3 ms·

Meta-commentary on this discussion: okay, I know the ‘hacker news’ thing has always been kinda a misnomer, and has gotten moreso. But it’s still kind of shockin

Meta-commentary on this discussion: okay, I know the ‘hacker news’ thing has always been kinda a misnomer, and has gotten moreso. But it’s still kind of shocking to me how little people here value making something, versus pretending to make something. There’s value to actually doing stuff. The amount of “all artists will use AI to pretend to make stuff, because money” is honestly kinda bizarre, and completely misunderstands the motivations of most artists, writers and makers.

Retr0id 3mo ago
The problem isn't the "real" artists, it's everyone else.
kubelsmieci 3mo ago
> There’s value to actually doing stuff. Maybe sometimes. But rarely. Usually value is in the actual stuff.
artninja1988 3mo ago
Doesn't look like this law has anything to do with (non photorealistic) art.
DarkNova6 3mo ago
Right? It strikes me that the vast majority of people complaining genuinely don't understand the difference between law and code, content and art or can think of anything beyond what they are facing in day to day work realities.
joshspankit 3mo ago
I believe we’re all struggling with the downstream effects of the attention economy that’s fed by leveraged debt. Online, the most money being made is by people who get attention. The making is not just secondary, in many cases it’s a calculation. Even genres that I enjoy as a maker for having real tactile value (repair, restoration, rug cleaning, etc) are inherently not profitable unless they are getting paid out by the video platforms. For artists this has created a wild set of conflicting constraints. Some can do the Patreon model but for those who don’t, they need attention in order to sell art in order to generate enough money to make art. In this world, AI lowering the barrier to entry means that we’re close to (if not already there) “artists” (aka people farming for money) soaking up all the attention and leaving none for the people who make things. It’s not that all artists will use AI to pretend to make stuff, it’s that all the pieces are there for a world where these money farmers will be the only visible type of artist.

Retr0id 3mo ago

The problem isn't the "real" artists, it's everyone else.

kubelsmieci 3mo ago

> There’s value to actually doing stuff. Maybe sometimes. But rarely. Usually value is in the actual stuff.

artninja1988 3mo ago

Doesn't look like this law has anything to do with (non photorealistic) art.

DarkNova6 3mo ago

Right? It strikes me that the vast majority of people complaining genuinely don't understand the difference between law and code, content and art or can think of anything beyond what they are facing in day to day work realities.

joshspankit 3mo ago

I believe we’re all struggling with the downstream effects of the attention economy that’s fed by leveraged debt. Online, the most money being made is by people who get attention. The making is not just secondary, in many cases it’s a calculation. Even genres that I enjoy as a maker for having real tactile value (repair, restoration, rug cleaning, etc) are inherently not profitable unless they are getting paid out by the video platforms. For artists this has created a wild set of conflicting constraints. Some can do the Patreon model but for those who don’t, they need attention in order to sell art in order to generate enough money to make art. In this world, AI lowering the barrier to entry means that we’re close to (if not already there) “artists” (aka people farming for money) soaking up all the attention and leaving none for the people who make things. It’s not that all artists will use AI to pretend to make stuff, it’s that all the pieces are there for a world where these money farmers will be the only visible type of artist.