3 ms·
> A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI. Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce
by sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> A human who writes or produces art for monetary reasons is only just as bad as AI.
Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce art so good that other people are willing to pay for it."
Another HN commenter who thinks artfulness is developed over decades and that individual art pieces are made over hundreds of hours out of some charity... Ridiculously ignorant worldview.
- deadbabe 1y ago> Or they're what you call "a professional artist," aka "people who produce art so good that other people are willing to pay for it." If this is okay, then why isn’t an AI that produces art so good that other people are willing to pay for it also not okay? They are equivalent.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoWho said that's not okay? The problem with AI-produced art is its potential to supplant human art, i.e. to destroy the incentive for any human to gain artistic mastery. Here's how they're not equivalent: if you take human inputs out of AI, it disappears. If you take AI inputs out of human art, basically nothing changes.
- deadbabe 1y agoIf you need incentive to pursue artistic mastery, you will never really be a true master. I think you’ve failed to articulate any kind of real problem with AI art replacing human art, you just don’t like it personally so you want to see it gone.
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago> If you need incentive to pursue artistic mastery, you will never really be a true master. Deploying fortune-cookie wisdom to defend against allegations of astounding ignorance of the real world is... a choice. Which "true masters" didn't do do art commercially? According to your theory, not only should this list be of non-zero length, but it should include every master. So please tell me which ones.
- deadbabe 1y agoYou don’t think there are? Then what do you care if masters go extinct and all masterworks are produced by AI? The end result is the same.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoGive me examples please. If you think the end state is the same, it's because you misunderstand the argument being made. Try being more curious and less fortune-cookie! Nobody said "making money from art is bad."
- deadbabe 1y agoI have no examples.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoDoes that disprove your thesis that people cannot make great art (or become “true masters”) with commercial incentives? What does this imply for your broader thesis that nothing is lost if AI destroys commercial incentive for humans to master and develop art further?
- deadbabe 1y agoNo, because commercially motivated artists are inherently more well known than people who master an art but don’t need to promote it. Ultimately if one wants to master an art, money cannot be the incentive, it’s only a byproduct.
- sorcerer-mar 1y agoAh, I see. So just running with this theory on an article of faith, with literally zero evidence. Nice! Art: The one thing in the whole world where incentives don't matter. The stuff of fortune cookies.