Interesting. It seems that in industries where productivity/output isn't the primary goal (so not Software, Analytics, etc), people care more about *where* their content comes from. It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works. But I don't see AI getting real footing really ever in the creative world because people want authenticity there. It's why I think Suno, for example, is never really going to go anywhere.

▲

xnorswap 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People put value in effort for efforts' sake.

An example is there's a split in the woodworking community between people who use power tools and those who use hand-tools only. The latter often seeing it as more pure.

Those same power-tools users might in turn look down on something made entirely with a CNC machine.

The end result might be the same table. Indeed, the pure uniform lines from a CNC machine might be what both the others strive towards, but they're unlikely to regard the CNC output as being in better taste.

The effort and craft itself is well regarded and valued, even if it is hard to capture in the final output. Even if the signs of hand-crafting are fewer the higher the quality craft!

▲

nurbl 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the effort is indeed a big piece of it. For example, consider sports. I don't imagine that a lot of sports fans would be interested in watching completely AI-generated video of their favorite teams playing, even if it's totally believable. Surely the main point of the whole thing has something to do with humans at the top of their skill, measuring up against each other, and experiencing it together with them?

For me it's the same with music. I am sure I will be fooled by some AI generated music now and then, but what does that prove?

▲

program_whiz 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's a bit different than art. I put it closer to "why do you care if your girlfriend is AI or real? Isn't it just the end emotions you care about?". There is a deep human connection to art, creativity, expression of human emotions and feelings. Reading a poem about losing a loved one and connecting with it, only to find out it was written by a machine is a deep betrayal of that. Its like finding out the love letter you got in school was actually a mockery by the person you had a crush on -- what does it matter? the letter made you feel good right, and that's all you were after. It matters because intention and emotion of other humans matters to most people.

Not everything is purely about being able to output a product and/or produce a tangible good or service. Some things are about people and how people feel.

Another example. I run a charity that takes money, but just generates AI videos simulating helping children. What does it matter? Ultimately the person donating just wants to feel like they made a difference, and they get the same feeling either way, believing the money is well spent. It matters because no one is really being helped, no virtue is actually being enacted in the world.

In the same way, generating all our art and music from AI would represent a massive harm in the world -- effectively extinguishing massive portions of human creativity, and all the people who get to feel useful in creating, editing, and distributing it. In a cold capitalist view, what does it matter, I just want to see a pretty picture for a moment. In terms of actual real value in the world, it is negative and selfish, assuming the only value is my temporary enjoyment of product.

	▲	freedomben 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Firstly, thank you for posting this! I'm one of the people who primarily values the art on its own merits, and not on whether it was made by a human chiseling with rocks and ground up flower petals for ink, or an AI generating something. The primary part of that value assessment is definitely how it makes me feel. Your post is the first time I felt I may actually understand the other side. Speaking only for myself, I can absolutely understand where you are coming from. It makes a lot of sense when put this way. But, I think the difference here is that what you are describing is deceit, and it's the deceit rather than the output, that would bother me in all of your scenarios. For example, your strongest point in my opinion, is the AI girlfriend versus the real girlfriend. That's a phenomenal argument because it is in my opinion an accurate analogy so how's the logic side strong, and it's also a horrifying one, so it hits hard on the emotions as well as the logic side. The beauty of this is not lost on me, you have created amazing art with that argument! That's the kind of art that really resonates with me. But zooming in on that scenario, I think the key is disclosure. If the person dating the AI girlfriend knows that it's an AI girlfriend, that doesn't float my boat but I know people who would actually prefer an AI girlfriend to a real one. Again, not for me, but I recognize that it is for some people. Same with seeing a pretty picture on the screen. If it's being presented to me with deceit behind it, either a person claiming they snapped the photo or made the art digitally when it is actually just AI, then it does ruin the art for me. If it's disclosed though that it is made by AI, I can evaluate it on its merits. Just like in your table example above, I may appreciate the effort and personality behind a more flawed piece that was made by hand, but I also appreciate the precise lines and geometry of a machined output. The key is the honesty and disclosure behind who created it. I get a different value out of the handcrafted piece than I do the AI generated piece. One isn't necessarily better than the other, just different. Where I do feel a little hesitant on the AI side, though is as you get at the capitalist destruction of art. Without a doubt, the middle level of artists will be hollowed out. I suspect there will always be a place for the traditional artist, but I do worry it will be diminished. On the flip side, I've been able to use AI to take photos of my pets or family, and reimagine them in interesting ways. I know it's not real, I know it's computer generated, and I'm not hanging those pictures on my wall. I simply do not get the same joy from seeing those pictures as I do the originals. I could be wrong here, but I feel like that is the heart of your point, and I think it's a good one.

▲

Lerc 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The thing is, all of those are valid ways to manufacture things and they each have their merits and values.

There is no problem with using hand tools, power tools or CNC.

