Hacker News Reader

Comment by simianwords | Hacker News Reader

>However, 99% of the the "creativity" from what I've seen is done by the AI (how it should look, where the cuts need to happen, the tone, color grading, etc). Which is to say, it's taken from other people's (creative) work.

I don't get why this is a big deal? Like 99% of the creativity of taking a video of an ocean is also just taken from the nature. Your creativity was actually a small portion of "information" out of all the bits required to make that video.

View on HN

A video of an ocean (or anything) is not, inherently, art, or creative. But also...if you're taking a video of the ocean, it's probably because you want to capture/share a video of the ocean, which an AI generated video is not.

Unless you're making a very particular type of video, you likely want to capture aspects of the water's movement, color, sound, or interactions without much care about faithfully capturing a video of the literal ocean. The former part is a big portion of what turns a video of the ocean from not inherently being art to being as much of art as you make it so. Saying the only reason would be to share the literal ocean forces the art out, not in.

This is like saying:

"99% of the creativity of baking is done by the wheat growing in nature. Your creativity of "baking" was a small portion of what was required to make that pastry."

I find the mental gymnastics like this around AI discourse really confusing. Taking a still video of the ocean isn't "creativity". And if a video of an ocean is truly creative it's likely not attributed to "nature".

Taking still photos of anything is widely considered a creative activity. There's usually only a small amount of creativity involved. Sometimes more. Same goes for AI generated anything. You can have low effort photos and high effort photos, low effort AI generated pictures and high-effort AI generated pictures.

AI just lets you get a better result for less effort (for some definitions of "better"), just as a camera lets you get a better result for less effort than a paintbrush and canvas does.

A camera doesn't produce a painting though. Your comment doesn't make any sense.

It produces an image, just like painting does. It does so quicker and "better" than humans. But it also requires less creative input and allows less creative freedom.

> a camera lets you get a better result for less effort than a paintbrush and canvas does

Only if your goal is photorealism, which is one of the least interesting forms of art.

Your video of the ocean and Roger Deakins video of the ocean are going to be very, very different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com