Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

warandpeas.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 207 posts

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#111

Post by caconym_ »

bjornlouser wrote: post #91

"[Artists] would much rather be properly compensated for their work..." 'Properly compensated'... determined by the market, right? That's being driven close to $0, just like with software (and was headed that direction before the recent AI craze). "Artists would much rather... focus more on fulfilling creative tasks." Like the two penis jokes shown on that site? Incredible.

> Properly compensated'... determined by the market, right? That's being driven close to $0, just like with software (and was headed that direction before the recent AI craze).

This is just completely false, and there are so many obvious counterexamples I don't know where to begin, so let's just start with artists working in the film and video game industries. These are real working, earning people who do art and design as a career.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#113

Post by marban »

jedberg wrote: post #95
marban wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that everyone thinks they're an artist now, skipping pesky things like talent or effort. GenAI is the ultimate tool for people who have the creativity of a potato.

People with early versions of photoshop thought that too. Most were wrong, some were right.

Photoshop was a DTP accelerator and low-cost retouching alternative for Scitex. Your example would be Andy Warhol (an actual artist) using Graphicraft.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#114

Post by surgical_fire »

esafak wrote: post #27
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #4

> most artists love their work and do not want to outsource their passion to a machine that does this for them. This was the money quote. I love what I do (which tends to be programming, but I approach it as a craft), and often do things by hand, that others automate, because I love my work, and also the people that use it.

The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )

This is such an awful take, that I always roll my eyes when I see it being reproduced. It gets cringer every time.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#115

Post by victor9000 »

agrippanux wrote: post #25

I got hit up over several emails by a startup doing AI recruiting. I never replied back because it was hard to tell if it was actually the CEO reaching out to me because of my experience, or his AI system reaching out to me. I thought, if I’m having this sort of issue figuring out if the contact is genuine, how will I feel working on this product? Even if it is genuine, is it ethical to have been recruited by a real…

A couple of years back I got a message on LinkedIn from Andrew Ng and I was blown away, then I quickly realized that this account was probably managed by a team of recruiters. I responded positively but mentioned some ML 101 concepts that could be applied to the problem, and the inability to engage confirmed my suspicion. So to some degree, deception has always been part of the game.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#116

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

smegger001 wrote: post #67
throwawaysleep wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The role will remain, but the job will change dramatically into one with a higher level of product focus. The "software craftsmen" type will become more obsolete than they are already. RAM used to matter. Now, who even looks at how much RAM their app uses?

And that is why everyones phones an computers are slow because every application eats as much RAM as possible.

Obligatory Comic: https://x.com/iamdevloper/status/1072503943790497798

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#117

Post by nicholassmith »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #37
buttercraft wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see no reason why "their passion" should overrule profit-seeking. This viewpoint is what fucked up the world.

No, this viewpoint is the only reason a shirt doesn't cost a month's wages. Weavers once had similar arguments, decrying machinery that made cloth. Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia. There are tremendous benefits to making art something anyone can get for d…

Another take on this point, the race to the bottoming of shirts has been a disaster ecologically and has fostered a throwaway culture where people don't take care or pride in an item of clothing. There's benefits on reducing the barrier to entry, but profound downsides to it as well.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#118

Post by olyjohn »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #41
robofanatic wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just like it's foolish to think corporate programmers will be a thing at some point in the future. I don't think corporate programmers are obsolete. How will a sophisticated AI programmer in the future be any different than a human programmer in an outsourcing firm?

The role will remain, but the job will change dramatically into one with a higher level of product focus. The "software craftsmen" type will become more obsolete than they are already. RAM used to matter. Now, who even looks at how much RAM their app uses?

And this is why we have tons of trash software that runs like garbage, and nothing but low quality trash products on the market. People who don't give a fuck about anything but profit.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#119

Post by empath75 »

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #4

> most artists love their work and do not want to outsource their passion to a machine that does this for them. This was the money quote. I love what I do (which tends to be programming, but I approach it as a craft), and often do things by hand, that others automate, because I love my work, and also the people that use it.

I think that the way people are mostly interacting with generative AI is not as a producer but as a _consumer_. They describe what they want, the AI makes it, and they get some enjoyment out of it, then discard it. Maybe they share it with a handful of people, but I think only a tiny percentage of people interacting with Chatgpt or MidJourney are doing anything creative or think of themselves as artists and _that's fine_.

Re: Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

#120

Post by falcolas »

kapp_in_life wrote: post #39
esafak wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mantra is "I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do my laundry and dishes". - Joanna Maciejewska ( https://x.com/AuthorJMac/status/1773679197631701238 )

Sure, but many people who are bad at art and writing would like AI to make art and writing that's tailored to their tastes and are fine doing laundry and dishes since they're good at that and we have already automated 99% of it with dishwashers and dryers.

> many people who are bad at art and writing

The thing is, you can get better at these. They are just creative skills that get better with practice (much like coding et.al.). And the skill will let you do things you can't do with AI.

> are fine doing laundry and dishes since they're good at that and we have already automated 99% of it with dishwashers and dryers.

With the minimal amount of sarcasm or ill intent possible: what are you doing with that spare time if not improving skills you clearly want the output of?

Post reply on HN