Comment by sorcerer-mar
6 days ago
> 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.
If you need incentive to pursue artistic mastery, you will never really be a true master. I think you’ve failed to articulate any kind of real problem with AI art replacing human art, you just don’t like it personally so you want to see it gone.
13 replies →