I think "a lot" is very subjective. I can also say "a lot of people really like AI-generated arts" and that would be true as well. HN is a place where a lot of normally objective, informed, and probably very nice folks in the real life come to engage in endless of debates that go nowhere.

▲

afavour 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> Half of U.S. adults say the increased use of AI in daily life makes them feel more concerned than excited, according to a June 2025 survey. Just 10% say they are more excited than concerned. Another 38% say they are equally concerned and excited.

> About half of Americans said in the June survey that AI will worsen people’s ability to think creatively and form meaningful relationships with others. Far fewer said AI will make these things better.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/03/12/key-findi...

“about half” surely objectively qualifies as “a lot”.

> I can also say "a lot of people really like AI-generated arts" and that would be true as well.

Yes but without the corresponding negative. If someone who likes AI generated art sees some human created art they don’t think “gross, why didn’t they use AI to do that?”. So for something like advertising using AI will alienate some potential customers. Not using AI will alienate no one.

▲

Chance-Device an hour ago | parent | next [-]

People aren’t feeling the benefits of AI. Where there are any benefits, they aren’t causing prices to decrease or supply to go up, instead the excess value is being absorbed by profit taking.

If most people aren’t shareholders but instead workers whose jobs are threatened by AI, we should expect this response.

It has nothing to do with artists, it has everything to do with trying to mount a collective response to the apparent threat, poorly expressed as crowds tend to do.

▲

fn-mote 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I bet those poll respondents are worried about their jobs, not seeing some random AI art on a bus.

▲

bluefirebrand 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Maybe they see the random AI art on the bus and they realize that meant a real human artist probably didn't get paid to make it so society is worse off. Maybe those poll respondents have empathy, in that they are worried about their jobs and feel bad for other people who have lost work to AI too

▲

orangecat 2 hours ago | parent [-]

they realize that meant a real human artist probably didn't get paid to make it so society is worse off

This is a form of the broken window fallacy. Society is not worse off when production requires less labor, any more than it's worse off when someone uses an open source library rather than paying someone to reimplement it.

▲

Chance-Device an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> This is a form of the broken window fallacy.

I’m not sure I see it, can you elaborate?

▲

orangecat an hour ago | parent [-]

The broken window fallacy is the idea that it's good when your window gets broken because you have to pay someone to fix it and it increases their income. If that were true, then it would be bad if you could easily repair windows without spending time or money. It's false because we're better off if we can spend our resources on things we actually want rather than constantly maintaining our windows, even if that means some window repairmen need to find other jobs.

	▲	Chance-Device 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, but if we run AI all the way to its endpoint, it’s not just about window repairmen anymore. Our current notions about economics assume there’s always another job class for people to move to, here eventually there won’t be. So here you never have to pay anyone to fix your windows, because they fix themselves, but conversely nobody will give you money to fix their windows! And then you have to pay your self-fixing windows a rent in tokens without an income.

▲

bluefirebrand an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

> Society is not worse off when production requires less labor

Society is definitely worse off when people who exchange their labor for capital have no opportunities to do so