I for one reject them both equally. ChatGPT's writing style is annoying, the "art" all has this weird similarity to it, and whether it's YouTube or a graphic novel or a blog post, if i can tell it's AI, I'm skipping it. Fixing auto generated code annoys me far more than just doing it myself the first time.
Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
31–40 of 71 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#32> We lean on ChatGPT to rewrite blog posts
Not anybody I read.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#33For what it's worth I'm all for both. As someone who dabbles in both domains but does neither professionally, there's a very distinctive difference in how AI fits into the process of producing art and producing code.
For code, it augments my ability to produce code. It's very easy to tinker and modify that code if I so choose, and it's much easier to steer it into the right direction (at least when it comes to the output of the code). For art, it just replaces things. If I create an image with AI for example, it's not that simple to drop it into Procreate and start tinkering with it. There are no layers, no brushes, no masks that come with it - it is the output. I'll just re-prompt, or try to find style guides or reference pictures, but there's no place for an artist in the loop. Others might be using these differently of course, but at least my impression is that it's much more of a replacement when it comes to art.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#34I don't understand this post. Both the chatbots and the image generators are controversial. The voice and music generators are controversial. The whole field is controversial.
It's reasonable to hard skip on AI videos because almost all are currently slop, to the extent that I don't see why you needed to explicitly suggest to your wife to skip, rather than her noticing it on her own and doing so automatically.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#35Who is "we", Kimosabe? Personally, I have no time for gen-AI in pretty much any context, at least given the current landscape. And plenty of people seem to accept, if not love, gen-AI art. I don't get it, but it's true. > While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.” My reflex whenever I encounter gen-AI output in any form: text, code, image, music, video,…
> And plenty of people seem to accept, if not love, gen-AI art. I don't get it, but it's true.
I get a kick out of generating photos with family and friends in different styles like Play-Doh, Simpsons, Ghibli, etc. All of them like it, too. Maybe that's what people like, a very relatable use of the technology.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#36Who is "we", Kimosabe? Personally, I have no time for gen-AI in pretty much any context, at least given the current landscape. And plenty of people seem to accept, if not love, gen-AI art. I don't get it, but it's true. > While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.” My reflex whenever I encounter gen-AI output in any form: text, code, image, music, video,…
Of course it’s terrible and that’s because it’s low effort trash with the sole purpose of making money. But AI gen doesn’t nenessarily have to be that though, it’s just the slop wave washing everything off. When humans use it to speed up their some tedilus processes but the whole project doesn’t look/feel rushed I have no problem with what tool they used.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#37Because art is the futile attempt by a conscious subjectivity at expressing their subjective experience. It's fraught and impossible and really beautiful. Meanwhile GenAI is not a subjectivity, cannot express anything.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#38LLMs are not good enough to replace programmers, authors or journalists (and I suspect never will, since they still rely on accurate and human written sources to produce anything of value)
However, AI art generators in their current form may render all artistic jobs unlivable within 20 years. Learning to draw is one of the most time-intensive skills to master. A master's degree in CS is sufficient to secure a good job, but five years of experience in art makes you a "novice". AI art is just good enough to devalue art as a whole, making it an infeasible profession to pursue, as it's already near the minimum wage on average.
In 20 years, there may not be any new professional digital artists. All art will become AI art. Do we like that world? Cheap, corporate, lazy, with no sign of effort or dedication.
I want LLMS to go away as well, but at the very least, there will always be a market for real text, and always be people able to produce it.
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#39[flagged]
Re: Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?
#40I vilify code LLMs every time I review a colleague's code, ask them why they wrote something a certain way, and they can't explain. ChatGPT prose is even worse: it's like a corporate press release, only even blander and happytalker.
I find AI handy in two cases - writing quick boilerplate and assisting when I'm coming to grips with a library. In my case, I've never used the Qt libraries at all, and I'm trying to learn how to use them. Most of the code gets rewritten several times as I try different things, but it's handy to have something fill in the blanks if I can't remember the name of a function.
Ultimately, it's me who's responsible for the end product and I accept that and review the code. But it's definitely been handy.