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

181–190 of 207 posts

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

#181

Post by unraveller »

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 )

Well I don't think OP persuaded the AI start-up to pivot to laundry services. The start-up is going after the low hanging fruit, things easy to do, and no one likes to be thought of as easily replaceable least of all artists.

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

#182

Post by rickydroll »

hpen wrote: post #177
rickydroll wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.

You jump to conclusions in you comment by saying "rent is extracted" and "monopoly". Copyright doesn't necessarily mean "monopoly".

yes it does.. see: https://rufuspollock.com/2011/01/31/copyright-is-a-monopoly-...

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

#183

Post by n4r9 »

observationist wrote: post #106
n4r9 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see generative AI as a stepping stone towards chores like dishes and laundry?

Unironically, yes. Detailed, nuanced, human level modeling of the world provides an interface with automation that allows for complex tasks and workflows to be built and trusted. "Go clean up the kitchen" might involve something where the question of "is this trash, or is this an adorable drawing made by a child that should be saved" or other such collisions between seemingly clear instructions and the vast context b…

Thanks for the response; I see your point that housework can have pretty significant cognitive requirements. I'm not sure I understood sufficiently the argument for why LLMs are well-placed to attack that sort of categorisation, but it's something for me to mull over.

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

#184

Post by rickydroll »

hpen wrote: post #178
rickydroll wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright has nothing to do with compensation. It is a monopoly over the reproduction of an expression of a "creative" thought that the copyright holder may not even have created. Enforcing copyright is a way to extract rent.

Is it rent seeking if the author owns those rights?

yes.

let me google that for you. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/economics/re...

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

#185

Post by mronetwo »

jedberg wrote: post #71

This feels like back in the day when photo editing and publishing software started getting big. "True artists" would shun anyone using those tools as amateurs. And for the most part they were right. It was mostly used by amateurs to create stuff that didn't look very good. That is where we are with AI art right now. Most of it is garbage created by people who don't know what good art is. But just like back in the day…

Yeah but what if I don't want to use it?

Truth is that no one has the luxury to make that choice because everything is seen through the lens of productivity. It's the productivity that makes making art faster "good".

It sucks so hard that the choice is: either get on board or become irrelevant.

People have every right to complain about art, for many reasons. It's not comparable to Photoshop.

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

#186

Post by winternett »

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 )

Ai is ages away from being able to emulate the passion and intuition behind music, writing, and art that humans have cultivated for centuries. It can only emulate that passion even still, so it relies on a theft from human intellect & reasoning as it very basis. This is why in the long run it will become apparent that undermining the source of creativity, and by ruining the ability of artists and writers to succeed properly in innovating nw things, eventually Ai will become bereft of new ideas, and easily turned into a source for garbage, cheap, copycat, and undesired output.

There is also the looming risk that current creators may well turn towards corrupting their work specifically to hinder the corrupt idea theft currently occurring with Ai profiteers.

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

#187

Post by winternett »

mbg721 wrote: post #110
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 )

Laundry and dishes don't pay well. Art does, but only once in a great while, and AI gives you a ton of attempts for little cost. Since rapid iteration is the biggest strength of advanced computing, people just invented cultural pollution machines in the hope of striking it rich.

If I could afford to pay for a reasonably priced Ai laundry & delivery service I would surely do it. If it was done by a robot that also cooked basic meals and cleaned my house, that would be invaluable to not just me, but many. A company that ran that service properly and reliably would likely be very successful. That would likely free many of the people in maid and janitorial jobs to work within the companies that run those services as inspectors and managers instead of in the field... This is how the model works, not just by simply saying that category of work isn't profitable...

A work hammer (the tool) doesn't profit, but the company that makes and sells it en mass (Like Stanley inc. or Craftsman) does.

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

#188

Post by tim333 »

Havoc wrote: post #10

Also on todays news - in the github copilot (and OpenAI) case about stolen content the judge dismissed majority of it: https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2024/07/08/github_copilot_dm... I do sympathise with the creatives on an emotional level but it’s looking like the laws won’t

It would be tricky do stop AI looking at content and making something inspired by it as humans have been doing that as a basic occupation for centuries. You'd have to differentiate between a human looking at stuff and then producing art and a machine doing it but what if a machine and human work together? I'm not sure how you'd differentiate legally.

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

#189

Post by gond »

bronco21016 wrote: post #172
unsui wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but it seems that you're taking the wrong lesson from the above quote. It's not an instruction manual on what parts of the human experience are not yet fully captured by AI. It's a condemnation on the entire purpose of AI as actualized in our economy, re: it's presumed lofty sci-fi-inspired aspirations (giving humans more creative liberty and freedom) versus how it's actually being opera…

So if we can’t have one without the other we should throw the whole thing out? It is a rather bleak outlook for humanity when you consider a future where we don’t do the chores or creative endeavors.

>So if we can’t have one without the other we should throw the whole thing out?

To remove mind-numbing activities, you would remove mind-stimulating activities?

If you let this out of the bag, I do not think there would be any end to this application.

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

#190

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

not2b wrote: post #51
low_tech_punk wrote: post #31

I'm curious how developers' sentiment towards code generation tools like Copilot compares to artists' sentiment towards art generation tools like MJ/SD/DallE. As a developer myself, I want to see coding as a creative act and feel uneasy about the idea of relying on a tool that makes the code one tab away. But I also recognize most of the coding we do is in a commercial context where artistic expression is less releva…

My main concern about Copilot use is that, unless you're in a race to quickly produce a minimum viable product, it doesn't optimize the hard part. The initial coding is a very small piece of the work. Code has to be designed, maintained, and extended, and for supportable code we want to have someone on the team that understands it well. If we want the code to be flexible, we want design decisions to appear in as few…

> it doesn't optimize the hard part

This is universally true of Generative AI's impact on all art and craft.

It's a Dunning-Kruger thing. It makes the stuff that a novice thinks is hard apparently easier, but does not ever tackle the difficult stuff. So that novice is actively disadvantaged compared to how they would be if they worked with an actual artist to make what they wanted.

Post reply on HN