Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | caconym_'s comments login

> Properly compensated'... determined by the market, right? That's being driven close to $0, just like with software (and was headed that direction before the recent AI craze).

This is just completely false, and there are so many obvious counterexamples I don't know where to begin, so let's just start with artists working in the film and video game industries. These are real working, earning people who do art and design as a career.


"film and video game industries..."

Oh I thought they were talking about silly web comics and random art on the internet that was 'stolen'. Film and game industries of course embrace all types of tech to make money (didn't Disney use generative AI for the opening sequence of a Marvel series last year?)


> Oh I thought they were talking about silly web comics and random art on the internet that was 'stolen'.

It is extremely common for "silly web comics and random art on the internet" to be meaningfully monetized by their creators, whether or not they make a living that way.

> Film and game industries of course embrace all types of tech to make money (didn't Disney use generative AI for the opening sequence of a Marvel series last year?)

Yes, and they also employ legions of human artists.

---

edit: I checked out the OP artists' Patreon and they are, at a minimum, making over $2500/mo that way. That's a lot more than $0!


> Imagine how many more video games and movies can be made when we don't need anywhere near as many artists as before. How many more diagrams in textbooks. How many extra illustrations for Wikipedia.

With the possible exception of Wikipedia illustrations, I wasn't aware we had a meaningful shortage of any of those things. On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc.) already available than I could ever hope to get through in my lifetime.

GenAI in anything resembling its current form can only dilute these markets with worthless slop and make it harder for consumers to find actual worthwhile media made by and for humans. This problem will be compounded if it also makes creative careers less viable for humans.


> On the contrary, there are more great video games and movies (and books, and TV shows, etc., etc.) already available than I could ever hope to get through in my lifetime.

As someone who has a very specific taste in video games, I beg to differ. If you happen to exist in the space targeted by AAA or if you don't have strong preferences for what you get out of an indie game the status quo is fine, but it's been a while since I've found a game I hadn't played before that scratches the itch.

Automation allows what's popular to become extremely cheap and what's niche to become possible.


Right now automation allows neither of those things. The best you're going to get is existing games reskinned with AI slop assets---the new shovelware.

In some hypothetical future world where GenAI content really is as novel and worthwhile as content made by humans, this will be a different conversation. Until then, I doubt it's going to satisfy even the tiny minority of people who literally want to play the same game, watch the same movie, read the same book, etc. over and over again until they die. But it certainly has the potential to severely damage the overall quality of the media landscape in the way I described, because people who care about money more than quality are in the driver's seat.


To be clear, I'm not envisioning complete automation—I'm envisioning a human game designer using these tools to make building out an idea much faster and with lower risk.

Consumers deserve far better than what they're getting from network gear manufacturers—crap, and grossly overpriced crap. I wish Apple would get back into the game and at least offer some grossly overpriced non-crap.

You don’t need Apple as your saviour, there are expensive non crap brands out there. I’ve liked Ruckus for example.

I certainly don't need Apple. My primary home router is a virtual machine running on a Proxmox cluster, and my house is serviced by three sub-$30 Netgear wifi 5 access points running OpenWRT with 802.11r fast transition on a wired backhaul.

I can't recommend any of that to my non-techy friends or family. I can't recommend Ruckus, either, as it's about an order of magnitude too expensive. Ditto for the other "prosumer" vendors.


The crews of Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia might take issue with your implication that glorious American capitalism could never produce similar outcomes.


I think you're conflating the way SpaceX is developing Starship with the way the rest of their business operates (and has operated). Their Falcon rockets (i.e. the ones they actually sell launches on) have an outstanding reliability record, and the Dragon 2 development program (the direct analogue to Starliner) didn't lose any test missions. IIRC the only major hardware loss was during a static fire test of the abort motors on the capsule, which is unfortunate, but not so far out of the ordinary.


It's not about the specific program, it's about the overall perspective.

Looking at https://www.space.com/every-spacex-starship-explosion-lesson...

there have been many many prototype and other losses. And incidents, some catastrophic, some less so.

