[chefandy]

People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs. If you didn't understand what they don't, you'd realize that companies spending billions of dollars to create tools that make cheap simulacra of artists' work to sell them at a loss to crush them in their own markets was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis. Despite it being economically unsustainable and clearly only cheap until it craters the value of artistic skill, these tools have democratized creativity. Instead of creation only being available to those with the interest and willingness to practice and develop their artistic sense, process, and skill, they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway. This is silicon valley progress and if you don't like it, you're a communist.

[Juliate]

Totally with you. But it's the trend we get to re-balance in a good way:

> People that never considered the value of artistic process until it was the topic du jour unilaterally decided that it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible to those that hadn't put any sustained effort into developing theirs.

This is eerily reminiscent of what's happening inside the USA government & administration today...

[chefandy]

It's incredibly elitist to gatekeep people having their plans, actions, opinions, and philosophical ideas taken seriously just because they haven't trudged through the onerous process of considering what humanity has already learned about those things. Do these people expect everybody that wants to profit must try to predict the damage that their actions could cause among people that will obviously be affected? Some people just don't like ethics that much, and expecting them to be beholden to their boundaries is pretty old fashioned.

[Juliate]

This is so good! :D may I steal this? Pleeeaaase.

[taylorius]

"these tools have democratized creativity.".

For sure! After all, what could be more democratic than a monthly subscription that could get snatched away at any moment - and clearly there's nothing more creative than pressing a button and waiting for 20 seconds!

[perching_aix]

I like the part where you confuse being sarcastic with being intelligent. A language model somewhere is taking notes.

> People that never considered the value of artistic process

One certainly learns of crazy things on HackerNews. Apparently people have never considered the value of artistic process, and not only that, but you also happen know that exactly.

> the topic du jour unilaterally decided

You're literally in this thread disagreeing.

> it was inefficient, oppressive, complex, frivolous, and unfairly inaccessible

Very interesting claims, too bad they were only stated in your imagination. That being said, your imagination I think is surprisingly close to my opinions! Let's discuss each point:

- it is very time-intensive to produce creative works of any kind, and indeed to perform any kind of mental work at all

- it does get pretty complex too, and because of this, some mental efforts are even shot down for being too frivolous (such as that bit of automation that is not worth making because it would never pay itself off)

- oppressive is a bit of an odd one, but if I think hard enough, I guess I can see how having to use the output of e.g. my work (software) can be oppressive

- same for unfairly inaccessible - lately there's been a trend where various services would only be available online, and the only contact you'd get is a self-service form or two. Maaaybe you'd get an AI chatbot to chat with. Certainly, to those with minimal to no tech literacy, this will be inaccessible and it will feel unfair.

> was merely the natural progression of artistic praxis

If only there was a way to disagree with this without being a dickhead!

> these tools have democratized creativity

How does one democratize an innate property of people? Surely you mean that they have democratized the production of creative works rather, and even of those only the less high-art ones, which I'm sure you never fail to point out when shown one?

> they're now broadly available to anyone willing to pay money for a subscription service that will obviously soon be a hell of a lot more expensive, or shell out a few thousands dollars for a top-tier video card that you almost certainly already have in your gaming rig, anyway.

And what happens after that? Artists will be like "oh gee, well I'm not doing this again!"?

> This is silicon valley progress

And also Hangzhou and Shenzen, China.

> and if you don't like it, you're a communist

Are you? You seem to be more of a raging idiot than anything to me at least.