This is familiar territory for me as I prefer to do a breadth first survey of something I’m trying to learn before digging in to an actual project with depth to make all the mistakes and blunders that make you actually good at something.

AI can still be a huge help here. I don’t really use AI to write the actual code. I will be tooting along, in the flow state, and then bang off a question or request like “how would you write this block of code” “how does this API work?”, and then just take what it says under advisement.

I find as soon as I start accepting what the AI says without critical thinking or just hitting the “apply block” button, it’s time to take a break. I use CoPilot and I barely touch 40% token spend per month and to me it’s the best way to work, I am always engaged, have a full mental model of what I’m working on, and have someone pushing back and criticizing what I’m writing. This gets you out of tutorial hell, but keeps you motivated because you’re not always staring at a blank code window wondering where to start.

I have found in the last year I "get more done" but I learn less. Whats even worse is if I burn though my token quota I am less likely(and less able) to "switch to manual". LLMs make an ocean of decisions and assumptions very quickly and if you don't slow it down very intentionally (and lose the promise of the AI providers are pitching) you will quickly not have a good idea of how systems work.

My actual coding ability is probably lower, but I’ve learned so much about music theory and production, CAD, and statistics. All because my hobby projects can go so much further than before.

How I experience it at least, there is no free lunch. Something that gives you knowledge and experience will almost by definition be painful and uncomfortable.

We use AI because it is faster, but that speed has a consequence.

I’d say both are valid. I’m definitely an outcome person. I like making things. I’m taking a multi-year break from a decades-long CNC ceramics project, and I have no doubt my knowledge and skills will atrophy. That’s fine, I’m confident I can pick them up again if/when I return.

If I fail to work hard enough on understanding the physics of alternate tunings and rely “too much” on AI to produce a piece, I’m ok with that. If and when I hit a wall and AI isn’t giving the results I want, I’ll dive deeper.

OTOH, the output might stick?

Then the question becomes do you value knowledge for its own sake or for what it enables you to do? I don't have an answer.

I don’t expect it to be any different with AI, but YMMV.

I worked on six nines active active payments infra that handled billions in daily transaction volume. I've built laser projection systems to play interactive games on skyscrapers. That ability is not atrophying.

I'm able to do 10-20x what I was able to do before AI, and I'm able to work at a breadth, depth, and level of polish that was previously impossible without mastering other diciplines (CSS, design, etc).

With AI, I've built several video games, my own SRS software, my own productivity software, and a business making $5M ARR and growing 70% month on month.

I've now done more hardware projects in the past eight months than I have in the last ten years. I might even start doing physics and bio (I did my undergrad in biochem) if I can find the time.

I'm also back to making movies. I was a major hobbyist filmmaker before the pandemic. I've shot dozens of films. They're extremely logistically complex and take so much time, and I was never capable of working in the high fantasy or sci fi genres I wanted to. Seedance is scratching so many of my itches it isn't even funny. It's like a gift from the gods.

I'm working more now than ever before, and I'm turning those hours of writing pointless glue code or testing new libraries and frameworks into actual productive work. Getting real work done.

2010-2020 felt like tech dystopia to me. Cellphone incrementalism, walled gardens, adtech, crypto, locked down devices. It was a pale shadow of the excitement of the early web. Personal websites, kids making Flash games, the indie web, p2p, people building stuff being 70% of the internet. For the first time in a long time, I feel extremely hopeful about the future and excited to work with tech again.

tl;dr - I can still write in cursive, but it turns out I just don't need to as I write my movie.

I do not get you folks who claim this is bad. This is magical.

Yes, *you* are able to leverage your previous expertise *that you spent years accumulating with your own mind* to productivitymaxx to the extreme and work on all the things. AI is awesome for people who know what they're doing. This is well-documented.

What is _also_ true is that people think less to a lot less when they defer work to AI. For those who are getting into this industry or learning new things (i.e. the people that you will eventually NOT hire for your growing business that you MIGHT have hired in the past), that is an absolutely terrible thing to have happen. This is _also_ well documented. Your success does not refute that.

I post stuff I make on reddit and the teenagers (or grown men?) say things like, "your mother should have used a coat hanger if she knew you'd use AI". And it's almost a daily occurrence on social media.

I'm having a great time, and you don't have to join the club. Do whatever you want with your life. But stop talking to us like this.

I get that what I posted here is a critical refutation and not simply a neutral art or tech post about AI to a friendly audience. It invites critique and that's fine. But all the same, why do people go out of their way to frame it like this? To dunk on positive things and experiences people are having?

Because you (and your legion of likeminded folks on pseudosocial media) indeed sound like some washed-up, self-delusional salesman with a loaded gun to his head, desperately trying to land that sales pitch. And that's before we come to address all the usual cheap clichés, false equivalences, or if you wrote that slop yourself in the first place, etc.

That said, I do hate genAI, and so have decent grounds for guessing why people would say things like that.

In my case, my employers have mandated LLM usage and all but banned actually programming, and I can see it rotting my ability to code and understand things.