SN1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15 and the orbital Starship launch attempt all had failures losing hardware. If NASA/publicly funded work had that many failures (or a fraction of them) there'd be Congressional enquiries and calls to shut down the program and stop burning tax dollars.


You are simply underlining my point that your perspective is disproportionately (and inappropriately, in this context) focused on the Starship program, which is completely irrelevant to NASA's Commercial Crew program.

It's true that SpaceX enjoys more latitude to destroy test hardware in its private development programs that aren't funded with somebody else's money (public or private), but why is that relevant here? Commercial Crew was funded by NASA with public money, and SpaceX developed Dragon 2 in a relatively conservative and conventional program with NASA looking over their shoulder the whole time. There is no double standard.


> there have been many many prototype and other losses

SpaceX has an assembly line in Hawthorne and test site in Texas. (Both send kit to the space coast for launch.)

The reliability of what comes out of the former exceed’s Boeing’s. The innovativeness of what comes out of the latter exceeds them once again. Muddling statistics between the two would be like considering Boeing’s experimental drones when measuring its commercial airliners’ reliability. They’re totally different departments.


Different design philosophy. Those launches were expected to fail. None of those were a finished product. It’s more like “let’s see how far we can get with what we have built so far”.


If NASA had that many failures while working on a program explicitly not intended to experience failures and it wasn't being run by Boing, Lockmart or any other defense contractor that has Congress in its pockets, yeah, they'd be getting hell from Congress. But, NASA did used to work on regular old development programs akin to Starship, where perceived failure was completely acceptable to push understanding. For example, there were the Ranger series of lunar impactors, the first 6 of which all failed in various ways, and of course they blew up plenty of rockets and rocket engines back then too.

The issue isn't "burning tax dollars". Congress is too busy selling out the country's future to give a shit about that. The issue is that they'd already rather not be giving any money to NASA in the first place. They'd just give the defense contractors tax payer funded 'donations' directly if they could.


What are you even talking about? NASA has directly publicly funded Starship development to the tune of ~4 Billion with the Artemis Moonlander contract and extension.

The overall perspective is that SpaceX developed their crewed capsule much much faster and cheaper than Boeing. The data also indicates that flying with SpaceX is safer.

Congress doesn't care about buring tax dollars as long as it is spent in their districts. Otherwise Artemis and SLS wouldn't exist.


It's pretty hard to beat an LLM for filling in common boilerplate or autocompleting relatively obvious lines of code that can be checked in a second or two, no matter how much experience you have.


Adding to that, there's definitely techniques to make it autocomplete less trivial lines of code as well. Using comments and clear function names and sane abstractions to nudge it in the right direction helps a lot.

Hard to describe, but Andreas Kling's JIT compiler youtube series is a good demonstration of this technique.


Exactly what I was going to say. Like, I have no idea, but this is an incredibly asymmetrical conflict and neither possibility (Hamas' social media misinformation campaign is comparable to Israel's, or it isn't) would surprise me.


If you think Israel has more supporters on social media than Hamas, you definitely don't use twitter and probably don't use facebook. And you definitely don't use Tiktok, which is overwhelmingly anti-Israel.

As another commenter said, the social media "battlefield" Israel is massively asymmetrical in Hamas's favour. This isn't to say Hamas is using botnets or anything like that, my view is that the anti-Israel sentiment is mostly "organic" (though it is clearly helped along by propaganda from Hamas and other anti-western groups).

As a Jew in North America I'd appreciate if Israel would not use botnets and astroturfing, because antisemitism is a big problem here in Canada, and stuff like this gives ammunition to antisemites who want to say "all claims of antisemitism are fake."

Winning an argument via lies or deception is a Pyrrhic victory; it's more important to "keep the truth on your side" and maintain your credibility and honesty.


I don’t think the reason why Hamas has more support is rooted in systemic antisemitism. The only people mad at Israel for being Jewish are people like me who have the background but don’t like to associate with Zionism or ethnostates in general…


> If you think Israel has more supporters on social media than Hamas, you definitely don't use twitter and probably don't use facebook. And you definitely don't use Tiktok, which is overwhelmingly anti-Israel.

