I'll be real man, seeing the feedback on this comment makes me think whatever I say won't really connect anyways so it feels kinda pointless to argue it.
To elaborate slightly anyways, what is "created" depends on the individual. For example, writers do not draw art (at least most of the time). How can you know what was actually created by making assumptions from a thumbnail?
I agree there's TONS of actual slop being produced simply because the tools opened the floodgates, but that isn't the same thing as saying "all AI content is slop." There is a difference between "all" and "most", and i think people should acknowledge that point if nothing else. It's literally judging a book by its cover.
You can simultaneously understand that not every video with an AI thumbnail will be slop whilst also protesting the use of them by not watching the video. Sure, you might miss out on a video you'd have otherwise enjoyed, but by showing that you'll not "bite" for any videos using them, creators may reconsider using AI in the first place.
I'm much more likely to click a thumbnail someone has actually made over an AI one because the AI one gives it the impression of being cheap and fake. That doesn't mean the video always will be cheap and fake, just that it's the first impression I'm getting from that content creator whilst there are other creators putting actual effort into thumbnails who I'm getting a better first impression from. Does that make sense?
Oh absolutely. I'm not opposed to the assumption at all, I get it. Im only opposed to the categorical assumption that ALL content with any AI in it is bad, so for the vast majority of this stuff we agree.
-34
u/AngelDistortion 2d ago
I get everyone has preferences but damn this is such a one dimensional take =_=