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

Claude for Creative Work

anthropic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 121 posts

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#31

Post by ehnto »

hgoel wrote: post #5
simonw wrote: post #3

Just noticed this notice added at the top of the Blender announcement of their funding from Anthropic: https://www.blender.org/press/anthropic-joins-the-blender-de... > Notice: This announcement is causing a lot of feedback. We are actively evaluating it. Presumably a lot of Blender users work in roles that feel threatened by AI being used for computer graphics work. Lots of negative replies on Blursky here: https://…

I don't really get the backlash about Blender here, this isn't generative art, it's basically a natural language means of scripting blender. This feels like the proper way to have AI act as a tool to make artist's jobs easier without taking away their creativity? Edit: I guess they might want absolutely no AI of any sort in their tools (which seems like a strange line to draw), or is it about the data it's been train…

It's really clear that businesses are hoping to replace people with AI. In an industry that is already very difficult to make a stable living in, and troubled with regular plagiarism, is it really that surprising that any encroachment of AI into that space would be met with backlash?

Even if you can see how individual circumstances could be beneficial to your workflow, it's a general direction I think many take issue with quite fairly.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#32

Post by IAmGraydon »

marcusestes wrote: post #7

I've been experimenting with an unofficial Ableton MCP ( https://github.com/ahujasid/ableton-mcp ) for a few weeks now. If you mess around with music and have an Ableton license, you should try this. It's fun.

Longtime Ableton Suite user and musician/producer. I have nothing against AI music (though it tends to be rather boring/average IMO), but it just fundamentally makes zero sense to me to have AI write music in Ableton. I open the program to create so others can hear me. Why would I give that time to creating something that isn’t me? It’s like setting up a canvas and handing the paintbrush to a robot. It just seems a rather strange waste of time. I would rather use it for something I don’t consider self-expressive/art.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#33

Post by IAmGraydon »

I tried the connection to Adobe Creative Cloud. Not sure what to think - it’s a total joke from what I can see. It appears to be normal Claude with the ability to upload the results directly to your Creative Cloud, which I suppose saves me like 2 clicks. In return it wants access to all of your CC files.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#34

Post by ihsw »

hgoel wrote: post #5
simonw wrote: post #3

Just noticed this notice added at the top of the Blender announcement of their funding from Anthropic: https://www.blender.org/press/anthropic-joins-the-blender-de... > Notice: This announcement is causing a lot of feedback. We are actively evaluating it. Presumably a lot of Blender users work in roles that feel threatened by AI being used for computer graphics work. Lots of negative replies on Blursky here: https://…

I don't really get the backlash about Blender here, this isn't generative art, it's basically a natural language means of scripting blender. This feels like the proper way to have AI act as a tool to make artist's jobs easier without taking away their creativity? Edit: I guess they might want absolutely no AI of any sort in their tools (which seems like a strange line to draw), or is it about the data it's been train…

[dead]

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#35

Post by make3 »

oompydoompy74 wrote: post #19
make3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say that again in five years when you can't find a job except mega yatch toilet cleaner because Claude is distinguished engineer level for one millionth of your cost and thousands of times faster, and can be instantly parallelized in the tens or hundreds of thousands just to be spun down arbitrarily as needed at any time

[flagged]

The transformer paper was 9 years ago. 9 years between barely translating alright between two very closely related languages (English and French, huge fraction of shared words because of William the conqueror and cultural proximity etc etc) and what we have now.

The thing is able to code up full pretty competent thousand lines projects in an hour. Even hardcore engineers use it now, as of this year. My senior front end friends already can't find jobs.

You're crazy if you think things won't change dramatically, at the scale of all of society.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.03762

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#36

Post by hgoel »

dmarcos wrote: post #27
swatcoder wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of the purported upside, many people in the arts feel betrayed by the commercial interests that built this technology on their work without their consent and threatened by the explicit intent of these vendors to devalue their work by saturating the art and design market with cheap automated substitution. A lot of artists who would love to be able to direct their professional software in natural language ha…

I spent most of my career in the open source world and doesn’t bother me models are trained on my output. Should I feel differently? It seems there’s a kind of ego or emotional attachment to the output that is more common among artists than devs? Perhaps abundance vs scarcity mindsets?