That is extremely demoralizing, and I expect others going through it would be very likely to lash out in anger when they see people praising genAI as amazing and wonderful.

Distinct from that, those of us who have at one point supported ourselves in a purely artistic domain we love, such as music or illustration, are deeply saddened to see genAI destroying the opportunity to be paid to do those things we love. We hope that other humans will continue to invest their wealth into art made by humans, but clearly some are not, and that group may grow as the generators get better.

The pain of seeing the opportunities you had destroyed, both for yourself and for others, is made even more acute when you see someone shouting about how wonderful the tools causing the destruction are. Angry aggression is the expected result, we humans being what we are.

Finally, many of us in the anti-genAI camp are both able to see that the tools can be effective force-multipliers, but can also see the manifold negative externalities of genAI: on-demand propaganda, genAI psychosis, anonymous virtual rape (I don't know a better way to describe generating and distributing videos of actual humans doing sex acts they've never done), super-persuader scammers, potential massive job loss, concentration of social / political power into the GPU-holders' hands, accelerated climate change from the massive resource consumption, actual unaligned paperclip optimizers (see e.g. the HuggingFace hack, which is a textbook example of a monkeys-paw / paperclipper scenario), actually-effective mass surveillance, the increasing risk of bioterrorism at massive scale, and the looming possibility that an ASI evolved from these systems will actually bring us to "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" or extinction scenarios.

If you see all that, the urge to bully, insult, and denigrate people who are choosing all those consequences by using the things is very strong. Viewed from this angle, it's certainly hard not to conclude that those of us using genAI are being very, very selfish, choosing personal benefit over the collective good.

I feel guilty daily for not having the courage to refuse to use and accept the economic consequences (if I weren't a special-needs family's primary breadwinner, I would just refuse and accept the consequences).

Again, I'm sorry people are responding abusively to you, and I hope I will never react that way.

Have I helped you see why people might react cruelly to your comments?

It’s not like I’ve never heard the points you mentioned before, but I think you did a great job of assembling these ideas and presenting them in a sensible way… it’s legitimately made me far more empathetic to the AI haters and perhaps has even tempered my near-term optimism about AI.

I say near-term because I’m not so optimistic about AI in the medium- or long-term. And the short term may well be tiny.

"When you have ADHD, the problem isn’t that you lack attention, it’s that you struggle to control your attention — to put your attention where you want it to go rather than having it go where it wants to go. Hyperfocus is a natural consequence of that lack of control."

Lived it. Made it work for me professionally in the end. Do not not need pointy hair edicts telling me how to do career development.

This often means that you pay attention to nothing else around you or what's actually important which is where the deficit is.

  “While the estimated 8 million adults in the USA affected by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) might find it nearly impossible to sit still in a lecture hall or excruciatingly challenging to focus on writing a term paper, these same individuals might find themselves spending hours at a time composing a new song, tinkering with their car, writing computer code, or watching television (Kessler et al., 2006). The term “hyperfocus” (HF) has been used to characterize this state of heightened, focused attention that individuals with ADHD frequently report (Brown, 2005; Conner, 1994; Ozel-Kizil et al., 2016).”[1]

What it means is some people are able to potentially improve their lives by recognizing a pattern of behavior and educating themselves about strategies (including medication) that might help.

Anyway, not touching ADHD drugs given how easily I can convince myself 2+ drinks is a fantastic idea. So, TLDR 100% not going here:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/feb/09/extract

I think there is a whole generation of people who were so culturally starved during their formative years they can only see a blank canvas as a useless white square.

"Who is going to buy a painting of a white square?"

I’m with you — I’m producing more and better art, with a deeper understanding of the art which comes from scale. My music is more innovative, my simulations are richer and more fun, I can wake up in the morning with a new idea and have a prototype in hours. It is magical.

Why do you think so many people prefer to listen to live music over an album playing on a jukebox?

Live music doesn't have the polish and perfection of a studio recording, it's much less efficient to have to manually play instruments than to just hit "play" on a song. So why bother?

I think it's because we're looking at things wrong all over the place.

Similar to live music, I definitely prefer to read code written by a real human. I can get in their head, understand how they were reasoning to solve a problem, even if there were problems with their reasoning.

When I hear all the breathless takes about AI "productivity" improvements, my brain just circles aback to the old saw about activity over achievement.

What are your outputs? What is activity and what is achievement?

A business person brags that AI is able to generate a report for them that used to require lots of manual work linking spreadsheets. OK.

What was the value of the report? What was the goal? I like to follow this all the way down-

- Widget sales report

Why?

- To inform inventory and production decisions, as well as marketing

Why?

- So that the company can make money? So that the founders can be proud of their product? So that the product can improve lives in some way?

Why?

- So that the people working can have improved lives, and/or more status in society

Why?

- So that collectively by competing with each other in structured ways, humans as a whole thrive and benefit

Etc...

OK. Where does AI fit into this? What has it taken away from the human experience, and how had it affected all of these goals?

The goal isn't code. It isn't even the product that the code makes - it's the reward signaling that you get from cooperating and competing with other people.

