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. thesuitonym · 1790276901 · focus · HN ↗

      I think it will create two media economies. One economy of garbage slopware made for and by companies and people who don't care about anything, and one for people who actually find enjoyment from the process of creation, not from whatever polished turd comes out the end.

      1. autuni · 1790323970 · focus · HN ↗

         I like to make the comparison to the invention of cameras. Traditional painters still found their place in art and commercial work, and photography found a place in art and photography. But if a guy with a camera took a photo and claimed its a painting, people would have been angry about finding out too (understandably so). Takes time for new media to find their place/niche in which they differ from other media in terms of art, and in terms of commercial use. Though obviously as long as people are deceptive about the use of a tool, there will always be negative connotations, and people using AI for art must accept that just not everyone is going to like it and they can't expect the same amount of praise/admiration for doing the same thing as other media with less effort (and that's fine too).

         1. _g0xr · 1790351212 · focus · HN ↗

            A photograph is distinct from a painting. The camera does things a paintbrush cannot, even if given infinite time. (And vice versa, a camera cannot make a painting.)

            What can generative AI do that can't be done, and done better, otherwise? Nothing.

            It's not an attempt to replace or add an artistic medium; it's an attempt to replace the artist. It doesn't open new avenues of expression, and it has negative journalistic value too.

            People who "make AI art" are not making art, nor making anything else. They are commissioning images/videos/text from a bot, just as people commission art from humans. The amount of praise/admiration this deserves is zero.

            1. autuni · 1790577983 · focus · HN ↗

               I agree with your sentiment, though I'd argue that a camera also can't do anything that a dedicated enough painter can't also do, just with a lot more labor involved. Especially if you only look at it from the result perspective (even though that's only one part of the art, that's unfortunately the only part that counts for many people)

               The unfortunate truth for art is that gen AI will stay, and they will take work from artists, just like photography did from painters. There will be a niche for it at some point, and until it finds that niche people will fight over it.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.