Thread

1. keiferski · 1790255905 · focus · HN ↗

   In the world of arts/media, I think AI basically only has a future as a hidden thing. Openly admitting that you used AI to make something will be used against you, in order to dismiss your work. For a lot of people/things, it already is - see Hank Green, or the daily comments about "I don't want to read what you didn't write."

   Expect a massive marketing reversal in 6-12 months, when every "AI-powered" company removes the keyword from their home page.

   1. littlecranky67 · 1790322122 · focus · HN ↗

      > Openly admitting that you used AI to make something will be used against you

      It has always been like that in arts. Back when I was a teenager in the late 90s, my art teacher was a 50+ year old guy that never grew out of his hippie phase and was absolutely non tech-savy. Were tasked to paint a sneaker onto DIN A3 paper, and find our sneaker model from mailorder catalogues of shoeware as a template. Now, the catalogue images were far too small to do a 1:1 copy. But tech-nerdy me had a 486 PC with a scanner and an inkjet printer at home - I scanned the image from the catalogue, scaled it to 2 DIN A4 papers and printed them individually. Then just put them underneath the DIN A3 paper and copied it 1:1 during art classes. Of course I ended up with the greates, most precise image. The teacher took the painting and praised it in front of the class, giving me an A. All this admiration and attribution from my classmates would have gone down the drain, if I just told anyone how I did it. That is basically the same concept - it was the predecessor of AI that I used, and revealing it would have made me a fraud.

      1. qsera · 1790322746 · focus · HN ↗

         >it would have made me a fraud.

         s/made/revealed/

         1. kelseyfrog · 1790407725 · focus · HN ↗

            Fraud exists in the mind of the observer. It's not an ontological statement. The map is not the territory.
      2. ethanwillis · 1790322963 · focus · HN ↗

         Revealing it doesn't make you a fraud. That was already the truth.

         Revealing it makes you known as a fraud.

         1. hyperhello · 1790344929 · focus · HN ↗

            Drawing sneakers the right way is what separates our society from savagery.

            1. thereader12 · 1790352859 · focus · HN ↗

               [dead]

      3. autuni · 1790323249 · focus · HN ↗

         > All this admiration and attribution from my classmates would have gone down the drain, if I just told anyone how I did it.

         You realize that the admiration and attribution wasn't real, because you didn't actually do what you claimed? I get that you wanted to feel the effect, but that doesn't mean NOT revealing that you didn't do what you were being praised for made it real.

         1. spoiler · 1790420945 · focus · HN ↗

            If people in this thread found out how concept art gets painted /composed digitally for quick mood/vibe iterations, they'd lose their shit probably.

            Edit: my point is different techniques are fine in different contexts

      4. blub · 1790327524 · focus · HN ↗

         A little cheating here, a bit of fraud there and before one knows it, one is CEO of some AI company.

         The revealing thing is how the cheating is seen as normal and how the other people are considered out of touch or wrong.

      5. tescreal · 1790335665 · focus · HN ↗

         Drawing from reference is bog standard.

         Tracing is a cardinal sin.

         People lose careers over not understanding the massive difference.

      6. qarl · 1790340692 · focus · HN ↗

         HA! You followed the secret techniques of the great masters:

         Philip Steadman, Vermeer's Camera: Uncovering the Truth Behind the Masterpieces, Oxford University Press, 2001

         1. damnesian · 1790342246 · focus · HN ↗

            The "great" "masters"

            lol! /s

            1. qarl · 1790343614 · focus · HN ↗

               Ummm... ?
      7. purpleflashing · 1790341779 · focus · HN ↗

         I'm not following -- what does it have to do with your teacher being non tech-savvy? A tech-savvy art teacher would also tell you not to trace. Tracing doesn't really help you develop your drawing skills, any reasonable art teacher would be against that.

         1. sosodev · 1790345232 · focus · HN ↗

            Tracing definitely develops skills. I know many artists have traced their favorite works to get a sense of how it was put together. The trace doesn’t have any artistic value though.

            1. purpleflashing · 1790345386 · focus · HN ↗

               Not at the level that children at schools have. Once you have the skills, you can use tracing to "research" other people's techniques but that's not something that you would be taught as you are developing the core skills because it's useless for that.

               Edit: I can also see the use of tracing with very small children or beginner adults with poor motorics to develop muscle control, to learn how to control the line weight and variation. It is really ineffecient when learning how to see and understand the 3D forms, though.

         2. littlecranky67 · 1790354772 · focus · HN ↗

            Nowadays every adult can imagine that you can just scan something of a catalogue, enlarge and print on a PC. In the late 90s, there were people that had no idea this is even possible, let alone a teenager would have capability to do it.

            1. YurgenJurgensen · 1790366945 · focus · HN ↗

               Tracing an enlarged image can be accomplished using a box with a small hole in it and a light source. Any art teacher should have imagined that possibility in the 1890s, let alone the 1990s.

               1. littlecranky67 · 1790670046 · focus · HN ↗

                  Not in a classroom.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.