4 ms·

Kinda curious what the author's stance on using AI to create art is.

by shapenamer 3y ago

minimaxir 3y ago
This post has no relationship to the current copyright/ethics battles of generative AI.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Sure it does. The AI that was used was trained on copyright material.
- djmips 3y ago
  'no relationship' is too strong.
- shapenamer 3y ago
  Why not? It was trained on other people's work.
  - minimaxir 3y ago
    For one, the post isn't about AI art in any way, which makes your comment appear as a low effort drive-by. Second, the use case described in the submission is functional and internal-only, and does not deprive or have the potential to deprive software developers or artists of any lost revenue or recognition. It's purely a reflective experiment. There's some nuance into the scope of generative AI, which normally Hacker News does well at discussing. But kneejerk "AI art is theft" comments only serve to discourage people from sharing their experiences with AI.
    - shapenamer 3y ago
      Well I never said the article had anything to do with AI art. I have simply noticed a pattern of almost everyone agreeing that AI generated art is bad and harms real artists, while simultaneously agreeing that AI generated code is great and only helps programmers. My post was fairly low effort though I'll give you that. It seems to have pushed a few people's buttons none the less lol. There's another story on HN posted today about balancing money and meaning and one of the top comments is a sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at the top of the blog post. If the author had used AI to create the web page they'd almost certainly receive similar praise as the comments on this one. Both AI's are trained on other people's work, yet you seem to think even pointing this out is unfair. Very strange imo.
      - minimaxir 3y ago
        > There's another story on HN posted today about balancing money and meaning and one of the top comments is a sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at the top of the blog post. If the author had used AI to create the web page they'd almost certainly receive similar praise as the comments on this one. Both AI's are trained on other people's work, yet you seem to think even pointing this out is unfair. Very strange imo Most of the comments on that submission are negatively and fairly accusing it of being ChatGPT generated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779591 That submission also appears to have been flagged/penalized, so yes, people aren't happy with it. There is a significant difference between using AI for a functional purpose that others can learn from and using AI for low-effort marketing blogspam.
        shapenamer 3y ago
        right, the text content was AI generated, and people don't like that. But if any of the tech was AI generated then the author would receive praise.
      - slyall 3y ago
        > I have simply noticed a pattern of almost everyone agreeing that AI generated art is bad and harms real artists, while simultaneously agreeing that AI generated code is great and only helps programmers. I think you mean that artists mostly think AI art is bad, while programmers mostly thing AI generated code is good.
      - JackRumford 3y ago
        Almost everyone I know in the dev community agree that both generative art and code is fine. Most people don't care about copyright, to say the least. At least the people I know in real life and chat with online. Only thing I've seen was artists on Reddit and Twitter getting angry about the AI art.
    - adamredwoods 3y ago
      I think the issue is the defiance in the headline. So I could write an article about prompt engineering with AI art and use the headline "I made an amazing art for my blog without ever taking an art class!" For example: https://medium.com/geekculture/i-used-ai-to-create-marvelous-art-for-blog-images-17cb67ffa816 https://medium.com/geekculture/i-used-ai-to-create-marvelous...
      - minimaxir 3y ago
        There's a difference between the implied "I'm a programming newbie and AI helped me solve tough problems I couldn't otherwise do" and the arrogant "with AI, you don't need to learn how to code!" I am also not a fan of the latter. Either way, it's irrelevant to the GP's comment.
    - __loam 3y ago
      AI code is theft too. A lot of the code it's trained on is copyleft. If you use code from copyleft projects, your project is copyleft, you might just not know it. AI coding systems like copilot benefit hugely from the FOSS ecosystem, but they launder away the license which means they're not contributing anything back to FOSS. None of this is knee-jerk. These systems alienate massive amounts of labor from the people and communities that did that labor. There is a huge amount of risk involved with mass adoption of this technology that most people on hackernews seem content to either ignore or say it's not relevant to the discussion like you are.

