Comment by gyy52380 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by gyy52380 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Because that is not what's happening. My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games say it's the exact opposite. AI is used for the bulk of the creative work - composition, posing, even the general artstyle. Illustrators are then tasked with "fixing" visual artefacts, stitching together generated images and giving the final polish. They describe it as being reduced from a creative writer to a grammar checker.

It's tempting to just say that creative work that can be automated this quickly should be automated so that artists can focus on more creative challenges, but this is not how it plays out in practice. Rather, this only allows companies to cut down costs. It is already extremely difficult to find work which will pay a livable wage as a creative. AI has already caused layoffs and negative wage pressure on remaining employees. The only thing that AI has done (at least among my circle of friends) is reduce corporate costs and increase antidepressant prescriptions.

When I watch a video like the demo-video for the Krita plugin we're discussing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-QDPEcVmdLI), I do see a lot of creativity happening. The person is using stable diffusion as a tool to achieve the look, style and composition they want. The skill to be able to use such a model for creating art is definitely an acquired skill, and I would definitely consider it a form of art.

Of course there will be people just clicking "generate" on a website. But isn't that the difference between consumer and artist? Everyone can press the shutter button on a digital camera to take a snapshot. But the artist knows how to use light, angle and technology to create a photograph with the looks and composition that they intend. (If you compare snapshots from amateur photographers and from professionals, the differences are astounding. And it's not just about the cost of the equipment.)

Certainly, there will be jobs – especially the rather repetitive jobs – that will be replaced by the use of AI, just like stock photos replaced jobs of certain photographers, or just like industrialization and automation replaced the jobs of a lot of craftsmen and artisans. But craftsmen and artisans are still around, and they are paid a lot more than they used to be paid, as long as they provide added value on top of the generic products available on the market!

I would never argue that you CAN'T do something creative with it. The problem is not even this single tool itself, but the greater amalgamation of all AI tools that arise from the general soceital phenomenon of using AI.

The problem with many technophiles is that they have a very distorted view of what they create. They often think it's going to do good because it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage.

If you're interested, feel free to reach out to me because I am starting an anti-AI coalition.

Out of curiosity can you just give me pratical example of: "it's so cool but once that tech is out in the real world, it just mostly causes damage."

Well:

(1) AI has already been used for IDENTIY THEFT in many places. Check this out: https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-scam-voice-clone-fake-kid...

AI here to clone a voice was used to make a mother think her daughter had been kidnapped

(2) People getting fired from their jobs such as illustrators because AI can now do things. Also, people NOT getting hired when they could.

(3) I am a professional writer, and I know of some websites who are using generative AI for articles and hiring less (or even firing writers)

(4) AI removes what remaining reliance we have on each other and makes it less likely for people to talk to each other when needing some basic information. The societal effects of destroying communities where people need each other are pretty clear.

Ok but that can be said of any technology. Chemistry is bad because someone used it to poison their friend. Phones are bad because it can be used for bomb threats, cars are bad because they put out of work the whole horse industry and you can go on and on forever. Every single technology can be abused but it doesn't mean that they mainly cause damage.

(1) You are right, and that is why we should be much more cautious with technology.

(2) AI is unique in the sense that it has a much wider range and acts much faster. Therefore, it is much more dangerous, similar to how both salt and sodium cyanide are dangerous but the latter is much worse. You need to think in terms of the magnitude of the effect, not just its qualitative nature.

In a certain light smartphones resemble the moral equivalent of violating the Prime Directive.

"Here, rural areas and undeveloped nations. Take this crippled, distorted window into the greater internet. It happens to be much better at viewing content than creating it and will surveil you more closely than ever you watch it. The preinstalled software is forbidden to remove. Don't view it more than ten minutes a day or the content recommended by social media algorithms may cause malaise. Like and subscribe for more content."

I think you'd be better served making moral arguments rooted in ethical principles that people adhere to in real life, not science fiction.

This is especially important when you consider how unethical the Prime Directive itself is as a principle, and how often Star Trek portrays violating it as the morally superior choice.

The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations, and aims to deny them the agency to make their own choices about how to fit modern technology into their lives and communities. It sounds like a modern variation on "noble savage" and "white man's burden" notions -- not exactly a good look.

> The position you're advancing here seems to infantilize people in rural areas and undeveloped nations

I believe it seems that way to you.

Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc. yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.

> Many people (in particular unemancipated minors) might likewise consider it infantilizing to place a minimum age requirement on drivers' licenses, firearms, alcohol, etc.

It seems unremarkable that we tend to treat actual children like children, but it's far less mundane to propose treating mature adults like children on the presupposition that due to their cultural or ethnic origins, they must exist in an immutable childlike state. The latter is an extremely dangerous notion, and we ought to be wary of anyone who advances it.

> yet the consensus is that doing so is for the greater good.

I'm not sure that any 'greater good' calculus is part of any consensus whatsoever.

Social media.

Technology is just what it is. Good and bad are human categories that don't apply to technology per se (and are very subjective categories that change dramatically across time, space, and culture)

What humans use it for is another discussion.

One example: - You can use nuclear fission to provide light and warmth to millions or blow up millions.

Is nuclear fission good or bad?

I would argue it depends what humans make of it.

Same with what you call "AI".

I wish you luck with your coalition, but once a technology is "out there", you cant take it back. I don't think there is an example in history where that happened, would be curious if you know one.

That's actually a problem for the business model of mobile games. A consumer can - or very soon will be able to - pick up AI tools and cut out the middleman org churning out these illustrations, just like they cut out the professionals. It won't be too long before games are made that advertise "put your original characters in the game", and it won't be some complicated character creation tool - it'll be generative stuff.

There's a lot of "but wait, there's more" in what's happening around AI.

>My friends that work as illustrators for PC and mobile games

You mean your friends that work to produce generically pleasant looking props in order to maximize player retention and profits?

It seems like artists complaining about AI don't actually work like artists but more like office drones

Office drones with salaries, dependents, livelihoods, and skills to hone.

I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but replacing artists at any level is not a good thing.

> I think AI use in art tools is inevitable, but replacing artists at any level is not a good thing.

Everything in the computing space has been shifting labor from one skillset to another skillset and maximizing the output per hour worked so that fewer workers are needed for the same output (but also more tasks are worth doing, because the costs are lower for any given benefit.) Why is displacing people manually building the visual component of video games any worse than, say, displacing typists, secretaries, people delivering interoffice mail -- all of whom also had salaries, dependents, and livelihoods -- while increasing the value of work in the field automating all those things?

It's commoditization again: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25765864

Reply on news.ycombinator.com