Most active commenters
  • chuckadams(3)
  • vonneumannstan(3)

←back to thread

170 points bookofjoe | 14 comments | | HN request time: 0.272s | source | bottom
Show context
chuckadams ◴[] No.43644704[source]
It certainly is liberating all our creative works from our possession...
replies(5): >>43644787 #>>43644796 #>>43644830 #>>43644838 #>>43644929 #
vonneumannstan ◴[] No.43644787[source]
Intellectual Property is a questionable idea to begin with...
replies(7): >>43644934 #>>43644949 #>>43645069 #>>43646250 #>>43646372 #>>43646389 #>>43647327 #
1. chuckadams ◴[] No.43645069[source]
It's not the loss of ownership I'm lamenting, it's the loss of production by humans in the first place.
replies(2): >>43645178 #>>43645355 #
2. Philpax ◴[] No.43645178[source]
Humans will always produce; it's just that those productions may not be financially viable, and may not have an audience. Grim, but also not too far off from the status quo today.
3. vonneumannstan ◴[] No.43645355[source]
People made the same argument about Cameras vs Painting. "Humans are no longer creating the art!"

But I doubt most people would subscribe to that view now and would say Photography is an entirely new art form.

replies(4): >>43646461 #>>43646853 #>>43649298 #>>43651181 #
4. NitpickLawyer ◴[] No.43646461[source]
> People made the same argument about Cameras vs Painting.

I remember that from a couple of years ago, when Stable Diffusion came out. There was a lot of talk about "art" and "AI" and someone posted a collection of articles / interviews / opinion pieces about this exact same thing - painting vs. cameras.

5. pesus ◴[] No.43646853[source]
Using generative AI is a lot closer to hiring a photographer and telling them to take pictures for you than taking the pictures themselves.
replies(1): >>43647182 #
6. wubrr ◴[] No.43647182{3}[source]
I mean, you still have the option of taking pictures yourself, if you find that creative and rewarding...
replies(1): >>43647378 #
7. pesus ◴[] No.43647378{4}[source]
Absolutely, but it still doesn't make hiring a photographer an art form.
replies(2): >>43647569 #>>43647597 #
8. wubrr ◴[] No.43647569{5}[source]
How do you define 'art form'? Anything can arguably be an art form.
9. thrwthsnw ◴[] No.43647597{5}[source]
Why do we give awards to Directors then?
replies(2): >>43648180 #>>43648193 #
10. ◴[] No.43648180{6}[source]
11. MattGrommes ◴[] No.43648193{6}[source]
This is nit-picky but you're probably actually referring to Cinematographers, or Directors of Photography. They're the ones who deal with the actual cameras, lens, use of light, etc. Directors deal with the actors and the script/writer.

The reason we give them awards is that the camera can't tell you which lens will give you the effect you want or how to emphasize certain emotions with light.

12. chuckadams ◴[] No.43649298[source]
A human is still involved with the camera. Just a different set of skills, and absent manipulation in post, the things being photographed tended to actually exist. Now we need neither photographer nor subject.
replies(1): >>43654855 #
13. zifpanachr23 ◴[] No.43651181[source]
False equivalency and you know it.
14. vonneumannstan ◴[] No.43654855{3}[source]
AIs still aren't autonomous. The model doesn't make anything unless a human directs it to. It's just another layer of abstraction above the camera or paintbrush.