Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nullabillity | Hacker News Reader

Or… you only know about the ones who are, because they're the ones who talked to you about it.

All of my friends working in professional photography and publishing are heavily using AI, both the features integrated by Adobe into Photoshop and Midjourney. They use computers in their work, but they are not programmers - they are what you would describe as standard creatives.

I am a pro photographer and know many who don't use it.

One of them showed a situation where the client wanted a complex object removed from the background. I've done some Photoshop in the past and understood why that would have taken hours. He then demoed an AI feature that did the job in a few clicks. The client was happy and he moved on to another task... Hard to argue against that.

> Hard to argue against that.

Not really. Sociologically, I think it's a bad thing to want so desperately to remove stuff. That desperation was already borne from previous technologies, so it's just technology making things worse by apparently solving a previous problem that was already created by technology that ushered in a spirit paving the way for AI.

All the actual creative people I know don't care what other people are doing. What other people are doing is usually a sign of what not to do if you want to be creative.

"Creatives" so strongly against AI art I suspect are not creative at all. They are the same class of people who are so uncreative that the entire internet looks almost exactly the same, even though you could basically do anything.

We don't call the person on the Ikea furniture assembly line "creative".

With that said, I am bored to tears with the output of generative AI art on its own. It is like taking a 4 bar beat sample generator for music and looping the output 100 times creates a pretty boring song. Someone actual creative though can see that the beat sample generator can be used for the base material for something interesting musically.

Of course the creative fraud is going to be afraid of something new and happy if things stay uncreative and the same.

> All the actual creative people I know don't care what other people are doing. What other people are doing is usually a sign of what not to do if you want to be creative.

100%

Or all my friends in that space are more technically minded than average. Sampling bias is implied. We're on hackernews afterall, normies don't really come here.

That's why I was clear about "my" friends, which necessarily limits the scope of what I'm saying.

So, put simply, your reply is essentially, "Yes".

> That's why I was clear about "my" friends, which necessarily limits the scope of what I'm saying.

This post:

>I don't know a single artist that's doing commercial work that isn't using AI to speed up their delivery times. They're all using AI tooling because it's useful. I know this because they've all reached out to me at one point or another and asked about tools/hardware/services/etc, and I've done my best to point them in the right direction. One that I'm particularly proud of bought himself a 3090 and is running his own models and doing inpainting stuff to great effect.

Does not include the phrase “my friends”. The first sentence could be interpreted as a broad statement as well.

I went to an art school so a lot of my friends are artist of various mediums and some use A.I. for fun and profit and I haven’t seen any of them say negative things about it. I feel like the artist who hate A.I. now are modern day luddites.

It’s just a tool, adapt or get left behind. I wonder if this is how painters felt when photography became accessible to the massess.

Ooh! Since we're all doing anecdotes here, I know plenty of musicians that hate it!

I know some that use it to generate samples for their production. I remember all the autotune drama, this seems similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com