For one, the post isn't about AI art in any way, which makes your comment appear as a low effort drive-by.
Second, the use case described in the submission is functional and internal-only, and does not deprive or have the potential to deprive software developers or artists of any lost revenue or recognition. It's purely a reflective experiment.
There's some nuance into the scope of generative AI, which normally Hacker News does well at discussing. But kneejerk "AI art is theft" comments only serve to discourage people from sharing their experiences with AI.
Second, the use case described in the submission is functional and internal-only, and does not deprive or have the potential to deprive software developers or artists of any lost revenue or recognition. It's purely a reflective experiment.
There's some nuance into the scope of generative AI, which normally Hacker News does well at discussing. But kneejerk "AI art is theft" comments only serve to discourage people from sharing their experiences with AI.