←back to thread

Ask HN: Why do we celebrate AI-Copilots but reject AI–Generated art?

20 points praveeninpublic | 2 comments | 26 Apr 25 19:13 UTC | HN request time: 0.43s | 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?

Show context
aDyslecticCrow ◴[26 Apr 25 21:17 UTC] No.43807300[source]▶
LLMs are not good enough to replace programmers, authors or journalists (and I suspect never will, since they still rely on accurate and human written sources to produce anything of value)

However, AI art generators in their current form may render all artistic jobs unlivable within 20 years. Learning to draw is one of the most time-intensive skills to master. A master's degree in CS is sufficient to secure a good job, but five years of experience in art makes you a "novice". AI art is just good enough to devalue art as a whole, making it an infeasible profession to pursue, as it's already near the minimum wage on average.

In 20 years, there may not be any new professional digital artists. All art will become AI art. Do we like that world? Cheap, corporate, lazy, with no sign of effort or dedication.

I want LLMS to go away as well, but at the very least, there will always be a market for real text, and always be people able to produce it.

replies(1): >>43809562 #
1. gls2ro ◴[27 Apr 25 05:08 UTC] No.43809562[source]▶
Isnt this maybe a bias?

Developers saying LLMs are not good enough to replace programmers but can replace artists.

An artist can say the same: LLMs are not good enough to replace artists but they seem good enough to replace programmers.

replies(1): >>43811521 #
2. thiht ◴[27 Apr 25 12:41 UTC] No.43811521[source]▶
That’s both true and false. AI can definitely replace the "realization" part of art in some cases, not the "creativity/thinking" part. I’d AI art good? Sometimes, sometimes not. Is it good enough when you just want an illustration, with images serving no artistic purpose? Often yes. AI can also definitely replace part of the "writing code" bits. Can it replace all of it? No, some parts are still too complex for AI to grasp. Is it good enough for MVPs, throwing projects in the wild and see if they work? Of course yes.