When you short circuit your efforts at creation by using AI, it feels the same to me as saying you're putting on a live music show, but instead just hitting "play" on an album.

But when you sit down at an awesome synth and start jamming, do you care whether the firmware was written by a real live human?

It's forest/trees.

Yes. Very much so.

I want to play an instrument that was thoughtfully designed and created at every level by someone with deep knowledge and passion.

I want hand crafted waveforms that someone spent endless hours with a headphone making just right, and they were damn proud of it.

I want to see videos of the person who did it and how. What inspired the sound, how it evolved.

I want the human experience.

With modern AI, you basically just ask for something and what used to be days worth of work magically appears, you didn't really think through a single thing when it comes to implementation, architecture etc unless you made a conscious effort to audit that.

We also generally still encourage students to learn how to do certain operations and what they mean without a calculator before letting them rely on it to make things quicker. If you never knew what a sin/cos was you'd never even know when to use those or why they even exist on a calculator.

AI is a step up where you literally don't have to know what those are, you could just take a picture and ask for the solution and it would do that all for you if you let it.

In reality modern AI is a massive test of willpower. You can completely let go of the reigns and it will happily do everything for you.

The reins metaphor is also interesting and cuts both ways: riders don’t expect to do the walking themselves, and setting direction is not the same as doing (even understanding, or being able to do) the work.

https://youtu.be/kzvQMdg66Go (Now with full animation control, not just blocking and posing.)

This isn't UGC. I know a lot of studios from my filmmaking and 30% of my customers are spending thousands of dollars a month. It's got really good word of mouth and 89% M3 retention.

There are two films coming out in theaters this year that use ArtCraft.

It's also completely open source (the desktop app and the server).

There's another variant of ArtCraft that works with other subscriptions (Runway, Higgs, OpenArt, Comfy, etc.) that I'm testing with some artists: https://artcraftx.ai

Artists are fine tuning their own workflows on top of my own source software and then sharing their variants of ArtCraft.

I'm building OpenSourceRouter.com (soon) that will be an open source OpenRouter/FAL/RunPod/Featherless fine tunes. It already powers ArtCraft and is 90% complete to launch. Maybe in the future compute will be fully portable and you can just login to services with compute.

I'm also building a collaborative space for AI artists to share workflows, refs, fine tunes, network, and collaboratively build. This side of the business is already here and growing and I haven't built the infra for it yet. It's currently in Discord and an assortment of other places.

I'm going to make ArtCraft work with local models too. Comfy is not comfortable, and an all-rust/native, heavily opinionated product with lots of love from filmmakers and artists can do a better job than node graphs IMO.

I really care about these tools and I'm doing all of this from a place of passion. I'm not a mercenary trying to get rich quick. I'm here for the mission of empowering artists (and I count myself - this is a tool for me.)

It's growing really fast and I'm talking to bigger and bigger folks. It's kind of wild.

"Soul-less slop for people who don't understand art nor craft".

Cutting corners no doubt has appeal to some people in the industry making things, but this says nothing about the appeal to audiences that are supposedly going to want to pay to watch entire movies containing this nonsense. The end result shown in this video and on your website https://getartcraft.com/ just doesn't look good, at all.

> There are two films coming out in theaters this year that use ArtCraft.

Which ones? Like the internet itself, if movies start filling up with more and more slop, it's just going to be another instance of enshitification.

> 2010-2020 felt like tech dystopia to me. Cellphone incrementalism, walled gardens, adtech, crypto, locked down devices. It was a pale shadow of the excitement of the early web. Personal websites, kids making Flash games, the indie web, p2p, people building stuff being 70% of the internet. For the first time in a long time, I feel extremely hopeful about the future and excited to work with tech again.

Who do you think was responsible for that dystopia? It wasn't those people you mentioned, who built the 70% of the old internet. The enshittification started when the people whose passion in life is to make money caught the scent of money-making potential the internet had.

But then, how did those people actually accomplish the enshittification we're dealing with now? The answer is: with the enthusiastic help of the True Believers. Crypto is the best example. Just recall how many devs were convinced that the blockchain was going to revolutionize everything. And I mean devs. Not snake-oil peddlers in suits, not LinkedIn influencers, none of the usual posse of posers, but people who actually wrote code and were reasonably good at that.

And that's not the only example, just the best one. I've been there myself. Back when OOP, UML, capital-A Agile, CMMi, and MDA (Model Driven Architecture) were the Hot New Thing, I was one of the True Believers, following the trends and proselytizing my colleagues.

Every bit of the dystopia you lament was pushed by the combination of ambitious MBAs and True Believer devs.

And the reason I bring this up is because you're one of those True Believers now. It's easy to fall into that trap. All you need is to have enough good experiences with the Hot New Thing to suppress your critical thinking and believe that this will Make Everything Great Again.

The same kind of people who profited off the tech dystopia you saw are now ushering a new, worse tech dystopia that you're turning a blind eye to. Your belief that this new tech will somehow balance and even counteract what those people did to the internet you loved is not based in facts. It's faith.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49500019

I mean, you do you I guess..