Regarding generative images, it's more of an issue because the effects are different.

Software tends to be a "living" project, so just vibe coding with 0 software knowledge is not yet fully sustainable for maintaining a project. But with art, the AI just spits out a completed image.

The generated images compete directly with the people the data was sourced from, and there have also been many cases of abuse, eg people using AI to impersonate a popular artist and selling comissions under that artist's name.

The copyright situation for generated imagery is also tricky, so people pretending to be artists only to be sharing work that isn't copyrightable can cause a ton of trouble and financial loss for customers.

Most of these issues don't apply to software in the same way. That's why I was surprised by the backlash to this as it's just touching the software side, I don't see this as threatening artist's work.

When I was dabbling in image generation (~StyleGAN2 era), my vision for image generation models was as a support tool for artists (back then I was generating small character thumbnails to help me brainstorm ideas for drawing), believing that people valued art for the human effort. Even then I would have considered what Anthropic are trying to do here as the preferable way to use AI in art workflows.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#37

Post by Joel_Mckay »

ehnto wrote: post #31
hgoel wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really get the backlash about Blender here, this isn't generative art, it's basically a natural language means of scripting blender. This feels like the proper way to have AI act as a tool to make artist's jobs easier without taking away their creativity? Edit: I guess they might want absolutely no AI of any sort in their tools (which seems like a strange line to draw), or is it about the data it's been train…

It's really clear that businesses are hoping to replace people with AI. In an industry that is already very difficult to make a stable living in, and troubled with regular plagiarism, is it really that surprising that any encroachment of AI into that space would be met with backlash? Even if you can see how individual circumstances could be beneficial to your workflow, it's a general direction I think many take issue…

Businesses have already replaced several background artists gambling on the uncopyrightable status of "AI" output being ignored. In a comercial setting, one can't sell what they never owned in the first place.

Without a constant stream of stolen training data, the "AI" piracy bleed-through and isomorphic plagiarism business model is unsustainable.

We look forward to liquidating the GPU data-centers at a heavy discount. =3

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#38

Post by skybrian »

preommr wrote: post #26
simonw wrote: post #3

Just noticed this notice added at the top of the Blender announcement of their funding from Anthropic: https://www.blender.org/press/anthropic-joins-the-blender-de... > Notice: This announcement is causing a lot of feedback. We are actively evaluating it. Presumably a lot of Blender users work in roles that feel threatened by AI being used for computer graphics work. Lots of negative replies on Blursky here: https://…

[flagged]

Bluesky also has a community of AI tool developers that are more sane. Occasionally a post escapes containment.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#39

Post by FireBeyond »

hgoel wrote: post #14
make3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no acceptable use of AI for most people in the artistic field. They see it as an extreme treason, and I understand. They're under incredible incredible threat. They are conscious of preventing momentum in a bad direction. If they don't fight it hyper hard, a huge fraction of them will be out of a job instantly.

That's a strange position to take. I can understand not wanting models that have been trained on questionably sourced data, but otherwise they're opposing essentially a UX change, not based on UX concerns but on ideological fears. Given how much software and other AI/computer vision improvements 3D content often relies on, it's weird to decide that the algorithm itself is unallowable.

> I can understand not wanting models that have been trained on questionably sourced data, but otherwise they're opposing essentially a UX change, not based on UX concerns but on ideological fears.

"If you ignore their biggest, their primary, concern, their other concerns seem almost trivial".

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#40

Post by [deleted] »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #32
marcusestes wrote: post #7

I've been experimenting with an unofficial Ableton MCP ( https://github.com/ahujasid/ableton-mcp ) for a few weeks now. If you mess around with music and have an Ableton license, you should try this. It's fun.

Longtime Ableton Suite user and musician/producer. I have nothing against AI music (though it tends to be rather boring/average IMO), but it just fundamentally makes zero sense to me to have AI write music in Ableton. I open the program to create so others can hear me. Why would I give that time to creating something that isn’t me? It’s like setting up a canvas and handing the paintbrush to a robot. It just seems a r…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN