AI Eroding Value of Human Creativity

“I still don't understand why some people believe that everything created by humans is creative, while anything created by AI is merely a clumsy imitation. Maybe you're innately uncreative and can't comprehend the difference any more than someone who was born blind can understand color. Maybe not - but that would explain your point of view. That's not a personal failing on your part, you can only work with the tools you have. Creativity ultimately comes from learning and reasoning”

“So you think art is overwhelmingly for interpretation. I'm trying to put your comments together and get a handle on this viewpoint. You said elsewhere that artists aren't in it to communicate to the audience. So the artist uses communication media and tropes to do something cryptic and personal, which everybody then misunderstands but enjoys using as a vehicle for their own, how did put it, "story that you've told yourself" about an imagined artist. With the result that a completely phony artifi”

“After reading multuple discussions in this thread and a bunch of others, I feel like people on HN think about art skills in the same way as they think of their software skills.Correct me if I'm wrong, but skills that allowed one to make software largely made one pretty employable in the last few decades.Now, art skills do not make you employable. There are narrow industries where you can make money but throughout the entirety of human history, being an artist rarely provided any sort of economic”

“I recently had an idea for procedural music that would be a fusion of classical ideas of Process ala Glass/Reich/Hisaishi with music making techniques and possibly the interactivity of video games. No idea if it'll work it was more a shower thought than a deep creative endeavour that I'm attached to but my point is that art is art and AI will just be a tool in the end for true artists.”

“Been a big problem in music.On my site, we started asking artists to disclose their use of AI starting ~2 years ago. Turns out roughly 1 in 3 lied.So, I developed an AI detector. It's working pretty well for that. But it's a schlep having to keep up with all the new models. We're processing ~60,000 songs a day at this point, kinda crazy!”

“Keep having those badly thought up human ideas. You realize bad ideas made by humans have been around since before ai right. Look at everything made with flash animation. [re: AI Generated Long-Form Content getting tons of views is discouraging]”

“I appreciate the quick cut to calling out how disciplines suffer from lack of community - this point feels right, though calling AI out specifically falls a bit short for me. AI didn't make music clubs fail as businesses during upticks in property values in my city and it didn't move the arts scene to the outskirts when owners tried to cash in on said uptick, or kill the free print things that kept people in the actual physical local community in the loop. But yeah community sufferred.I'm don't”

“I am quite pro AI for various reasons, but for this reason I just don't see low effort AI art really taking off beyond memes, corporate promotional material, and porn. The value of art is the humanity behind it. It's the reason abstract modern painting continues to be valued despite many folks finding its absolute skill level to be lower than, say, the impressionists or modernists of yore.”

“Edit: why would anyone flag tfa? There is no anti-flag vote right?"Artists understand that AI is bad for art." Art is in the eye of the beholder, don't tell me what makes for bad art.You know what AI is bad for? Menu's. Our butcher just send out a pamphlet with discounts for the week. There is sushi on it that looks like plastic covered in slabs of candle wax, inside is avocado but only at first glance, when you look closer it looks more like a mushy bean. The nori looks covered in sesame seeds,”

“I'm talking about videogames specifically, as it is the topic I'more familiar/invested in.I definitely don't think they will disappear, or the current dynamics will change substantially, only their scale will.As someone that is not artistically inclined, I have the same chance of producing appealing art and assets with AI than I have with pre-AI tools (yes, I tried).But for people that ARE artistically inclined, skilled at using composition, color palettes, have strong fundamentals, etc... AI wi”

“[ChatGPT] ★ 1/5 (v1.2026.265) — For anyone reading this please read Player Piano by Kurt Vonnegut as it is a great and relevant book on Ai and what can happen to society.”

“I mean i suppose it depends on if you think people using blender are artists. If you think the part that makes them creative is knowing to right click select blah do blah then I get your position. If you say "no, make the background fade out at this point, push the face to the foreground, and add some shadow behind", I really don't understand why knowing the specific keystrokes are the creative part.But I think you know that and you're just straw manning.edit- to be clear i'm talking about usi”

“It is painting with a similarly broad brush as the parent comment, yet I don't see your condemnation of that one.The thing to realize is that "because they use AI" isn't the thing that is making (some) content creators shameless. Chasing views, clicks, and money has always been the game for many. For some great creators the art or fun of it matters, whether they use AI or not.”

“> …since the level of work to modify a work to fit your project was pretty close to just doing it from scratch anyway. With AI everybody can toy around with image generators and get what they want.> Creation is now easy and commodified.> If you want to gatekeep or only create stuff to boost your own ego or portfolio, then AI might be an issue, if you actually want to build stuff, AI is godsend.Reading these made me realized how much people WANT to do something without having to involve with the”

“It's not irrelevant in the context, you're just saying it doesn't interest you. Just because you chose to focus on one side of it, doesn't change the fact that you replied to a broader question of "How do you know you can discern AI vs human with high probability?"And even if you had been right that the entire thread's context had been limited to just caring about false positives and not false negatives, it still wouldn't have been a problem for wat10000 to expand the discussion by talking about”

