Hacker News Reader

Comment by jezzamon | Hacker News Reader

A lot of people, especially left leaning and young people, are very against any AI use and especially for AI pictures or video. For them it's very cringe-worthy. So that would all need to change somehow.

Remember that a lot of the people driving opinions on stuff are the artists that would be displaced by this technology.

Also... Actors aren't hired based on acting skill. AI can't replace the notoriety part of why studios hire actors.

View on HN

I was at a Brazilian restaurant in the US that had TVs showing a well-known Brazilian singer/guitarist performing, and the middle-school-aged kids at the table next to me were discussing whether it was AI. It was clearly not, to me, but it seems to be getting hard for the next generation to tell it apart. I think they will be craving authentic experiences, but also willing to accept inauthentic ones when they do not have the money for the real thing.

I think you're right. I think there will be a giant "tock" back to real experiences. I'm 37, and the internet was new and novel during my formative years, so we flocked to it. Now, as it's becoming the old new thing, internet fatigue will lead to more and more "offline experiences." At least, it already has started to for me.

Honestly I hope people's distaste for AI generated content grows stronger. The existing mass media is bad and inauthentic enough, AI content is even worse...

I find myself mostly watching small creators on YouTube these days and only pay to watch a film if it's unusually good... But I never want to pay a cent to consume the output of some statistical model.

Things change, and people forget why they were ever any other way. There are definitely resistance forces, but when the overton window flips, people just accept the status quo again.

>Also... Actors aren't hired based on acting skill. AI can't replace the notoriety part of why studios hire actors.

This.

The reason Tom Holland and Matt Damon are in a Greek myth film is because they put bums in seats and give Nolan extra money to work with.

And AI lookalikes arent a guaranteed success either. Robert Bronzi hasn't been able to revive interest in Charles Bronson.

Once it’s good enough no one will care. A green room in Atlanta can become Venice Beach.

Actors will still be in demand, at least leads and most speaking roles. 3000 extras, that’s going to be AI.

My hope would be this allows for hyper small budget shows to rival what takes millions today. Maybe we can actually get some creative stories instead of Marvel slop fest 43

> My hope would be this allows for hyper small budget shows to rival what takes millions today.

No way. Small creatives will go elsewhere. Unless the structural "winner takes all" economy changes, small players will have no chance, especially when they have to use monopoly expensive tech.

Good writing already left hollywood, hollywood is already repetitive reboot factory.

I hope you’re right because I like the film industry a lot. But I worry this will be a repeat of the model versus cgi thing where many of the purists were converted by the cost to get the picture they can seen in their minds get made and seen by the masses.

Actions matter more than words. Sure, they're complaining about AI, but consuming AI content more and more.

It's a bit like people who complain that everything on the news is always bad. Everyone hates it, yet it's what everyone consumes.

  > YouTube starts shoving AI generated shorts into my feed every time I login

  > Accidentally click every once in a while or out of perverse curiosity

Tech Industry logic: revealed preference shows that despite user's "legacy content preference signals" via ad partners, AI slop clickthrough has increased 500% this month, increase recommendations to 3/4 of timeline surface accordingly. Their hypocrisy has also been noted.

I think you're wrong. A lot of people who dislike AI in art are putting their money (and their actions) where their mouth is. They don't buy stuff done with AI, ask authors whether they use it, and ban it/kick it from their communities. I've seen it and done it.

I can't tell you whether this will be sustained in the future, but it's disingenuous to claim it doesn't happen.

> a lot

The data disagrees.

You don’t get to handwaive away without citing data.

TLDR: content is AI generated whether you think it is, or not.

https://news.adobe.com/news/2026/06/creators-toolkit-report-...

https://manuscriptreport.com/data/ai-publishing-statistics

https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.05711

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.09865

> AI can't replace the notoriety part of why studios hire actors.

I mean it probably can if a few famous actors license their likeness to be used in AI films. And it's probably only a matter of time until fully AI actors get marketed and licensed for use in AI films. I don't see a fundamental reason why AI actors couldn't build the same kind of notoriety and following.

> I don't see a fundamental reason why AI actors couldn't build the same kind of notoriety and following.

Can AI's trash a room at Hotel Marmont? Dump their girlfriends when said girlfriends turn 25? Become Scientologists?

As someone who originally comes from a field that cannot be consumed by AI anytime soon (food service. AI can't actually be eaten) it's insane watching tech-dorks think "nobody actually cares about what they buy, which is why they will suck down all this slop because ultimately they just want output".

Some of us remember the story of the Luddites and hope that this time might be different with 200 years of social progress.

> As someone who originally comes from a field that cannot be consumed by AI anytime soon (food service)...

That's a cost problem, not a technology problem.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xop9py8zBY

so I hedged with "anytime soon" (we'll call it 5 years?) and also robot food production is not "AI" as "AI" is generally considered to be software (and the hardware that runs it I guess like the chips/data centers) and robots are hardware.

Also, how old is your cute youtube video? Isn't the fact that 99% of restaurants are still some dudes working on stoves and friers all these decades later proof that the technology isn't there (and can you prove it's price and not something else limiting uptake? Aside point, if I said "we can't go to Mars anytime soon" would a video of the moon landing disprove my statement in your mind/elicit "that's a cost not a technology problem"?)

Furthermore, if we're trying to extrapolate my statement out far enough to make it bad, wouldn't like Swanson's TV dinners be enough to show that I'm "wrong" that the food industry is largely automated/human free production? It sorta falls apart when we talk about food SERVICE which is the specific industry I was talking about (and which will never be killed by AI, because it's based in community and culture, things that you can't get a clanker to do).

>food service

>nobody actually cares about what they buy, which is why they will suck down all this slop

McDonald's exists?

McDonald's is perfectly fine food, depending on the problem you're solving for. If it's nutrition, you can do that. If it's affordability, you can probably do that. If it's availability, you can usually do that. If it's preferred flavor profiles, you may be able to do that. If it's moral issues, probably can't do that.

I worked in James Beard nominated restaurants and have eaten at 3 star restaurants, I have no qualms with fast food as food that couldn't be expanded to most of the industry.

Honestly I don't really see use of AI in films or music any worse than use in say programming. Actually even less so. Output is fixed and much easier to verify. So if it is reasonable and it sell why not go for it instead of expensive way things are now done.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com