I always consider AI-generated content to be a draft — or, in its parlance: something that takes the shape of the final product.

I don't dismiss the ability of models to create. I dismiss their ability to create finished goods. Humans should always be involved, especially with creative works. Models are great at modeling existing creations and solutions — head starts on long roads — but it's the person that needs to walk it and take the journey.

This pairs well with the saying "art is never finished, it is abandoned."

Abandoned one-shot drafts are akin to speaking words but never finishing a sentence before moving onto the next thought. There's no there there.

Are they really? Nothing of value is produced unless the exact artifact is transmuted into a professional good? There’s nothing to be gained from sketching preliminary drafts or notes because they’re never polished for publication?

Not what I meant. The point was work under a certain grain size of effort has very little (or negative) value to others.

We're in an environment awash in 'content' where every person has an infinite slop producing machine, and a lot of people are publishing nearly zero effort drafts, awed by the appearance of meaning.

What happens when you zoom in to a human-made painting and notice an error?

Not much, because they are fundamentally different types of errors. A slightly off perspective doesn’t change what the artist was trying to convey.

In the original link the first city I checked (forgot the name) was one were supposedly you have 5 bridge, every one of them more magnificent than the other. The city looks great at a distance, with glow and particle effects. Zoom in and you’ll see the bridges are actually floating over the river, they are not connecting both banks they are literally in the river parallel to the banks with no way to get in or out of the bridge.

The bridges were the central element of the story. Would a human that spend 10h working on this piece just forget that the bridges, the very central element they are trying to depict, need to actually function as a bridge?

With a human, you may get ugly output but you’ll not get that nonsense.

The only reason a human will not give you a nonsense bridge is that a human is running a 2.5kWh spacial physics calculation engine in his/her head.

Replace 3.js with an engine that embeds physics, ask it to do test fly-through through each city and fix inconsistencies and let's then compare the results.

> Make a three.js (pnpm) visualization of all Invisible Cities by Italo Calvino. Don’t ask questions, it is a one-shot task. You have 6h of work, use it until it becomes a masterpiece.

Depends on whether it is a happy error.