Kinda curious what the author's stance on using AI to create art is.

minimaxir 3y ago

This post has no relationship to the current copyright/ethics battles of generative AI.

ipaddr 3y ago
Sure it does. The AI that was used was trained on copyright material.
djmips 3y ago
'no relationship' is too strong.
shapenamer 3y ago
Why not? It was trained on other people's work.
- minimaxir 3y ago
  For one, the post isn't about AI art in any way, which makes your comment appear as a low effort drive-by. Second, the use case described in the submission is functional and internal-only, and does not deprive or have the potential to deprive software developers or artists of any lost revenue or recognition. It's purely a reflective experiment. There's some nuance into the scope of generative AI, which normally Hacker News does well at discussing. But kneejerk "AI art is theft" comments only serve to discourage people from sharing their experiences with AI.
  - shapenamer 3y ago
    Well I never said the article had anything to do with AI art. I have simply noticed a pattern of almost everyone agreeing that AI generated art is bad and harms real artists, while simultaneously agreeing that AI generated code is great and only helps programmers. My post was fairly low effort though I'll give you that. It seems to have pushed a few people's buttons none the less lol. There's another story on HN posted today about balancing money and meaning and one of the top comments is a sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at the top of the blog post. If the author had used AI to create the web page they'd almost certainly receive similar praise as the comments on this one. Both AI's are trained on other people's work, yet you seem to think even pointing this out is unfair. Very strange imo.
    - minimaxir 3y ago
      > There's another story on HN posted today about balancing money and meaning and one of the top comments is a sarcastic put-down about the AI generate image at the top of the blog post. If the author had used AI to create the web page they'd almost certainly receive similar praise as the comments on this one. Both AI's are trained on other people's work, yet you seem to think even pointing this out is unfair. Very strange imo Most of the comments on that submission are negatively and fairly accusing it of being ChatGPT generated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779591 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37779591 That submission also appears to have been flagged/penalized, so yes, people aren't happy with it. There is a significant difference between using AI for a functional purpose that others can learn from and using AI for low-effort marketing blogspam.
      - shapenamer 3y ago
        right, the text content was AI generated, and people don't like that. But if any of the tech was AI generated then the author would receive praise.
    - slyall 3y ago
      > I have simply noticed a pattern of almost everyone agreeing that AI generated art is bad and harms real artists, while simultaneously agreeing that AI generated code is great and only helps programmers. I think you mean that artists mostly think AI art is bad, while programmers mostly thing AI generated code is good.
    - JackRumford 3y ago
      Almost everyone I know in the dev community agree that both generative art and code is fine. Most people don't care about copyright, to say the least. At least the people I know in real life and chat with online. Only thing I've seen was artists on Reddit and Twitter getting angry about the AI art.
  - adamredwoods 3y ago
    I think the issue is the defiance in the headline. So I could write an article about prompt engineering with AI art and use the headline "I made an amazing art for my blog without ever taking an art class!" For example: https://medium.com/geekculture/i-used-ai-to-create-marvelous-art-for-blog-images-17cb67ffa816 https://medium.com/geekculture/i-used-ai-to-create-marvelous...
    - minimaxir 3y ago
      There's a difference between the implied "I'm a programming newbie and AI helped me solve tough problems I couldn't otherwise do" and the arrogant "with AI, you don't need to learn how to code!" I am also not a fan of the latter. Either way, it's irrelevant to the GP's comment.
  - __loam 3y ago
    AI code is theft too. A lot of the code it's trained on is copyleft. If you use code from copyleft projects, your project is copyleft, you might just not know it. AI coding systems like copilot benefit hugely from the FOSS ecosystem, but they launder away the license which means they're not contributing anything back to FOSS. None of this is knee-jerk. These systems alienate massive amounts of labor from the people and communities that did that labor. There is a huge amount of risk involved with mass adoption of this technology that most people on hackernews seem content to either ignore or say it's not relevant to the discussion like you are.