Comment by chaosist | Hacker News Reader

Comment by chaosist | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A huge issue with film is we went through this with audio 20 years ago.

Recording time use to cost a huge amount of money and then DAWs put that in the hands of basically everyone with a PC.

We got an infinite amount more of half finished demos that no one listened to. I would have a hard time saying with a straight face that music as a whole has got better. The sheer volume crowds out a lot the fringe from being worth the effort of creating.

AI Art is really a better example though. I just resubscribed to midjourney this weekend on the web. I could see the thousands of images I made on discord. I think some are cool but what use are they? Millions of synthetic photo realistic selfies that no one but the creator bothers to look at.

The arts ultimately need a network of people appreciating the art form or you have nothing. Just an infinite amount of board classroom notebook doodles that no one ever sees. It doesn't matter if it is Picasso doing bored doodling if there is no audience. You can't have all artists with no audience. Really good chance with no audience Picasso just does something else too.

I mean has the art world really been disrupted by midjourney? It is an absurd idea. What is most curious is how little disruption any of this seems to be having.

If you look back in history, there was a point in time when only the rich and wealthy could afford to have artists create paintings for them. A portrait was reserved for the aristocratic and nobility.

Now, anyone can go into TJ Maxx or Home Goods and pick up cheap printed artwork from China. Want a portrait? Snap a picture with your phone and print it out. No skill required.

It was once the case that if you wanted a bespoke sculpture, you either needed to have the skill or the wealth to pay an artist to create one. Now anyone can 3D print one or use a CNC machine or injection molding to create one.

Is there something inherently wrong with that? Does that mean that award winning photographers and acclaimed modern painters are degraded to the same level as anyone with a phone? Are world renowned sculptors and artists no longer a thing because of 3D printing and cheap access to injection molding?

    > Really good chance with no audience Picasso just does something else too.

The people that want to be really good at their craft will continue to do so. The people that appreciate the effort, artistry, and skill will continue to do so. The presence of cheap mass produced wine doesn't degrade expensive wine; the presence of cheap mass produced whisky doesn't obviate the market for expensive small batch whisky. It's the opposite; in fact, it elevates it onto a pedestal.

But more than that, the power of generative AI is to create an experience that otherwise doesn't exist because no game or visual experience can be tailored exactly to my tastes, preferences, and style. What gen AI promises is that every person can get exactly the experience that they are seeking by simply tweaking the input.

> What is most curious is how little disruption any of this seems to be having.

It’s because the people impressed by AI are impressed because we weren’t able to do it 5 years ago. It’s novel. It makes unskilled artists feel like they have skill. It makes for easy, specific, good looking images. They can get quick images that are more specific than ever before very very quickly.

But that isn’t what making art or doing graphic design is. Making the image is the easy part most of the time.

Same with code. Rarely is writing the code the hard part. Solving problems within the constraints of a system are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com