Fuck AI

Healthy and well-adjusted 🩵

there are ways to implement LLM Generative AI creatively but it has nothing to do with what we traditionally perceive as writing fiction. It is more of text adventure interactive writing kind of thing and you still need to do much of everything while generative AI adapts it on the go. that's one of the few legitimate use cases that actually accomplish something that is hard to do otherwise.

there's actually an entire subgenre of writers pretending to workshop story ideas with generative AI but actually trolling to get the most ridiculous responses. it works best with Claude because it create dedicated skills to make it even more stupid. Not everyone's cup of tea but sometimes it is funny when clanker attempts to make sense of some obviously ridiculous story pitch while the writer keeps pulling the rug from under it.

If you need to proof read something you can do it with spell check in your weird processor and an understanding of grammar.

~~AI~~ LLM hallucinations are incredible for creativity, but the people who just lean on them for the majority of it are lazy.

LLMs are stochastic. If I send you the prompt instead of the output, then there's no guarantee that the output you get will be correct. If I generate the text myself, I can verify that it's correct before sending it off.

The problem is that as the recipient, you have no idea whether I've even read the output, let alone verified or understood it. And with the low barrier to entry, it's much more likely that you're getting unverified slop. Sharing the prompt isn't going to help with that.

Edit: sorry, posted before I finished writing.

I don't think that's wrong, but from the other direction.
They're both tools, and as long as you're open about what it actually means to use the tool and what you actually did I don't see an issue.

Sometimes 3D printing is as creative as printing someone else's design. Sometimes the creativity is a modeling and design problem. Sometimes it's a machine operation skill.

AI tools can be "write a book" or "draw me a cat", which isn't much , or it could used to do spot touch ups in a photo, or get feedback on a written work.

Doing something with or without different tools has different advantages and disadvantages, and changes the criteria that you judge it by.
Some people feel the same way about digital cameras or cell phone cameras. I don't think the device picking the exposure time and white balance makes it not your picture, it just means I'm not being impressed by your color pallet, but instead your subject and composition.

To me that's the least annoying part of AI at the moment. I'm open to the notion that you can be creative with tools that remove parts of the challenge, you just don't get credit for the challenge.

That depends, really. Making a decent print can be really difficult and people can be pround of succeeding at that part of the process. Especially if you have a bad printer. Making the actual 3D models yourself on the other hand is no different than making stuff from scratch. It's a skill that you have to aquire.

3d scanning is actually a lot of fun. I had a stint in a museum and we were scanning sculptures for replica molds (because some bitches just can't stop firing ballistic missiles at our museums). However, fixing those 3d models in Blender afterwards was not fun.

If they've created the 3d file themselves that seems like an accurate thing to say, as opposed to just printing something off the internet. Obviously the amount of effort and perhaps artistic expression is gonna differ, but like, I think most printed stuff only exists to serve a specific function anyway