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

51–60 of 121 posts

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#51

Post by jarjoura »

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 really do want to support artists, but I also feel super conflicted about what is actually at stake here if an AI agent generates a scene for me. I never would have hired a 3D artist before this moment, because there's no reason for me to. However, if I can easily poop out a 3D rendering of something custom without much time or cost, I would absolutely love to do that. How many one-off presentations or project design sessions I could have with cheap throwaway 3D artwork that provides value to explain my thought process?!

Just like AI image slop and AI book slop prove though, I highly doubt whatever Claude and Blender are cooking up will ever come close to taking a prompt like

> render a scene of a corgi sitting on a chair looking out of a window at 3 cats playing with the corgi's favorite toy.

and turning that into anything useful.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#52

Post by soundworlds »

dmarcos wrote: post #49
neya wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an artist turned CTO. My perspective is really simple - theft is theft. You (not you specifically per se) can sugar coat it however you like, but copying open source codebases/work is different from stealing proprietary/licensed work without permission. It would have been ok if stealing/sharing copyrighted work was heavily normalized, but no, a lot of people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs an…

How come? We give IP law / copyright legitimacy but it’s not clear to me the more I think about it. If you draw something you def own the physical drawing but owning the idea of the drawing during your lifetime feels strange to me. It’s also a very recent invention and humans created art before and will create after.

I agree that copyright is foundationally wrong, but the way out has to be through a culture shift of people putting their work in Public Domain. It's not up to a private company to decide everyone else's work is public commons.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#53

Post by _aavaa_ »

dmarcos wrote: post #49
neya wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an artist turned CTO. My perspective is really simple - theft is theft. You (not you specifically per se) can sugar coat it however you like, but copying open source codebases/work is different from stealing proprietary/licensed work without permission. It would have been ok if stealing/sharing copyrighted work was heavily normalized, but no, a lot of people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs an…

How come? We give IP law / copyright legitimacy but it’s not clear to me the more I think about it. If you draw something you def own the physical drawing but owning the idea of the drawing during your lifetime feels strange to me. It’s also a very recent invention and humans created art before and will create after.

> but owning the idea of the drawing during your lifetime feels strange to me

Oh, I wish it was limited to lifetime.

USA is currently lifetime + 70 years, and work for hire is 95 years from creation.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#54

Post by anematode »

LeoPanthera wrote: post #21

There's a bug in today's version of the Claude desktop app which means the settings pages cannot be scrolled. If you're running it on a laptop, some settings are off the bottom of the screen and now inaccessible.

My trick for when the desktop app is buggy is I have Claude decompile it and fix the issue. I have a series of a few patches (I think this is one of them)

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#55

Post by make3 »

hgoel wrote: post #43
FireBeyond wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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".

I literally said I understand if the training data sourcing is their primary concern.

he meant that that's not the primary concern. the sourcing of the data is a red herring, they care about losing their ability to make a living doing the thing that they love that is so central to their identity

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#56

Post by torginus »

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 not artist replacement yet because they dont have the necessary training or sophistication.

I doubt the current state shows the end of their ambitions.

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#57

Post by neya »

dmarcos wrote: post #49
neya wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm an artist turned CTO. My perspective is really simple - theft is theft. You (not you specifically per se) can sugar coat it however you like, but copying open source codebases/work is different from stealing proprietary/licensed work without permission. It would have been ok if stealing/sharing copyrighted work was heavily normalized, but no, a lot of people have gone to prison for simply pirating DVDs and CDs an…

How come? We give IP law / copyright legitimacy but it’s not clear to me the more I think about it. If you draw something you def own the physical drawing but owning the idea of the drawing during your lifetime feels strange to me. It’s also a very recent invention and humans created art before and will create after.

The issue is not stealing the idea itself. The issue is stealing the work in its entirety - as is - with all its flaws and character intact. That's what makes art unique, right?

I would think the same goes for codebases too. On a personal note, I wrote a CMS in Elixir from scratch way before even AI was a thing. It uses a lot of proprietary flows to make it scale, helping it serve millions of requests efficiently. I certainly did not give OpenAI nor Microsoft permission to steal my code. And yet they did. Is that not theft of my Intellectual Property?

Re: Claude for Creative Work

#60

Post by mbgerring »

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…

People who built a career on their mastery of Blender are going to lose their livelihoods. Why is this difficult to understand?
Post reply on HN