Most active commenters
  • petralithic(9)
  • Palomides(3)

←back to thread

I Am An AI Hater

(anthonymoser.github.io)
443 points BallsInIt | 17 comments | 27 Aug 25 19:10 UTC | HN request time: 0.023s | source | bottom
Show context
jkingsman ◴[27 Aug 25 19:49 UTC] No.45044262[source]▶
I appreciate seeing this point of view represented. It's not one I personally hold, but it is one a LOT of my friends hold, and I think it's important that it be given a voice, even if -- perhaps especially if -- a lot of people disagree with it.

One of my friends sent me a delightful bastardization of the famous IBM quote:

A COMPUTER CAN NEVER FEEL SPITEFUL OR [PASSIONATE†]. THEREFORE A COMPUTER MUST NEVER CREATE ART.

Hate is an emotional word, and I suspect many people (myself included) may leap to take logical issue with an emotional position. But emotions are real, and human, and people absolutely have them about AI, and I think that's important to talk about and respect that fact.

† replaced with a slightly less salacious word than the original in consideration for politeness.

replies(11): >>45044367 #>>45044380 #>>45044473 #>>45044533 #>>45044608 #>>45044647 #>>45044670 #>>45045227 #>>45048762 #>>45051119 #>>45062362 #
petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:05 UTC] No.45044473[source]▶
I've talked to people like this and when you dig deep enough, it's a fear of the economic effects of it, not actually any strongly held belief of AI inherently not being intelligent or emotional. Similarly, and I'm speaking generally here, ask artists about coding AI and they won't care, and ask programmers about media generation AI and they also won't care. That's because AI outside their domain does not (ostensibly) threaten their livelihood.
replies(6): >>45044498 #>>45044586 #>>45044690 #>>45044793 #>>45045094 #>>45045258 #
1. hofrogs ◴[27 Aug 25 20:07 UTC] No.45044498[source]▶
I am not an artist, yet I care about media generation "AI", as in I resent it deeply.
replies(1): >>45044567 #
2. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:12 UTC] No.45044567[source]▶
Like I said, I'm speaking generally. There are a few like you who do, for whatever reason, but most artists hate it because they, at the most basal level, see it as a threat, especially when it came out. You should've seen what engineers on HN said about GitHub Copilot said when that first came out too.
replies(1): >>45044587 #
3. Palomides ◴[27 Aug 25 20:13 UTC] No.45044587[source]▶
this is a claim shockingly contrary to what every artist I know, and I myself as an amateur, believe
replies(1): >>45044776 #
4. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:29 UTC] No.45044776{3}[source]▶
Which artists care about coding AI like Copilot? All the ones I talked to simply do not care. Regarding economic means, I asked them whether they'd care if they lived in a post scarcity society where they could make art all day and not have to worry about their material needs being met, ie they're rich, and it turns out if that were the case, they didn't care about what people did with AI, be it image generation or code generation.
replies(5): >>45044887 #>>45044909 #>>45044957 #>>45045238 #>>45045291 #
5. ◴[27 Aug 25 20:37 UTC] No.45044887{4}[source]▶
6. jclulow ◴[27 Aug 25 20:38 UTC] No.45044909{4}[source]▶
Where can I sign up for the post scarcity society? Asking for my artist friends.
replies(1): >>45044936 #
7. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:40 UTC] No.45044936{5}[source]▶
You can't, hence my point about their fear being economic, not philosophical.
8. magicalist ◴[27 Aug 25 20:42 UTC] No.45044957{4}[source]▶
Sounds like you were maybe having some one-sided conversations with all the many artists you spoke to.
replies(1): >>45045081 #
9. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 20:50 UTC] No.45045081{5}[source]▶
Ah yes, because you disagree with me, I must have been having one sided conversations. I suppose some people just can't accept other people's experiences without denigrating them.
10. xantronix ◴[27 Aug 25 21:02 UTC] No.45045238{4}[source]▶
As an artist, I do not dread AI's artistic capabilities from a philosophical standpoint because its apparent "humanity" is a distilled average entirely divorced from the contexts in which its stolen art inputs are provided. In this way, it is categorically devoid of meaning.

As a software developer, I dread AI's capabilities to greatly accelerate the accumulation of technical debt in a codebase when used by somebody who lacks the experience to temper its outputs. I also dread AI's capabilities, at least in the short term, to separate me and others from economic opportunities.

replies(1): >>45045412 #
11. Palomides ◴[27 Aug 25 21:06 UTC] No.45045291{4}[source]▶
so here's the thing, artists like making the art, skipping the making leaves you with nothing

most artists I know are against AI because they feel it is anti-human, devaluing and alienating both the viewer and the creator

some can tolerate it as a tool, and some (as is long art tradition) will use it to offend or be contrarian, but these are not the common position

if I were a spherical cow in a vacuum with infinite time, and nobody around me had economic incentives to make things with it, I could, maybe, in the spirit of openness, tolerate knowing some people somewhere want to use it... but I still wouldn't want to see its output

replies(1): >>45045585 #
12. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 21:18 UTC] No.45045412{5}[source]▶
That's because, if I'm inferring correctly what you're implying in the last sentence, you work primarily as a software developer. Try telling a working artist your first paragraph or that they shouldn't worry about AI taking their commission work for example and see what they think.
13. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 21:35 UTC] No.45045585{5}[source]▶
They don't have to use AI though, they can leave people who do alone. But that's not what I see, I see artists getting mad at the latter and when I dig deep, it turns out they're scared it'll take their digital commission work. This has primarily been my experience talking with artists I commission as well as people online on Twitter and reddit for example.
replies(1): >>45045662 #
14. Palomides ◴[27 Aug 25 21:42 UTC] No.45045662{6}[source]▶
sure, it's hard for an artist to compete on price with AI, and the ones who depend on this kind of ultra low budget work will have a hard time (and have a direct economic self-interest in advocating against)

but again, that's not what I see in the people around me

replies(1): >>45045907 #
15. petralithic ◴[27 Aug 25 22:05 UTC] No.45045907{7}[source]▶
And that's my point. It was never about the philosophy, it was always about the economics. That's what frustrates me, why lie? If it's money you want then ask for it, don't make up some bullshit.
replies(1): >>45050585 #
16. evilsetg ◴[28 Aug 25 10:45 UTC] No.45050585{8}[source]▶
But are philosophy and economics so neatly separable in this case? Say you hold the philosophical belief that humans creating art is important but the economics don't allow it. In that case the root of your argument is philosophical and the economics factor into it but are not the single argument itself.
replies(1): >>45061614 #
17. petralithic ◴[29 Aug 25 08:29 UTC] No.45061614{9}[source]▶
Well, the trope of the starving artist exists for a reason. One does not need to be employed as a full time artist to create art, and thus art can come from anywhere, the value of economics is an entirely separate issue because no one should expect to be able to do a leisurely activity as an economically viable occupation indefinitely. Does it happen, yes of course, but it shouldn't be expected to always continue.