Unlike a camera, these new automation still need require paintings. That why I don't consider generative AI as true iteration. It's literally stealing the town's paintingsand using it to mash together this collage that's called "art" . Why would I call that "progress"? You're making metaphorically uglier horses, but you're boasting about breeding them faster. We wee not worried about breeding more horses to begin with.
>You can indeed let the AI output stuff automatically but it's as interesting as stock photograp
Yes. And stock photography had agreements with the photographer. Much of the art scraped explicity said not to. It's not interesting and potentially illegal. The worst of both worlds.
>Do you disagree with Carmack's assessment?
I left a top level response somewhere, but overall, c. 2025 : not really. It feels like more hype generation, and this isn't the first time he's had to be a hype man. Maybe one day, maybe before or after we get convinent VR/AR hardware. It'll be a while.
And no small team is touching this stuff whike the courts battle about this. Come back to me in 5 years when the ethics is settled and the tech might be more ready. It's pretty hard to even look 5 weeks ahead in these times, let alone 5 years.
