undefined | Better HN

0 pointsgibbitz2y ago0 comments

Sadly this is how we look at art thanks to AI. "It's just like a real person thought about it and made it intentionally -- but it's nearly free!". No one paying cares if it's just copied from other works and nearly randomly put together at the expense of those who can barely make a living doing it. Why don't we focus more on automating C-suite jobs? That's where a lot of corporate costs come from. Automating a logo design saves you 20k or likey (much) less. Automating a corporate merger saves you millions of dollars and years of time.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

DoesntMatter222y ago· 2 in thread

I am incredibly happy about this. Otherwise it's like lamenting the invention of the car because it would eliminate all the jobs making buggies and whips.

> No one paying cares if it's just copied from other works

There are probably zero artists alive who didn't learn by copying other works or learning to make art in that style.

It's no different with an AI. An AI is something that learns from others and creates it's own art. There isn't anything illegal about it any more so than you learning to draw and making characters that are similar to Mickey Mouse. You can trademark a specific thing but not a style.

So at the end of the day, how is it any different than a person doing it other than the fact now a person won't be getting paid?

coldtea2y ago

>I am incredibly happy about this. Otherwise it's like lamenting the invention of the car because it would eliminate all the jobs making buggies and whips.

Between road accidents, air pollution, noise, horrendous cities and suburbs built around car use, and so on, I don't mind lamenting the invetion of the car either...

In general it's pretty naive to celebrate new technologies without considering drawbacks. Especially if they are just stuffed down everyone's throats, whether they want them or not, and even more so if the technology has the potential to eliminate human creativity and cheapen creative output. Even more so if the technology has so much potential for abuse (for government surveillance, automated spam, all the way to far worse cases, so much so that even its creators warn about the potential existential threat).

I guess what's the remove of creativity, or the existential threat, and countless of other negatives, compared to cheap logos, or (assuming it lives up to hype the way you say) killing off graphic design as a profession?

>So at the end of the day, how is it any different than a person doing it other than the fact now a person won't be getting paid?

In the removal of human creativity in the design, and its delegation to an algorithm.

DoesntMatter222y ago

> even more so if the technology has the potential to eliminate human creativity

This is completely overboard. People will always be creative. There is no way in which this stops anyone from being creative but actually allows not artists to be much more creative.

It also allows the same for artists as they can now create in styles they aren't skilled in.

> killing off graphic design as a profession?

It likely will dramatically kill it and free up those people for other types of jobs as they can now be more productive.

Humans will still continue to be creative and draw and paint. That won't change.

No reason to hold society back just to hold on to some jobs

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse