Hacker News Reader

Comment by FooBarWidget | Hacker News Reader

None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are. None of them are willing to pay for better human artwork, yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output.

View on HN

You think that no one who criticizes AI pays for human artwork?

That is a bizarre stance

Do you think the vast majority who criticize AI pays for good human artwork? Now that is a bizarre stance.

Motte and bailey; "none" -> "vast majority"

I know plenty of people (including myself) who pay for good human artwork :)

This is about paying for better-than-AI human artwork, not any human artwork. Would they pay premium for non-AI? That matters much more than whether they pay when they have no choice.

I do exactly this all the time, and know many who also do this all the time, yes.

So, this refutes the bailey:

>None of the AI haters (or haters in general) are willing to put money where their mouths are.

Unless they've been in a coma all their life until 2022... Yes? You think only pirates are anti-AI or something? What are you getting at?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49775715

You think most people don’t pay for movies, music, games, clothing with designs, art, etc.?

None of those things are battlegrounds for AI art complaints since AI usage is still minimal there. The AI complaints are about anime, posters, YouTube videos, etc.

There was recently an anime in which they used one AI generated background in the ending theme, which spurred countless complaints. It's common knowledge that anime animators are badly paid and work on insane schedules, so they used AI to cut corners. How many of those complainers proposed better wages and less pressure for animators, vs demanding free replacement of the background at no cost on their own? This is entitlement.

When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes, or whether they only complain that they're not getting non-AI at no additional charges.

I don't really understand your argument. So because me in America was not able to vouch for Japanese labor laws, I don't support human art? My country isn't exactly in the nest position to judge other countries's economic budgets. Especially in the arts.

>When a significant amount of movie scenes are AI generated, let's see whether viewers are willing to pay premium for non-AI scenes,

You act like prices for media isn't going up while also enshittifying at the same time. Netflix, Xbox, theatres, DVD/BD box sets, game consoles, and so much more did not need AI as an excuse to raise prices.

Why are you making such wide assumptions? I pay for art constantly. Where's this blatantly wrong suggestion coming from?

The point isn't whether you pay for art when no AI alternative exists. The point is whether you would be willing to pay premium for non-AI artwork, vs whether you'd just continue to complain about AI usage while expecting non-AI at no additional charge.

Again, you're making a lot of odd assumptions about how I consume media with zero support whatsoever. I donate to Patreons, I buy albums and games, I even buy merch here and there. Prices have raised over the years and I only spent less because I lost my primary source of income, not because I'm complaining about indie artists asking for too much money.

ai art is worthless to me so I'm not going to pay at all for anything making blatant use of it. So why would I use something I won't pay for as an excuse to complain about prices for stuff I do value? How about we wait for something actually approaching quality to come out and debate over instead of playing theoreticals with that which does not exist yet?

If these AI productivity gains had 4 years to work on a project it should be making something impressive by now, no? So where's this magical collection of productivity that's disrupting art and driving down wages?

> yet have the audacity to criticize as if top artists owe them free output

Literally nobody is saying that, what are you talking about

Which critic is proposing funding better artwork, made by good human artists? Sometimes, silence says more than words. Non-decision is also a decision.

So you can't criticize something without coming up with some fantasy plan that will only exist in whatever corner of social media you left that comment, to make that criticism somehow now valid?

No, this is merely about what is sustainable, not morals. The supply is shifting towards increasingly AI generated. Almost all of the complainers are consumers and do not change the supply side of things. Until they do, the ultimate result is clear: they will die on a hill.

If you want to die on a hill while feeling morally superior, be my guest.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com