specific client scenarios. Now, it splits between the line of shortening the work and doing something they couldn't otherwise do. The reason being either certain scenarios are so complex that it would take a lot of billable hours to do manually, or said individual is in a headspace/training where they'd just totally overlook a possible solution, had AI not pointed at the possibility it could be a valid response/solution.
Using food as an example, it's like using microwaves, pressure cookers, sous vide etc. type of machination to speed up or replace manual techniques for fine dining preparation. I think slop is the key word here. If it's slop, you should get shamed. If you misrepresent your use of AI, even if the output isn't bad, I think there's valid reason for complaint.
I believe there is going to be a high likelihood of AI having application to aid people with disabilities and translation. That's why I have a quibble about applying usage and output without shame only to people who might normally be able to do it themselves. I think it's fine they normally can't do it, but would have attempt to learn it to do themselves manually, if there wasn't some barrier/reason preventing them from doing so.