Editing Openai/69379e5f-5560-800e-a9ed-6e1ba0e3c5ed (section)

=== User: Write something called: The Sloppist Manifesto. ===
Write something called: The Sloppist Manifesto. It will be a manifesto for a new Ai-driven art movement called Sloppism. Keep it formal and succinct with an intro, some points, and then a conclusion. The focus should be on cinema, but make points in a way that they can be generalized to any art form.

Here are some points you should make:
* The art world has continually gone through cycles. It becomes increasingly turgid, brittle, and polite for a while, then it is attacked and destroyed by barbarians creating outsider art, often people who don’t even think of themselves as artists. They create new forms, while the old forms change in response or perish, revitalizing aesthetics for a new generation. That is what is just starting to happen now with Ai. Give some examples other than the ones I mention below, if you can.
* Art has been stagnating for decades now. Ai is poised to shock art out of its stagnation. The stagnation is furious.
* People who can’t name 5 silent movies they like - and worse, people whose art consumption is mostly sequels, remakes, and comic book movies - have nothing to contribute to this conversation.
* The injection of randomness (hallucinations) and imperfections into outputs is one of the factors that fertilizes creativity.
* The first soviet filmmakers had to make 10 minute movies with 5 minutes of film stock, so they invented modern film editing. B-movie directors shot at weird angles in poorly lit sets to cover up the facts that they were using the same sets as A-movies, and invented film noir. Innovators will create distinct styles with the limitations of Ai.
* When photography was invented, bad artists railed against it, just as bad artists today are railing against Ai. Good artists welcomed it. In the end, painters’ responses to photography birthed impressionism and possibly all of modernism, as photography became an art in its own right. This will happen with Ai.
* A work produced with Ai has comparable environmental costs to a similar work created without Ai. An actor who takes a private plane from Hollywood to New York for an interview, then complains about the carbon footprint of Ai, is a comical figure who has nothing to say.
* “But, is it art?” Is a boring question that people using Ai should not be interested in, but the people who say it’s not have to come up with increasingly narrow, increasingly ridiculous definitions of art. Some pieces made with Ai will start as an actual photo that is then edited with Ai. Does this “de-artify” it? Screenplays are art, but when someone breaks a line of their screenplay into very specific prompts, it’s not art because that’s “just typing a prompt”? Stupid and embarrassing.
* Ai will not “replace” any other type of art, just as photography did not replace painting, film did not replace theater, and TV did not replace film. 
* People who criticize Ai as saying the computer made the work are arguing against a straw man, they are talking about a low-effort, uninspired, one-prompt output with no editing that they saw on social media, which are generally just experiments or tests. This would be like criticizing the whole field of painting based on some toddlers’ finger-paintings. The uninformed opinions of these people can be ignored. The “Ai” they are criticizing hardly exists.
* Ai is not a monolith. What Ai art has in common with a surveillance state, or with Ai cancer detection programs, is that they are written using the same programming paradigm. The conflation of all these different things is a transparent rhetorical trick.
* There are a few tricks you can do with Ai that are much more difficult without it, but the real benefit is that people whose ideas are not commercial can now bring their ideas to fruition in what used to be a very expensive medium.
* The most popular Ai film genre now is “sequence of shots which slowly zoom in on weird things while music is playing”, which is akin to the 19th century movies of Méliès, the Lumière brothers, and Edison. They are primitive and beautiful, but are as much a basis on which to judge the future of Ai as those filmmakers’ work was in judging the future of cinema.
* The fusion of primitive outsider sensibilities with Ai’s attempt at a professional rendering is akin to the fusion of the Dionysian and the Apollonian proposed by Nietzsche.
* Training on copyrighted data, even without the permission of the copyright owner, is fine and an obvious fair use case, except when the data was obtained illegally or when the output is used to violate someone else’s intellectual property rights. People who hate Ai argue otherwise, but it is a weird type of copyright violation where no trace of the infringed work can be found in the infringing work. If someone trains on your work and copies a style you invented, you have a complaint. If they copy a widely-used style you learned from someone else, or a general concept like “tree”, you have no complaint to make which could not also be leveled against you. 
* Much of the paranoia about Ai art involves discussions of oligarchs “controlling what you see”, and “deciding what movies get made”. Any oligarch trying to do this by using Ai is very stupid. The ubiquity of the technology is the biggest threat that studios have ever faced to their control of the market.
'' When Ai is used to create false images presented as if they were real, for propaganda purposes as Stalin did with photography, this is not an argument against Ai any more than it is an argument against photography. It is also not a step forward for propagandists, as the fake videos they put out are even ''less* believed than similar things put out by Stalin using much more primitive methods.