Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ wavemode 4 days ago

Presumably, the idea is that AI drives down the cost (and thus, value / career prospects) of art and writing.

▲my_username_is_ 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

I'm gonna be honest... Very few people are artists for the pay

▲thrdbndndn 4 days ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure how this contradicts what they said. AI would likely lower the number of paid opportunities.

Additionally, art requires practice. Sure, some "lower-tier" artists may produce work that AI could replace without anyone noticing. But by removing that step, we risk having fewer truly great artists emerging.

▲butlike 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The paid artist is, in fact, the outlier.

▲dist-epoch 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I will also be honest, if you expect to live off your art, you are doing it wrong.

▲j4coh 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

You may not be able to be rich, but at least until recently it was possible to make a living and not be homeless/require patronage.

▲vkou 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you expect to live off typing letters and numbers on a keyboard, (or off the labour of others, while you siphon up the lion's share of their productive surplus), you are doing it wrong.

▲fredoliveira 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Absolutely ridiculous to assume that only some careers allow the makers to live off them.

▲ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent [-]

That's the point: for almost everyone it's not a career. It's a hobby. Like some people have a career researching physics because they're extremely good at it and society has decided it makes sense to have a few. Then there's people like me who learn what they can of it in their free time, but I do something else as a career because realistically very few people have need of someone who's familiar with the Dirac equation or whatever. Among the general population I'm probably in the 99th percentile of math/physics knowledge/ability, but I don't do that for work because we don't need 1% of the population working on such things. And that's for a skill that causes most people to get anxiety; the demand mismatch is probably even greater for things that average people actually enjoy.

▲ndriscoll 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But it also has the potential to make the experience of creative pursuits better. e.g. have it listen to your playing of an instrument and give feedback on how to improve your technique. Or have it be an always available multi-instrumentalist partner for a jam session. You start playing and it just rolls with it and maybe inspires you in a way you wouldn't have thought of alone.

People are so weird about how to view ML/advanced signal processing. Don't look at things thorough the myopic lens of "prompt ChatGPT and it responds poorly". Look at it as an auto-complete, or a better form of on-the-fly procedural generation. Remember e.g. Audiosurf creating levels from your music? Make it happen on the fly. Maybe you could even create an interactive game where one person plays an instrument and the other does some kind of beat-sabre or dance-dance-revolution thing based on it analyzing and anticipating what's going to be played. The game scores you on how well the group was able to get into a groove together or something.

It feels to me like people get upset about ML encroaching on creative endeavors because they're not sufficiently creative to see how it could augment those fields and be a tool to make these things more interesting instead. Corporations will use it for cheaper slop, but slop was already what they wanted from humans anyway. For people that are actually interested in the artistic or social side, they'll have new tools.

Here's an example of something entirely off-the-wall/fun/creative enabled by these ML tools: Plankton covering Tool https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc-PymIfv8M