jplusequalt

>but I think we should respect their autonomy to take the jobs they want to take.

You're phrasing this like third world countries have similar labor markets to the US, where anyone and anybody can go and find a high paying, "comfy" job.

Third world countries provide the convenience that first world countries like the US have come to expect. The cost of providing that "convenience" is that millions of people in India/China/Africa/Southeast Asia work for almost nothing to produce cheap crap that people buy in the US and then dispose of like it's nothing.

>human + AI = super productivity

There have been no signs of "super productivity" in the larger economy due to AI. Boosts in productivity have, so far, been seen exclusively in sectors like tech.

>"How often are people paying at least $600 annually for something AI can help them do instead"

AI recently told me that my oven was broken because a part that doesn't exist on the oven I own was malfunctioning. A bunch of people poking around with electronics, motors, etc. because they think their AI chatbot can fix anything and everything is going to lead to injuries, deaths, and most assuredly more money in the long haul.

Hardware/software rasterizers are already doing the "inside or outside" check millions/billions of times a second using the same determinant trick.

I hand wrote an earcut implementation a few years back. It was a pain in the ass to cover all the edge cases, but cool to see it working at the end.

Truth isn't important anymore.

>Given they wont have to compete for limited resources like we had

Are you aware of some StarTrek like technology that can create everything society needs and wants? If not, then scarcity still exists.

>Why does somebody else using ai affect me sketching in my pad

It may not for you, but obviously it does impact lots of artists ability to make a living off their art, to find community in their art, and on a longer time scale it could even change how society values art.

>I think that proves that everything you are saying is false, because here we have two artists disagreeing on what artists think

I also said "most artists" not "all artists". I'm not terribly surprised that a poster on Hacker News tends to think differently than most artists, seeing as this community tends to attract the sort of person who is pro-AI.

>In fact if anything Papa Johns has enabled many more people to enjoy pizza than would have been able to if only die hard pizza crafters were allowed to make and sell pizza.

Well, your analogy assumes people consume art and food for the same reasons. Does the desire to experiencing a new piece of art come from the same place that makes you crave for a slice of pizza?

Of course not.

Another disconnect I often see in these discussions is that there seems to be a misunderstanding about what most artists conceive as "creating art." "Creating art" is not primarily about consuming or satiating some part of our brains. To use your analogy, we're not baking pizzas purely because we wish to eat them, but because we value the process of baking the pizza itself!

When artists have these sorts of conversations with people, it tends to turn into frustrating arguments due to this misunderstanding. When I question whether you're "creating" art, its not me trying to scold you and others who like to ask AI to generate a pictures you thought up. It's that I'm seeing people misinterpret the end result of creation with the act of creation itself.

Again, for artists these are two separate things!

>I have yet to see someone produce a definition for art which excludes AI generated images but includes various widely accepted forms of art.

You can't define art for the same reasons you can't define what it is to be human. But most people can easily recognize what is/behaviors that are inhumane.

>It is elitist to only consider opinions from "peers in art" as valid opinions on the subject, as OP is doing.

For me, it's not about invalidating others opinions. In the same way I hold my doctors opinions of my health in higher regard than a random person on the internet, I hold the opinions creatives/artists/etc. on the subject of creation in higher regard than people who use generative AI.

So you can have your opinions, but it's not "elitism" for those of us who actually have experience doing a thing to state our opinions as well.

>Thats the beauty of art, appreciation is subjective and different for everyone. The only thing you have control over is whether you are open to that or not.

Subjectivity is not a shield that protects a work from criticism, and disliking a piece of art does not necessarily mean you are closed minded. It could simply be that you don't find it interesting, or that you find the values of the artist reprehensible, or that you find it overly derivative, etc.

>But yes, tweaking an image search is creative, and tweaking a prompt is creative.

I don't believe they are. Searching and prompting are far more akin to a customer asking their artist to tweak the commission.