Games “journalists” have always been awful at their job and the entire industry is so incredibly fucky with nerds power tripping on the tiniest modicum of power they’ve been given.
Unfortunately Nintendo adults will soy out and apend a bajillion dollars on anything Nintendo does at this point so long as it has pokemon or zelda on it.
Yeah thats kind of the point. It doesnt have 2 joysticks so I just buy an Xbox one instead. So it cant compete with the gold standard of crontrollers.
And you can say it has pursose in non controller games but its still worse than a traditional keyboard and mouse in that repect as well as a keyboard with an integrated trackpack.
So theres maybe a small niche of playing non controller games in situations where you dont have a desk and you dont want to use an integrated keyboard, where it does a bit better than the competition. Any other situation you have better options. Which IMO if its worse in most use cases and only a bit better than the competetion in designed niche, then its not really a good product.
Art is a form of communication, transmitting something from one mind to another using indirect means because telepathy isn’t available. AI is not trying to communicate anything.
That’s like saying photography isn’t art because a camera isn’t trying to communicate something. Like AI it’s a tool uses by people to convey that idea.
Like when I use AI generation, I have an idea or specific image in my head and I do my best to come up with a prompt that will produce what I want, or more usually, I use photoshop, so piece piece several pieces together and edit it a bit so the match is more accurate. At a fundamental level, if you consciously try to clear your mind of any existing biases regarding AI, then it’s not really any different to photography or photoshop as an artform.
AI images hit the uncanny valley for artists because they are attuned to the difference between what an art is supposed to look like vs what the imitator approximates.
That is a somewhat valid point, but there are AI models for specific tasks, say generating human faces, that co trolled experiments have found that people can’t distinguish between the AI content and the real thing. There is also plenty of traditional art that hits the uncanny valley or simply doesn’t look right, but that doesn’t make it any less art, does it?
Because he is ‘fluent’ in art, people take his words on art seriously, just as one would generally take a born-and-raised German’s words seriously regarding German grammar.
Good analogy, but there’s still a barrier between the type of art miyazaki is fluent in and AI art. Like imagine a British person saying your English is wrong because you’re using American English or AAVE. Would you take them as an expert because and denounce those variations because they are not British English? Or would you consider their ignorance of the other side limiting to their expertise?
And also, I feel I should add, Miyazaki is famously not a fan of digital art. Should we take him as an expert on art and view digital art as less than traditional art? Or should we just roll our eyes at the stubborn old man stuck in his ways?
Except how AI works is pretty crucial to the entire anti-AI argument.
The amount of people that claim AI just collages together pieces of existing “stolen” art and use that as an argument against AI is ridiculous.
And your CPU example isn’t great since you would be comparing CPUs to other CPUs, it would be more apt to talk about someone who doesn’t know how a computer works to demonise computers in general and advocate doing maths by hand instead.
Well for one, they didnt come out with a Ghibli filter, they just removed restrictions on imitating art styles and using ghibli style just became a trend.
And honestly who cares what Miyazaki thinks? He’s famously stuck in the past, stubborn and kind of elitist.