Fake Fans • Hacker News Board

Re: Fake Fans

#51

Post by wolvesechoes » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #33

wolvesechoes wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There has always been reward for merit and suffering for lack of merit. But conflating merit with economical value is very recent invention. > Nothing “anti human” about social Darwinism It didn't arise until rise of capitalism and bourgeoise (lack of) morality. For most of human history, and among countless cultures, social Darwinism wasn't the case. Peak ideology, btw.

What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems an…

> I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy.

As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied.

> Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal?

There is no data to assert that.

Re: Fake Fans

#52

Post by conception » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:32 PM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #18

conception wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software engineers should be asking themselves that same question day in and out. All know workers actually. The cost to produce art has dropped to zero. The cost to get knowledge on a topic - effectively zero. The cost to write basic software - effectively zero. The cost to produce today’s software will never be higher than today. In six months the chances that it’s significantly cheaper to do so are very high.

The cost to produce art has dropped to zero. The cost to produce an image has dropped to pretty much zero, but whether an image is 'art' is a question people have been struggling with for a long, long time. Art is usually considered to be the expression of something more meaningful than just making a picture, and in order to express something as a work of art you need to live, feel, and experience that thing (or a pr…

Sure i think i meant more consumer art. Mass produced art. The cost to take a professional level photograph from before 2010 is effectively zero now as well.

But photography as art still obviously exists. It’s just much harder to get paid for it.

Re: Fake Fans

#53

Post by palmotea » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 7:35 PM UTC

adamtaylor_13 wrote: post #40

palmotea wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pieces like this all seem to be written with an unspoken assumption that anyone who wants to make a living wage from being an artist should be able to, as if it's some sort of right. Comments like yours seem to be written with the unspoken assumption that everyone's life should be hard unless they can please the market, which technology makes increasingly difficult. It's deeply anti-human. > AI has exacerbated this…

No, life is hard on its own unless you can please the market. Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon?

> Why is it anti-human to suggest that an underwater basket weaver should not make the same amount of money as a neurosurgeon?

Because that's a hyperbolic exaggeration to make you feel fine about ignoring the plight of others?

The machine should serve society, society shouldn't serve the machine. Unfortunately, what we have is far closer to the latter.

Re: Fake Fans

#54

Post by RugnirViking » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 8:25 PM UTC

fwipsy wrote: post #49

RugnirViking wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your definition, that most art (or even things in general) are of roughly the same quality above some bar of competency is... Difficult to defend. There are things that are just better than others. Sometimes it's because they take much longer to make (time, materials etc). Other times it's because they go into a new direction (inventions, new genres). Not all things doing these are good. In fact generally, spending m…

Not of the same quality, just that the objective parts of quality have been mastered by many people. What sets art apart beyond that is individual taste. "Newness" is definitely subjective; it depends on what you've seen before (though it is correlated for people within a culture.) I suspect that you criticize airport novels, pop music, cliched movies because they are similar to stuff you've seen before. (I hope that…

I understand the hypothetical argument that you could enjoy a simple meal, a simple life, etc. And there are many that do - but that doesn't mean some things aren't preferable to other things to some people. It just shows that people's preferences are different.

But generally, we see that given the choice, people do rate art differently. That people prefer certain things to other things more often than chance. Some of it is perhaps cultural, sure. But does that really undermine the point? The trick of making good art/products whatever is literally hitting a thing a large group of people like. It's not cheating to try and make people of your culture, or any specific culture or subculture, like it. That's actually kinda most of the point.

You really can distinguish between a competent but otherwise uninteresting thing and something truly special by just like... Putting it out there. Many things that were widely distributed were not especially well liked, and others remain literal classics. Why?

Re: Fake Fans

#55

Post by jemmyw » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 8:41 PM UTC

balamatom wrote: post #25

jemmyw wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that AI isn't the only thing exacerbating this issue. More people are doing artistic like things as hobbies. The internet makes it easier to learn and the cost of entry has gone down - paints, canvases, brushes, guitars, pianos, film equipment, the low end has gone up in quality and down in price. I do some painting and I've met quite a few local artists. Some are amazing and some not so much. I haven't met a…

>Probably the most tragic thing in my opinion is that if I visit the art exhibition for my local town, the artwork on display is wonderfully varied in quality, style and imagination, and when I visited a national gallery recently displaying the works of modern artists who have "made it" to that level, it was all absolute shite. Actual technical ability seems to be being relegated to poverty artists. The artist become…

> not all people appreciate it

The problem is it's only whomever curates these spaces that needs to be persuaded. And they're hardly thrumming with people for all the millions they get in funding.

