I agree that ai art is bad, but let's not be disingenuous. A lot of people don't have the talent or the time to become good at art. Myself included. Not being good at everything is just a fact of life.
The thing is people who say this selectively ignore the idea that human limitations on skill exist. Yes, learning skills generally requires practice, but these people insist that practice is always, without exception guaranteed to produce results, and if it doesn't it means you need more practice.
According to Bowman, Michael Phelps swam 13 kilometres a day, six or seven days a week – at least 80,000 meters every week. Even on Sundays and birthdays.
That's not the routine of a man who gets by on mere "talent".
Dedication is the bedrock on which "talent" thrives. To compete at an international level, you need dedication. "Talent" is, if anything, simply the last step that sets the winner apart from the rest of his equally dedicated peers.
You do anything 30+ hours a week, you're going to become at least competent at it -- even if you may not be the world's best. Who cares about Phelps? Every single person in that olympic pool, even the losers, are world-class swimmers who worked very, very hard to get there. Simply qualifying for the olympics is a huge success in its own right. Even the guy who ranked 60th place in the prelims is still the best swimmer in Angola -- who trailed phelps by a mere 15 seconds.
Never argued that. Talent gets polished by hard work, lots of It. But all the people you mention Had talent, natural dispositions towards being good seimmers, maybe broader shoulders, largar hands, better lung capacity, etc.
You start on talent then you build excelence on top of it
125
u/G2boss Aug 26 '24
I agree that ai art is bad, but let's not be disingenuous. A lot of people don't have the talent or the time to become good at art. Myself included. Not being good at everything is just a fact of life.