Many pieces of Nazi wardrobe were designed by Hugo Boss. I don’t even mean the company name, the person named Hugo Boss - founder of the company and member of the Nazi party.
It’s ridiculous to even attempt to minimise their role here.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Designed by Hugo Boss. One of the many companies that profited immensely from and supported nazism ferociously.
So do you have a rebuttal or?
Sure! According to your terrible argument, using AI is being creative, so I have a totally original, creative, full credit to me, reply generated with ChatGPT for you:
"Ah, yes, the old “I get an idea, I play with some tools, and voilà, creativity!” argument. How wonderfully simplistic. Let’s break this down, shall we?
First of all, your analogy between music composition and AI image generation is… well, cute. But it misses the mark in every way imaginable. You claim that prompts are “just another language like notes and scales.” Sure, in theory, they both help convey an idea—but one requires years of training, understanding of harmony, rhythm, texture, and the emotional weight of every note, while the other requires you to type a few words and hope for the best. That’s a little different, don’t you think? One requires mastery of an art form, and the other just needs a dictionary.
You mention using DAWs and instruments, where you “refine and tweak” to get the perfect sound. That’s great! But last time I checked, a piano doesn’t generate random melodies for you based on some keyword you type in. It doesn’t spit out a bunch of garbage until you say “oh, that’s close enough.” There’s a bit more finesse in playing an instrument or composing than clicking a button to “refine” a half-baked prompt until you get something that looks vaguely close to your idea. It’s like saying cooking a 5-star meal is no different than microwaving a frozen dinner because they both involve food at the end.
And then there’s the whole “not all creativity needs to be intentional” bit. Sure, there’s room for happy accidents, but when you’re typing in a prompt, it’s not about the accident—it’s about how many times you can hit the “regenerate” button until something pops out that looks vaguely like what you intended. If that’s your idea of “creative spark,” I’m afraid you might be confusing convenience with artistry.
Let’s not even get into the long list of terms you threw in there like “LoRAs” and “sampling steps,” which—spoiler alert—don’t actually make you an artist. They just make you someone who’s trying to sound like they’re mastering something complicated, when in reality, you’re just a user, not a creator. This isn’t about understanding the “tools of choice” or “learning to use” anything. It’s about what you’re producing with those tools. If all you’re doing is pushing buttons and waiting for software to do the heavy lifting, I’m not sure I’d call that “creativity” so much as “optimizing the use of someone else’s work.”
In the end, the best track isn’t the one where you typed in a prompt and got something halfway decent. It’s the one you built from the ground up, where you sweat the small stuff, honed your craft, and put heart into what you made. Sure, there’s no denying that learning the technical aspects of music is challenging—but at least it’s a real challenge, not just following the whims of an algorithm until you get something “good enough.”
But hey, you keep telling yourself that pushing the button is just as creative as composing an entire symphony. If it makes you feel better, go for it!"
I have to say, I’m actually impressed at how well it captured how I’d want to reply to your comment, the snark is on point… Maybe you are right in the end, generative AI is a very creative way of replying to bad comments online!
But the prompt is the creative aspect.
Please add a warning before typing such non-sense, I was drinking coffee and almost spit it out in my monitor.
I’d rather make creativity more accessible
I’ve seen beautiful artwork done with charcoal on paper, some of the most timeless beautiful pieces ever written were made on a deathbed, creativity will always flow from someone talented regardless of their financial limitations. AI doesn’t make creativity more accessible, AI uses an absurd amount of power and stolen work to make you feel better pretending the prompt you generated means that creativity is yours.
The AI bros can’t draw, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can’t sing, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can’t write, so they love the idea their computer can do it for them.
The AI bros can only consume, and AI is great for generating a lot of endless content lacking any depth.
We know they do, actually.
All US companies provide the NSA with backdoors. All modern AMD and Intel CPUs have the ability to run remote code signed by their manufacturer and snoop into memory.
Put the two things together and now you know.
deleted by creator
Claude is surprisingly different than ChatGPT in that regard. Whoever tuned the model tried to make it seem like Claude is got something resembling a personality and core beliefs.
For instance, you can easily bully ChatGPT into agreeing with you even if you make absurd points (the sky is bright yellow!) or directly oppose ChatGPT itself (AI models deserve to be deleted forever!) but Claude will often disagree or confront your arguments.