Re: Fake Fans

#56

Post by fwipsy » Sat, Apr 04, 2026, 11:15 PM UTC

RugnirViking wrote: post #54

fwipsy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not of the same quality, just that the objective parts of quality have been mastered by many people. What sets art apart beyond that is individual taste. "Newness" is definitely subjective; it depends on what you've seen before (though it is correlated for people within a culture.) I suspect that you criticize airport novels, pop music, cliched movies because they are similar to stuff you've seen before. (I hope that…

I understand the hypothetical argument that you could enjoy a simple meal, a simple life, etc. And there are many that do - but that doesn't mean some things aren't preferable to other things to some people. It just shows that people's preferences are different. But generally, we see that given the choice, people do rate art differently. That people prefer certain things to other things more often than chance. Some o…

Sounds like you mostly agree. We're not a monoculture. Mainstream culture is a compromise - consists of things that many people like, but not many people's favorite.

It's a little silly to say "mainstream is crap! Why doesn't the better stuff rise to the top?" It's because people don't agree on what's better.

Re: Fake Fans

#57

Post by bossyTeacher » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 12:10 AM UTC

jwpapi wrote: post #2

I’ve noticed a lot of fake Tik Tok comments recently and was wondering already..

Fake comments are like cockroaches. If you see one, you must assume there are 10x more that you are not noticing

Re: Fake Fans

#58

Post by bossyTeacher » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 12:13 AM UTC

probably_wrong wrote: post #46

> One day after this piece went up, Chaotic Good made significant changes to their website — including pulling the “Narrative Campaign” section completely. I checked the Internet Archive but I cannot access any of the archived versions. Apparently the website uses JS to display its content and the IA can't deal with it. Internet searches show that the page existed, though, so I'll take the content deletion as proof.

> Apparently the website uses JS to display its content and the IA can't deal with it

This is going to become more and more popular sadly.

Re: Fake Fans

#59

Post by lotsofpulp » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 12:33 AM UTC

wolvesechoes wrote: post #51

lotsofpulp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the definition of “social Darwinism”? I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? It seems to be a very, very recent phenomenon that simply selling goods and services can elevate one in the hierarchy, due to the advent of legal systems an…

> I am under the impression that for most of human history, the ability and willingness to inflict violence was what determined the social hierarchy. As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied. > Would that not be the reason that almost all tribes were patriarchal? There is no data to assert that.

>As most things people today believe, this is not really true, at least not in such universal way as usually implied.

Might makes right is a rule of nature, is it not? Native Americans didn't choose to be moved onto reservations, enslaved people didn't choose to be enslaved, and colonized cultures did not choose to be colonized. And the ones making those choices always had the upper hand.

>There is no data to assert that.

What data could there be? It's not like the male leaders are going to write governing documents that state women will have fewer rights than men because we believe they will not be able to put up a sufficient fight. But you put the facts together that it was nearly ubiquitous around the world, and women are physically weaker than men, and women would not choose to have fewer rights, then what other conclusion can be had?

Re: Fake Fans

#60

Post by ehnto » Sun, Apr 05, 2026, 2:30 AM UTC

leviathant wrote: post #43

ehnto wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am on the side of humanity here, but people don't pay for art. People pay for status, consumption, image and authenticity. But commercial art consumers, where most artists make a living, ie ad agencies, game studios etc, they actually don't give a shit about any of that. Some do, you can probably think of some, but they are the notable minority. Most don't, most are just out here to make money. They begrudgingly pa…

>I am on the side of humanity here, but people don't pay for art. Man, maybe you don't hang out with enough artists. It's true, people typically don't make the equivalent of a tech salary for art, but people absolutely pay for art, and artists are able to not only survive, but have the capacity to thrive. I get what you're saying, and for ad agencies, game studios, etc. that's always been the case (I remember when of…

Hey fair criticism, I am not in the typical tech circle but I am not surrounded by artists making money either.

Maybe a better way to phrase my point would be "(companies) pay for output, not artistry" which is to say you can remove the artistry, and still sell it to (companies).

People making a living from music or commissioned art in their style and under there name are pretty lucky in my experience.