Comment by deadbabe
6 days ago
You cannot stop people from making the world worse or better. The best you can do is focus on your own life.
In time many will say we are lucky to live in a world with so much content, where anything you want to see or read can be spun up in an instant, without labor.
And though most will no longer make a living doing some of these content creation activities by hand and brain, you can still rejoice knowing that those who do it anyway are doing it purely for their love of the art, not for any kind of money. A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI.
> In time many will say we are lucky to live in a world with so much content, where anything you want to see or read can be spun up in an instant, without labor.
Man, you are talking about a world that's not just much worse but apocalyptically gone. In that world, there is no more art, full stop. The completeness and average-ness of stimulation would be the exact equivalent of sensory deprivation.
It seems paradoxical to say there is no more art, when AI’s ability for art generation is infinite.
AI art can be equally stimulating, especially for people who will eventually be born in a time when AI generated art has always existed for them. It is only resisted by those who have lived their whole lives expecting all art to be human generated.
Art is suffering and hard work and pouring your soul into what you do. Art is making a statement that defines your whole life.
I am the programmer child of two artists, and I can say without hesitation that AI doesn't generate art
2 replies →
> You cannot stop people from making the world worse or better.
I can think of quite a few ways to do this.
>You cannot stop people from making the world worse or better. The best you can do is focus on your own life.
We have laws and regulations for a reason.
> A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI.
Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce art so good that other people are willing to pay for it."
Another HN commenter who thinks artfulness is developed over decades and that individual art pieces are made over hundreds of hours out of some charity... Ridiculously ignorant worldview.
> Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce art so good that other people are willing to pay for it."
If this is okay, then why isn’t an AI that produces art so good that other people are willing to pay for it also not okay? They are equivalent.
Who said that's not okay?
The problem with AI-produced art is its potential to supplant human art, i.e. to destroy the incentive for any human to gain artistic mastery.
Here's how they're not equivalent: if you take human inputs out of AI, it disappears. If you take AI inputs out of human art, basically nothing changes.
14 replies →
> A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI.
Tell that to all the Renaissance masters.
Clearly you've never made a list of openai data centre locations before