4 ms·
None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have
by FooBarWidget 13d ago
None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output.
- dgellow 13d ago> yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output Literally nobody is saying that, what are you talking about
- FooBarWidget 13d agoWhich critic is proposing funding better artwork, made by good human artists? Sometimes, silence says more than words. Non-decision is also a decision.
- asdff 12d agoSo you can't criticize something without coming up with some fantasy plan that will only exist in whatever corner of social media you left that comment, to make that criticism somehow now valid?
- FooBarWidget 12d agoNo, this is merely about what is sustainable, not morals. The supply is shifting towards increasingly AI generated. Almost all of the complainers are consumers and do not change the supply side of things. Until they do, the ultimate result is clear: they will die on a hill. If you want to die on a hill while feeling morally superior, be my guest.
- paulhebert 13d agoYou think that no one who criticizes AI pays for human artwork? That is a bizarre stance
- FooBarWidget 13d agoDo you think the vast majority who criticize AI pays for good human artwork? Now that is a bizarre stance.
- thunderfork 12d agoMotte and bailey; "none" -> "vast majority" I know plenty of people (including myself) who pay for good human artwork :)
- FooBarWidget 12d agoThis is about paying for better-than-AI human artwork, not any human artwork. Would they pay premium for non-AI? That matters much more than whether they pay when they have no choice.
- thunderfork 11d agoI do exactly this all the time, and know many who also do this all the time, yes. So, this refutes the bailey: >None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are.
- johnnyanmac 12d agoUnless they've been in a coma all their life until 2022... Yes? You think only pirates are anti-AI or something? What are you getting at?
- FooBarWidget 12d agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49775715 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49775715
- paulhebert 12d agoYou think most people don’t pay for movies, music, games, clothing with designs, art, etc.?
- johnnyanmac 12d agoWhy are you making such wide assumptions? I pay for art constantly. Where's this blatantly wrong suggestion coming from?
- FooBarWidget 12d agoThe point isn't whether you pay for art when no AI alternative exists. The point is whether you would be willing to pay premium for non-AI artwork, vs whether you'd just continue to complain about AI usage while expecting non-AI at no additional charge.
- johnnyanmac 12d agoAgain, you're making a lot of odd assumptions about how I consume media with zero support whatsoever. I donate to Patreons, I buy albums and games, I even buy merch here and there. Prices have raised over the years and I only spent less because I lost my primary source of income, not because I'm complaining about indie artists asking for too much money. ai art is worthless to me so I'm not going to pay at all for anything making blatant use of it. So why would I use something I won't pay for as an excuse to complain about prices for stuff I do value? How about we wait for something actually approaching quality to come out and debate over instead of playing theoreticals with that which does not exist yet? If these AI productivity gains had 4 years to work on a project it should be making something impressive by now, no? So where's this magical collection of productivity that's disrupting art and driving down wages?