The problem is people looking down on the others.

Of course the path you chose is a more pure reperestation of your values. That"s why you chose it.

▲

philipallstar 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I was speaking to an upholsterer yesterday and he was saying that using foam as stuffing is cheating.

▲

azangru 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works

Oh, some do; for sure they do. Some put a "no ai" badge on their sites; others add disclaimers to their repos if ai has been used to write the code. But I agree with you about the productivity/output. Developers who refrain from using AI are probably more interested in the very process of coding than in its output. They pride themselves on their craft and craftsmanship.

	▲	rezmason 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		We also typically value things that are not tied to productivity/output, like product quality/reliability, security, and our own agency. I want to be free to read, write, run, and share code, now and in the future. Relying on centralized services to do it for me (by extracting knowledge from countless other people) is certainly not a resilient strategy.

▲

maeln 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But I don't see AI getting real footing really ever in the creative world because people want authenticity there. It's why I think Suno, for example, is never really going to go anywhere.

Oh I bet it will go somewhere. There is already plenty of low-budget direct-to-dvd movie, cheap soap opera telenovelas, and elevator music used as background in public places. These don't care about quality, they were always about making the cheapest product possible that can generate revenue / be used as a backdrop. Gen AI is going to be a race to the bottom for this field.

But for "labour of love" art/media, they might have a place in the toolbox (to generate a texture, fill some unimportant background, etc), but full gen AI media won't cut it. Intention, direction, realization is what matter. And since most community are about those labour of love, it shouldn't be a surprise that most people who attend conferences are heavily against gen AI.

▲

gruez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works.

Because it's hard to tell whether the app you're using is vibecoded or not. Is an app buggy because it was vibecoded? Or the developer just sucks?

▲

cosmic_cheese an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works.

This is starting to change, thanks to the staggering decline in average software quality in recent years (likely partly driven by vibe coding and similar). It’s getting so bad that even non-technical users who’ve traditionally just silently suffered through poor software experiences are starting to take note and voice frustration. Demand for quality “handcrafted” software will almost certainly increase as long as this trend continues.

▲

Daedren 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's less about productivity and output (those are still desired in many art fields) but more about creativity and personality, more humane traits.

Not to say that coding doesn't have those two, but I'd argue developers have been caring less and less for it over the years. Their relationship with code has changed.

You can look at a comic and immediately identify the illustrator if you're well versed in the artists. Now would that still happen in 20 years if Gen AI became standard today? Will we keep getting new artists and new art styles? Or will their relationship with art become more like newer coders have with code?

I don't think it's an easy question to answer and no one likely has an answer.

	▲	pixl97 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Not to say that coding doesn't have those two, but I'd argue developers have been caring less and less for it over the years. I think this is both hindsight bias and survivorship bias. There has always been massive buckets of buggy shit code out there. Now, one thing we had in the past was very tight computing limitations that worked as a decent evolutionary death function. As computing resources grew, the selection function became less effective and we get to see these hulking crap monsters lumber around our CPUs.
	▲	cdrnsf 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I can listen to music and recognize the artist or a singer’s voice. It doesn’t mean as much without that relationship. Depending on the style of music some of the charm is in production imperfections or sloppy playing that brings a distinctly human quality to it.

▲

nerdjon 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's quite indiscriminate in Software, for sure, I feel like people don't care whether you used an AI to write your code as long as it works.

I don't think that is really the case.

We are seeing pushback on games developed using AI. Communities like /r/selfhosted is very much pushing back against AI slop code.

While right now it seems like for the most part the concern is from more technical people, we are seeing issues of vibe coded applications shipping bugs because the quality is poor (just look at the bugs shipped in Claude Code).

I think we will be getting to a point of people questioning the quality of the application they are using and whether or not a human was actually involved if bugs start shipping more often.

	▲	FeteCommuniste an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Is the backlash among gamers to AI code or to AI-made visuals / assets, which are often kind of sloppy or nonsensical if looked at closely? I had only heard about the latter.
	▲	ronsor 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> We are seeing pushback on games developed using AI. Yes, people whine but still buy the games, as long as they're fun. Expressed preference of "AI is always bad" vs revealed preference of "It's fine if the product is still good."

▲

RobotToaster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Art is mostly bought by wealthier people currently, they don't like the idea of proles having access to what they do, so requiring it to be organic gives them artificial exclusivity.

Similar to organic or "artisan" food.

▲

o_m 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is nothing new: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitsch

▲

hrdwdmrbl 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is an IS statment, not an OUGHT statement: Artists are very high-status / high-prestige. As such, their work and livelihoods are more important and more deserving of protectionism.

	▲	pixl97 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>As such, their work and livelihoods OUGHT to be more important and more deserving of protectionism. FTFY.
	▲	njhnjh 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[flagged]

▲

rozal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

njhnjh 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]