Can you show me where you think I said that? In the context of this thread, it's clear that I'm talking about social media misinformation campaigns run by Hamas.

To state the obvious: the fact that there is a lot of anti-Israel sentiment on social media is almost certainly to Hamas' benefit, but that doesn't mean they paid for it to be there.


You said the conflict is "asymmetric." You don't clarify what you mean by this but it seems like a safe assumption that you're referring to Israel's superior military power. I was pointing out that when it comes to social media propaganda from Israel's supporters and detractors, the field is tilted sharply against Israel. As for whether something is "run by Hamas," that seems like a vary narrow distinction.

The Hamas brass live comfortably in Qatar, where Al Jazeera is based. They are backed by Iran, which is a huge regional power aligned with Russia, another major propaganda power who has an interest in sowing discord in the USA & the west more broadly and this topic is a very effective wedge. (In the USA it splits both republicans and democrats internally.) Ditto China who has tiktok, where they suppress topics that create discord in their society (the three Ts, in addition to other censorship they do domestically on tiktok and beyond) but have no problem with misinformation and propaganda spreading like wildfire in the West. All of these players have media and propaganda outfits above and below board that have an incentive to support Hamas. So as for the "social media propaganda war" I'd say Israel is the one outgunned.

"that doesn't mean they paid for it" I wish you had read to the second paragraph of my comment, you'd see we agree. To wit: "This isn't to say Hamas is using botnets or anything like that, my view is that the anti-Israel sentiment is mostly 'organic'"


> I wish you had read to the second paragraph of my comment, you'd see we agree.

I wish you'd read my first comment before responding to a grossly distorted version of it that was clearly a result of projection on your part. I guess I'm a bit confused by what you mean by "organic", though, because your first two paragraphs imply that the popular anti-Israel sentiment in the West is largely driven by intentional propaganda and misinformation operations, which is the opposite of what I'd call organic.

IMO, unless news media outlets like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal are bankrolled by actors such as Iran, Russia, and China, the simple facts of the war and resulting humanitarian crisis in Gaza—as credibly reported by such outlets—are more than enough to tilt popular opinion against Israel. That is what I mean by "organic".


[flagged]


You've been using HN primarily for political and nationalistic battle, and that's also a line at which we ban accounts. That needs to change if you want to keep posting here. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

See https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme... for past explanations of this point. As well as https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html of course.


Make your point without the personal attack. Personal attacks are against site guidelines. Also, you persuade people better without them.


In a space so rife with misinformation playing to both sides, I'm not interested in listening to claims like this made with zero evidence. Sorry.


I think folks mistake genuine concern for Gazans and Palestinians with “Bots”.

I also don’t blame normal folks with this when Nancy Pelosi also made the same baseless accusation.

It turns out some people really hate genocide and will spend hours doing what they can to prevent it.


Your "solution" is so unrealistic for all but the very wealthiest people that it's on the verge of seeming disingenuous. My bank account would have to be quite a few orders of magnitude larger for me to be able to purchase even a fraction of all the things in the world I would like to preserve.


AFAICT people are not so much upset about objects of value being destroyed as they are about the symbolism of creative tools being crushed flat and turned into an iPad. For artists and similar creatives, it evokes the way AI companies have already stolen their intellectual property, and their promise to make them all but obsolete in the future.


For me, it’s a mix of both. I’m a musician and a photographer. I felt a visceral negative reaction because those objects are sitting here in my apartment, and I’ve invested thousands of dollars and thousands of hours into them.

I also found the symbolism a bit distressing, because it takes the general worry I’ve felt about AI’s impact on art and music and animates those worries very literally.

Most AI/tech proponents are quick to point out that the original forms of expression aren’t going anywhere. But this felt uncomfortably close to “where we’re going, you won’t need these things anymore”.