“> Except, of course, no one has actually been robbed, the culture has not been stolen - it's still there - nor are the people involved selling it back in any form. This rhetoric sounds impressive, but really looks more like "piracy is theft" line from early 2000s, similarly flawed in basic premise.It hasn't been literally stolen but indirectly it has been.I spent 20 years working as a freelancer and 10 years selling tech video courses. I made enough to have a happy life (not a lot but enough to”

“Some people can no longer make a difference between AI and genuine art. It's not really that surprising since AI can already create flawless images. The Ocarina of Time remake is a good example of this: some people are saying it looks like AI slop despite the fact Nintendo would never compromise their games by using AI like that. Thing is if AI didn't exist everyone would be praising the visuals. It's just so dumb. You can no longer create anything realistic without the paranoid AI s”

“The point of transportation is to get from point A to point B, so almost nobody will care whether that's done via automation.The point of e.g. art isn't just to produce a finished piece, so people may care about more than the end result, making AI replacement of human artists more contentious.Tao is arguing that the point of math is also not just to produce solutions to problems.”

“Just treat copyright as an engineering issue, rather than a religion. Is copyright doing more good than harm when it comes to encouraging creativity? I think everything tilted in favor of abolishing copyright around the turn of the century, and AI isn't improving things.Your point about making a living off of creative endeavors underscores this point: if copyright were doing its job the way it's supposed to, your first sentence wouldn't be a note alluding to how damn hard it is to make a livin”

“Software is one of the most derivative types of works ever invented. It's arguably based on copying what other people have already created. The modern world would look a lot more primitive if this wasn't the case.Corporations like Coca-Cola long ago figured out that begging people not to steal your ideas is a waste of time. If you don't want people using your ideas, then don't share them.Dunno why so many programmers don't get this and seem perpetually butthurt that other programmers figured”

“Yeah. And it forces people to be creative. It raises the bar above that sameness. Individuals always emulate the cool new thing because they were deeply inspired by it. Which we collectively experience as copying and sameness. Now that processs has been sped up to be incredibly fast. Before our ability to take a photo the way we can with our phone camera was awe-ing. Now it's not. This is good. Like how going to the gym is good”

“There is a cycle to this in most areas of life. Cars all start to look the same, then somebody does something new/innovative/creative/fun, then everybody copies it, then for a while all the cars start to look the same, repeat. We see it in software. We see it in appliances. We see it in clothing. Everything.”

“Scale that to everything and all of a sudden we live in a world built on systems we no longer understand that rely on algorithms to maintain. So... the world we currently live in? Because right now, you've outsourced like 99% of your life to someone else, and that someone else is probably a private company. They make the chips we rely on. They make the metal we rely on. They design our engines and motors, build our bridges and mix our cement. They keep the power on and the phones connected.”

“... I know I'm entering dangerous territory here, but this needs to be said: The overly mechanical sound, awkward transitions and noticeably unemotional feel of early AI music made it relatively easy to spot. I didn't worry too much because I thought it would be a fairly long time before AI-generated music and vocalists would be comparable to human output ... until now! I've listened to numerous AI-generated songs, many of which I didn't know were AI generated until researching t”

“https://www.pcguide.com/news/anti-ai-clauses-now-commonplace-in-game-dev-says-video-game-lawyer-and-copyright-law-wants-humans-making-art/ submitted by /u/wenrongfan [link] [comments]”

“We don't need to embrace the unregulated degradation of art, critical thinking, and a right to privacy pushed by billionaires' bad investments,”

“I'd urge you not to be so close minded, and not to straw man other people who have different views than you.People once thought cars we dumb toys for rich people and completely impractical forms of transportation given the state of the roads and economy at the time. Look at society today.People also once thought the internet was a fad. And, steel-manning your point. we had a dot com bubble. never-the-less the whole world runs on the internet today. Arguably for the better. Many innovations aroun”

“> AI is already capable of creating some assets that are indistinguishable from human made ones.Some assets, yes. But gamers are already losing their mind over single-digit number of AI assets (allegedly) accidentally left into a game. Even when 99% of assets are indistinguishable, you'll still get crucified by the anti-AI gamer mob for the 1% where they can.> Anti-AI sentiment is pointless if they can't tell the difference.The gamer crowd already hates it when you are caught reusing human-made”

“That’s basically Luddite ideology: dismissing the work because you dislike the tool. We hear this every time the tools change. Photography wasn’t “real art” because the camera did the work. Electronic music wasn’t “real music” because of synths and samplers. Photoshop wasn’t real art. CGI wasn’t real filmmaking. AI is now democratising special effects too. Something like this could have required a studio and millions of dollars a few years ago. Now almost anyone can make it. And judging by the 7”

“The statement “At the base of every great fortune there is a great crime.” applies to AI more than any other industry. Steal artists works, pollute and increase the cost of water to ordinary people and raise everyone's power bills.”

“Nobody is talking about forcing people to like it. But people hate AI art on principle, even if it’s as good as people.And those same people don’t care about the AI code in the same games.”

