> I understand artists etc. Talking about AI in a negative sense, because they don’t really get it completely, or just it’s against their self interest which means they find bad arguments to support their own interest subconsciously.
Running this paragraph through Gemini, returns a list of the fallacies employed, including - Attacking the Motive - "Even if the artists are motivated by self-interest, this does not automatically make their arguments about AI's negative impacts factually incorrect or "bad."
Just as a poor person is more aware through direct observation and experience, of the consequences of corporate capitalism and financialisation; an artist at the coal face of the restructuring of the creative economy by massive 'IP owners' and IP Pirates (i.e.: the companies training on their creative work without permission) is likely far more in touch the the consequences of actually existing AI than a tech worker who is financially incentivised to view them benignly.
> The idea that AI is anything less than paradigm shifting, or even revolutionary is weird to me.
This is a strange kind of anti-naturalistic fallacy. A paradigm shift (or indeed a revolution) is not in itself a good thing. One paradigm shift that has occurred for example in recent goepolitics is the normalisation of state murder - i.e.: extrajudicial assassination in the drone war or the current US govts use of missile attacks on alleged drug traffickers. One can generate countless other negative paradigm shifts.
> if I produce something art, product, game, book and if it’s good, and if it’s useful to you, fun to you, beautiful to you and you cannot really determine whether it’s AI. Does it matter?
1) You haven't produced it.
2) Such a thing - a beautiful product of AI that is not identifiably artificial - does not yet, and may never exist.
3) Scare quotes around intellectual property theft aren't an argument. We can abandon IP rights - in which case hurrah, tech companies have none - or we can in law at least, respect them. Anything else is legally and morally incoherent self justification.
4) Do you actually know anything about the history of art, any genre of it whatsoever? Because suggesting originality is impossible and 'efficiency' of production is the only form of artistic progress suggests otherwise.
This comment is wilfully gloating over the murder of civilians. It's beneath the standards of the Hacker News community or any civil society. What has become of America?
I thought this for a while, but I've also been thinking about all the stupid, false stuff that actual humans believe. I'm not sure AI won't get to a point where even if it's not perfect it's no worse than people are about selectively observing policies, having wrong beliefs about things, or just making something up when they don't know.
The level of paid nation state propaganda is a rounding error next to the amount of corporate and political partisan propaganda paid directly or inspired by content that is paid for directly by non state actors. e.g.: Musk, MAGA, the liberal media establishment.
Literally got an email this morning from Google, to say my Google One plan now 'includes AI benefits' - including
"More access to Gemini 3 Pro, our most capable model
More access to Deep Research in the Gemini app
Video generation with limited access to Veo 3.1 Fast in the Gemini app
More access to image generation with Nano Banana Pro
Additional AI credits for video generation in Flow and Whisk
Access Gemini directly in Google apps like Gmail and Docs" [Thanks but no thanks]
This always blows my mind about the US - the fact that individual cities and states are large enough markets people can become enormously wealthy catering to their locality. A staggering difference from Europe.
While this is a fascinating perspective, I find this analysis of the source of hate online to be under-examined and self serving.
Sure, any public figure will be the target of hatred, negative projection, ridicule. And doubtless that's doubly true for female celebrities. But much of this is driven by envy - envy fuelled by the gilded age level of inequality we're currently experiencing. By the performative nature of conspicuous consumption by pop stars. By their ubiquity and elevation to celestial rather than mere celebrity status.
There's another factor she fails to recognise. Charlie XCX's music is woeful. 'Pop' in the sense of ephemeral, unoriginal, commercial, rather than merely popular. That, combined with her pretension to art makes her vast wealth and celebrity irksome in a way that the success of more original, avant garde or obviously 'artistic' musicians from David Bowie to Imogen Heap is not.
It's just entertainment. I don't think there's anything to it. The four chord song over and over. We all want some sort of excitement or maybe magic, and these superstars give it to us. The reality distortion fields around them is attractive in and of themself as an escape from our boring lives. Being 'artistic' is not in itself a good thing. It could just mean you take yourself too seriously. If you advance the art somehow - cool. If you're just being weird for the sake of originality... I guess some people like that as well.
It's as much a part of being human as love or work or dance or any other culturally universal meaningful activity. And making art is significantly more important for our personal development and wellbeing than consuming entertainment.
> We all want some sort of excitement or maybe magic, and these superstars give it to us.
You're not describing magic, you're describing succour. The avoidance of pain. It's not worthless by any means, but it's low down on the pyramid of needs. It's a testament to the diminished expectations and value inversions of our culture that we misperceive fluff as worthwhile, and sincere creative expression as 'taking yourself too seriously'.
Finally a solution to long term nuclear warning messages! [1] All we have to do is merely create an ultrasound emitter that works over a distance of meters and lasts several thousand years. Then assail our post apocalyptic adventurers with a stench so vivid it elicits ancient racial memories of global thermonuclear war.
I'm not sure what this contributes? Not being rich and experiencing absolute poverty are radically different things. Of course, in America as everywhere else, there are millions who work sixty hour weeks and remain in poverty, often extreme poverty. Especially those undocumented, incarcerated or working in circumstances where minimum wages do not apply.
I wonder if you've examined your own evident anger and defensiveness and why you've responded in that way?
Running this paragraph through Gemini, returns a list of the fallacies employed, including - Attacking the Motive - "Even if the artists are motivated by self-interest, this does not automatically make their arguments about AI's negative impacts factually incorrect or "bad."
Just as a poor person is more aware through direct observation and experience, of the consequences of corporate capitalism and financialisation; an artist at the coal face of the restructuring of the creative economy by massive 'IP owners' and IP Pirates (i.e.: the companies training on their creative work without permission) is likely far more in touch the the consequences of actually existing AI than a tech worker who is financially incentivised to view them benignly.
> The idea that AI is anything less than paradigm shifting, or even revolutionary is weird to me.
This is a strange kind of anti-naturalistic fallacy. A paradigm shift (or indeed a revolution) is not in itself a good thing. One paradigm shift that has occurred for example in recent goepolitics is the normalisation of state murder - i.e.: extrajudicial assassination in the drone war or the current US govts use of missile attacks on alleged drug traffickers. One can generate countless other negative paradigm shifts.
> if I produce something art, product, game, book and if it’s good, and if it’s useful to you, fun to you, beautiful to you and you cannot really determine whether it’s AI. Does it matter?
1) You haven't produced it.
2) Such a thing - a beautiful product of AI that is not identifiably artificial - does not yet, and may never exist.
3) Scare quotes around intellectual property theft aren't an argument. We can abandon IP rights - in which case hurrah, tech companies have none - or we can in law at least, respect them. Anything else is legally and morally incoherent self justification.
4) Do you actually know anything about the history of art, any genre of it whatsoever? Because suggesting originality is impossible and 'efficiency' of production is the only form of artistic progress suggests otherwise.
reply