Comment by orangedog
4 hours ago
You're replacing some artist and empowering others. If a single creative can gen a 3 hour movie (we'll pretend it is high-quality), then they can do things which were previously impossible. Was it not marketed as a tool which enabled people to do more?
Again, that is not what either sales pitch was nor long term vision. It was sold LITERALLY with "hahahha artists are useless now, AI will replace them'.
And quite a few on HN run that talking point too.
> Was it not marketed as a tool which enabled people to do more?
Oddly, no. I remeber it, because I found it weird. I found the open hostility toward creatives very noticeable. The way this campaign came across made me reject the "refuse to engage with modernity" style of arguments. If you run around insulting and taunting people, them rejecting you is not necessary rejection of modernity. It is rejection of insults and taunts targeted at them.
We know our society doesn’t value creative people. It never has, really. The greats of the classical era all had sponsors because it has never been workable for most people to earn their living in a creative field. Today you have to come from generational wealth pretty much.
But also people have bad taste. AI music really only works on people who don’t critically listen to it. Most people just seem to want a catchy hook and the general structure of a pop song, and that’s how Spotify gets away with it.
But you ask people to pay even $1 for a track they will listen to hundreds of times? No thanks.
So people get what they deserve.