“I find the test of “show me AI art that isn’t a rehash” to be a bit pernicious because I have a hard time coming up with any recent examples of non-AI art that I could lie about and claim was AI generated and you’d respond “OK, that AI art is not a rehash.” If everything is a rehash, what are we arguing about?Instead, my goto examples of high quality creative works that are clearly grounded on AI tools is https://andreaciulu.com/projects/ and https://youtu.be/fyZhC2TXgcs“model that doesn't posse”

“[ChatGPT] ★ 1/5 (v1.2026.202) — Ai usage robs you of your humanity and critical thinking skills. It’s also horrible for the environment. I became dependent on it.”

“>Without an interesting human me art loses all magic to me.Thanks for mentioning this. I have been in so many arguments with tech savvy people who simply can't grasp this concept.Additionally to that, if you're taking shortcuts with AI rather than actually learning a skill (writing, painting, drawing, producing music, etc...) how can you even feel good about your "art"? It's not special, it's stolen effortless slop. It's like playing a video game and getting that "early access equipment" that ju”

“Your quick take lacks perspective. Photography wasn't always viewed to be art. Critics called photography "slop" in its infancy for a long while. See Charles Baudelaire for his 1800's take on photography:> As the photographic industry was the refuge of every would-be painter, every painter too ill-endowed or too lazy to complete his studies, this universal infatuation bore not only the mark of a blindness, an imbecility, but had also the air of a vengeance. I do not believe, or at least I do not”

“I don't think the internet as we know it is going to survive generative AI.Before, the simple existence of the content of some basic level of quality was a strong signal of effort, which corresponds strongly to value. If it's there, it's worth reading.Now, the existence of content of a basic level of quality signals nothing. It might have some value, but it's much more likely it's useless AI slop.This principle -- if it's there it's probably worth taking a look at -- undergirded so much of syste”

“Every text, image, or idea generated by artificial intelligence does not spring from a vacuum; it is a sophisticated collage of millions of things already created by human beings. It is a statistical remix of the past, presented as something new. The problem is not the technology itself. The problem is what happens to us. If we delegate the most difficult part (facing the blank page, the doubt, the error) to a machine, we lose the very muscle that generates the new. True creativity arises from f”

I'm into art. We all lost.

“Who do artists learn technique from? not by approximating existing art You're going to tell me that all the trial and error and learning to create art never involves emulating other consumed art at any point in time? Every artist is in no way influenced, inspired, or informed by an existing piece of art. Is that right?”

“This is only true in the view of connoisseurs. Normal people overwhelmingly prefer AI design (and flattering, grandiose AI slop writing as well). And the naive designs he shows are still made with digital tools. People were probably making the same "hand drawn/painted is better than DTP" argument in the 1980s.There are a lot of legitimate criticisms of AI design but this isn't one.”

“Is a creative human then just not splicing and recombining their experiences into their creative output?No, they aren't. I'm not sure why it's such a popular narrative that all art is just some kind of recombination of existing things; it's not. Actual lived experiences are unique and impact what is created. Novels written by people in post-Revolutionary France are not the same as novels written by post-WW1 France. Events in history shape culture and introduce new ideas and experiences that were”

“>These two points seem slightly conflicting. Why if a human is truly more creative than AI, must it experience "the magic and absurdity of life" if it can be creative without "combining things into output"?I agree, yet I also think AI is extremely limited in terms of new creativity.My guess is that humans operate on some deeper level. Much like the grokking model example where it easily trained on the training data, but only later did it really start to understand the deeper problem space and '”

“I would say it's ability to mimick human creation without real, emotional, personal context. The images of beautiful mountain scapes or sunlit meadows are amazing, but the creator is ultimately just a cold calculator doing its best to frame human persception. The philosophical concept of a nuomenon (a thing in itself, outside of human perception) comes to mind, or maybe cognitive disonance.”

“> Artists and writers got screwed first by piracy, then by generative AI.That's too glib. Artists don't have a right to money that people won't spend.It's not all down to bad actors. Although it's true that musicians got screwed when their distributors switched to a subscription model. Writers got screwed by the Amazon monopsony that crammed down publisher's margins.Mostly what happened is that media technologies changed, professional creators had less control over production, and the money flow”

“Ai videos etc are just boring, just stop now. Defend our own creative ability.”

“In today's AI times, I find it a little amusing to think about emojis as an automation of the craft of making ascii art. Is a little different since people don't get paid for that, but there was a creative component to it.”

“That's the saving grace of it for me tbhAI art shows the philistines for who they are. It's a giant decoy to lure them away from spaces where people are making art of more substance.I feel the same way about things like the absolutely miserable quality of Marvel, Star Wars, etc. stuff leading to films being increasingly polarized between 60 IQ blockbusters and more interesting small projects. It's what kicked off the 70s arthouse cinema in the US, and I'm hoping we get a similar renaissance soon”

“> Meaningful art is not mass-produced, generated content.Andy Warhol might disagree [1] (:(I realize that's not exactly apples-to-apples, but y'know.)Or there's "art is anything you can get away with," which I just mention to point out that this kind of issue ("what is art?") is not new. In some ways it seems like a good thing to get people, like you, riled up about these topics, arguing the merits of their point of view. That's how culture happens.It's an interesting question you tangle with: i”