Hacker News Reader

except that AI art is made off the backs of artists who created the art being fed into the AI database.It could not exist without their work.

View on HN

Automatic looms probably wouldn't have been possible without the lessons learned by skilled weavers (not to mention the mechanics building them) either.

Capital formation is always and everywhere painful for labor (see: medieval enclosure, the American frontier/genocide, the Great Leap Forward, the triangle trade, and many others). This is obviously really really bad but so far we haven't devised a workable, lasting way to systemically stop the ownership class from doing it to us.

Automatic looms are programmed with designs by designers who are paid to make them. AI takes the designs from the designers who make them.

I think I understand the distinction you're making, but don't see why it matters. In both cases, skill and artistry are replicated by capital machinery using the same skill and artistry, but without paying for it (or paying for much less of it).

Automatic looms took jobs away so there was less work to be had. AI takes work that has been worked from the workers. They still do the job but AI takes it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com