Hacker News Reader

Comment by gs17 | Hacker News Reader

> They don't hate good AI images, and when they see great AI images, they don't even realize they are made by AI.

There's a decent size group of people who have a knee-jerk negative response toward AI regardless of quality. They'd see that image, like it, and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning. Is there a version of "sour grapes" where the fox did eat the grapes, they were delicious, but he declared they were sour after the fact to claim moral superiority?

View on HN

The issue with AI isn't quality, or at least isn't just quality. It's ethical (use of works for training without credit or compensation, potential to displace a large portion of the artistic market, etc.)

Both are issues, for different people.

Art as nice things, vs. art as a peacock's tail where the effort is the point.

Fast fashion vs. Ned Ludd.

Queen Elizabeth I saying to William Lee, "Thou aimest high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."

  > and then when told it's AI, turn on it and decide it was obviously flawed from the beginning.

Have you seen any experimental results from researches in which participants were _falsely_ told something was AI-made, to prove and gauge that "moral superiority" effect? I'm not aware of any. There has to be many, because it has to be easy. No?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3 is pretty similar to that, they randomized AI/human-made labels and participants considered the exact same piece less valuable and less creative when labeled as AI-made. It's not measuring "moral superiority", but it shows a "negative response toward AI regardless of quality". It's definitely an irrational response.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com