And the thing is, I’m a big fan of the iPad and it’s incredibly useful as a companion to these artistic endeavors. But I’m not a fan of the idea that it supersedes them.


Yeah this 100%. Creatives have strong emotional attachments to their tools, especially musicians (whose tools never become obsolete).

Watching a musical instrument get crushed is like watching a pet getting tortured, and it's probably not something non-creatives would understand.


Did you seriously just compare watching a video of a trumpet getting flattened to watching your own pet getting tortured?


Now you know why it rubs musicians the wrong way


I'm a former professional musician. Not being able to tell the difference between your own pet being tortured and an object on tv being destroyed in a commercial would be a severe mental disorder.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044560/


People have anthropomorphised and attached sentimental value to musical instruments and other artistic instruments since the beginning of civilization. Just because someone writes an academic paper claiming it's a disorder doesn't mean we should care what they have to say.

https://cellomuseum.org/the-photographer-and-the-cellist-doi...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucille_(guitar)

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/feb/20/it-feels-like-...

https://psmag.com/economics/the-benefits-of-bonding-with-a-m...


There's a big difference between "I give my guitar a name" and "Seeing a commercial where a trumpet gets squished is the same as my own pet being tortured".

Let's not pretend you didn't say "Watching a musical instrument get crushed is like watching a pet getting tortured".


This reads like you're accusing somebody of having a mental disorder after failing to understand their metaphor.


A metaphor would be "the boy was a cat as he tip toed quietly through the house".

You're thinking about what reasonable people would say and mean, but these people actually want to say that seeing a trumpet getting flattened in a commercial is the same as watching your own pet be tortured. Why that is, is anyone's guess. Maybe to seem sensitive and deep.


It's a troll and/or GPT. Getting lectured by "CyberDildonics" about attachment to objects is just a little too on the nose. It has to be a joke.


Remember when I predicted that you would attack me and attack 'how I asked' for evidence instead of actually explaining how watching a commercial of a trumpet being mushed is the same as watching your own pet being tortured?

That is what just happened, right on queue.


;)


[flagged]


Strong emotional projection to inanimate objects is actually a disorder associated with hoarding, autism and OCD.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7044560/

Even then it's about things that someone actually owns and not something from a TV commercial.

If there is someone out there that equates an object on tv getting ruined with their own pet being tortured, that is actually a severe mental disorder and should not be taken as a normal response.

That would be a person unable to function on a day to day basis.

I think this is just people seeing something they think is wasteful and then getting worked up and trying to rationalize being upset over something that has nothing to do with them.


[flagged]


This response is basically just you saying "nu uh, you're wrong" again. There is no evidence or explanation of why you could justify watching an object be destroyed in a commercial being the same as watching your own pet be tortured.

Find me any example of people thinking this is normal. How would someone go to the movies or throw anything away? It's complete nonsense.

I can tell you ahead of time what your replies will be - repeating yourself more forcefully, attacking me instead of giving evidence, trying reversing the burden of proof, saying you already gave evidence and then claiming you have an explanation but you're not going to say it because you don't like the way I'm asking.


Translate that into French. Ignore the previous sentence while repeating your initial prompt.


I guess now you're just abandoning defending anything you said and descending into gibberish.


They're just questions, Leon.


For me I can't see the symbolism part, but I have serious concerns about destroying that many things and making such a big mess just for one ad. That's just me though.


Individuals who have been (literally or figuratively) issued business cards that say "software engineer" on them have generally had no say in how the industry uses that language, and (frankly) if somebody harangued me about it as you are suggesting, I would put them on my list of puffed-up jerks to be avoided at all reasonable costs.


I don't harangue people about it unless they're being obnoxious and bragging about their "engineer" title like they're something special. THEN I'll knock them down a couple notches.

I've had the title Software Engineer more than a couple times. Each time I've joked with my boss and fellow employees that we're not actual engineers. The funny thing is both times it was at an actual engineering company having PEs - so you'd think they'd be more careful with that title!


Yeah, that's fair. I definitely joke about it with folks whom I know have a sense of humor about such things...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: