←back to thread

20 points praveeninpublic | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.269s | source

While browsing YouTube, an AI-generated video appeared and I reflexively told my wife, “That’s AI—skip it.”

Yet I’m using AI-created illustrations for my graphic novel, fully aware of copyright and legal debates.

Both Copilots and art generators are trained on vast datasets—so why do we cheer one and vilify the other?

We lean on ChatGPT to rewrite blog posts and celebrate Copilot for “boosting productivity,” but AI art still raises eyebrows.

Is this a matter of domain familiarity, perceived craftsmanship, or simple cultural gatekeeping?

1. ilaksh ◴[] No.43807169[source]
Different groups or individuals are going to have different reactions. Most of the reactions to AI art are similar to the reactions for art and actually most things in general. They are based on popularity or fashion more than any real judgement.

It's largely driven by social dynamics. If your group generally expresses disgust for AI art, you subconsciously know you have to have the same opinion about it.

Your post is a bad example where you make an artificial distinction based on how you generate it in order to make it okay.

It's okay for what you are doing because it's incredibly convenient. It's not okay for other people because you know it's unpopular.

For videos also, you need to distinguish between that and images or other types of art. Videos are more challenging than still images and just starting to get to the point where the latest ones don't have a lot of weird obvious spatial temporal artifacts.