Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pet_Ant | Hacker News Reader

So if you put one buggy whip maker out of work a year, it's okay. But if you put hundreds of over the course of a couple of years, now it's wrong? Cars must be illegal.

When have we ever put the scope of the impact as part of the judgement of the legality of disruptive businesses? When did the impact of WalMart on small businesses matter legally, or Amazon on independent bookstores, or iTunes music store on independent music stores, or Netflix on video rental stores? Or NAFTA on American factory workers?

Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the scale of the impact transformative impacts the question of legality; it never has before.

If you are talking about the social problem of skilled people willing to work who cannot find meaningful employment: well, let's address that directly, but not by banning generative AI.

View on HN

The buggy whip analogy doesn't work because car makers didn't and don't sell buggy whips in the specific style of specific buggy whip makers.

Ever hear the term, "Horseless Carriage?" The entire point was to sell something familiar to people, just without the horse.

To be honest, this is a rabbit hole worth going down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseless_carriage

And from that page is this, and and this cracked a smile on my face.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsey_Horseless

Look at the 1908 Model T.

https://corporate.ford.com/articles/history/the-model-t.html

And then compare that with the Curricle, say:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curricle

I'm familiar with early automobiles.

Still not an apt analogy. Innovation is quite different to overt copying.

So that's your argument? His analogy is wrong? Ergo, you don't have to argue the broader argument of people resenting technology because it puts them out of jobs?

A lot of good arguments exist with bad analogies.

No, I'm just saying the analogy isn't apt.

But on the broader argument, saying people just don't like it because it puts them out of jobs also seems to miss the point.

Disruptive technologies of the kind that "put people put out of jobs" usually just replace labour, ie. mechanised looms, calculators and computers, rather than replacing the result of one's labour. Often this is a distinction without any meaningful difference, but when we're talking about art and creative work products I think it's significant.

I mean last year our town lost it's last custom suit tailor to retirement. In a Peruvian town I saw a cobbler making shoes by hand, cutting soles from foot tracings. Custom suits and shoes have been greatly impacted by factories pumping them out. Now, you may not respect the sartorial arts (and frankly neither do I really), but to those that do something really meaningful was lost there. Perhaps, many will go out of business, but some few will remain like forementioned tailor and cobbler. That's always been okay before.

And Frankly, the best art has always been created by people who couldn't afford to do it full time. Art will not suffer.

> And Frankly, the best art has always been created by people who couldn't afford to do it full time. Art will not suffer.

That's quite the claim.

I'm not sure there's a consistent correlation between "best art" and ability to do it full-time, but there certainly is a long tradition of artists and apprentices who did indeed make art their entire lives.

I don't buy your argument that the artistic jobs are any more special than any other job impacted by AI. Writers, software engineers, truck drivers, managers, etc.

People already buy cheap/shitty art to hang on the walls from Wal-Mart, Target, etc. Artists already lost that market 5 maybe 6 decades ago.

You've missed the mark, and admittedly I was vague, but you seem to be talking about a completely separate phenomenon from the one I replied to.

I am not talking about "technology putting people out of work."

I am talking about "technology enabling the mass copying of a specific person's copyrighted works." I am comparing these two things:

1. a professional imitator, who works for years to develop a mimicked style and then has to work for hours to produce a piece, (and in any case is not legal to claim as original,)

2. a piece of software that could produce millions of copies a day, frankly creating a nontrivial chance that eventually a copy of a specific work would be created and claimed as "original."

You can argue my points here, as I'm not a copyright lawyer, but what you've argued above is irrelevant.

> it never has before.

Look up the Digital Markets Act.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com