<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>matkoniecz</author><text>&amp;gt; The point of art art is that it is created by a human or group of humans.&lt;p&gt;Not for me as a consumer of art.&lt;p&gt;If I read a fictional story, or admire a graphic I do not really care about author. Except as something that hints at quality. Maybe in extreme cases I would want to avoid some due to unrelated issues[1].&lt;p&gt;It is different for nonfiction, but I would read engaging story that was entirely automatically generated.&lt;p&gt;I admired fractals despite that human effort that went into &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Mandelbrot_set#&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;File:Mandelbrot_sequence_new.gif&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Mandelbrot_set#&amp;#x2F;media&amp;#x2F;File:Man...&lt;/a&gt; was only part of outcome. If AI would find other interesting parts of fractal - it also would be enjoyable.&lt;p&gt;----------&lt;p&gt;Yes, it is different for nonfiction and author can add relevant context that can increase or dimmish the art, but in vast majority of cases of fiction&amp;#x2F;music&amp;#x2F;graphics I know nothing about author and I am not really interested in them.&lt;p&gt;----&lt;p&gt;[1] I would not hang in my room landscape painted by certain painter who become the leader of Germany. Even if landscape would be pretty.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tuatoru</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t quite understand the &amp;quot;art&amp;quot; comment. I&amp;#x27;ve seen it several times so this is not aimed at you.&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;point&lt;/i&gt; of &lt;i&gt;art&lt;/i&gt; art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. Artists (performance or visual) will be out of a job when runners are all replaced by race-cars, and pro golfers, tennis players, football players, and basketball players by robots.</text></item><item><author>xg15</author><text>Fully agreed. I first misunderstood the article as mocking AI alarmism, but it really does the opposite: It&amp;#x27;s parodying articles that &lt;i&gt;underestimate&lt;/i&gt; the potential of the tech, because applications are not a 1:1 drop-in replacement to what we have today.&lt;p&gt;Hence references to such future-proof technologies as delivering messages or cargo(!) via carrier pigeon.&lt;p&gt;Doesn&amp;#x27;t bode well for artists if they are essentially compared with carrier pigeons here...</text></item><item><author>vages</author><text>This article’s main point is that AI technology has economic  potential. It goes about this by parodying common arguments against whether such AI can develop into goal-driven beings.&lt;p&gt;One example of such criticism is this five year old piece: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wired.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wired.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt; Few are skeptical about AI technologies’ economic impact. In that sense, the article misses the ball slightly, but it’s so funny that I don’t mind.&lt;p&gt;To state my point in the vein of the article: The bulldozer did change our economy. It does most, if not all, of its productive work in cooperation with a human. Turning a bulldozer on and letting it run by itself is usually a waste, and may be dangerous.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Planes are still decades away from displacing most bird jobs</title><url>https://guzey.com/ai/planes-vs-birds/</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>satvikpendem</author><text>There is a difference between artists who create for their own sake, and commercial or professional artists who make a living off art. The latter is what many people worry about with AI. Of course, it&amp;#x27;s more an indictment on a lack of UBI than on AI itself; to blame it on AI is a Neo-Luddite-esque argument that confuses the root cause the root cause with the more proximal cause. It&amp;#x27;s akin to people being mad at immigrants taking their jobs than the forces of globalism.</text><parent_chain><item><author>tuatoru</author><text>I don&amp;#x27;t quite understand the &amp;quot;art&amp;quot; comment. I&amp;#x27;ve seen it several times so this is not aimed at you.&lt;p&gt;The &lt;i&gt;point&lt;/i&gt; of &lt;i&gt;art&lt;/i&gt; art is that it is created by a human or group of humans. Artists (performance or visual) will be out of a job when runners are all replaced by race-cars, and pro golfers, tennis players, football players, and basketball players by robots.</text></item><item><author>xg15</author><text>Fully agreed. I first misunderstood the article as mocking AI alarmism, but it really does the opposite: It&amp;#x27;s parodying articles that &lt;i&gt;underestimate&lt;/i&gt; the potential of the tech, because applications are not a 1:1 drop-in replacement to what we have today.&lt;p&gt;Hence references to such future-proof technologies as delivering messages or cargo(!) via carrier pigeon.&lt;p&gt;Doesn&amp;#x27;t bode well for artists if they are essentially compared with carrier pigeons here...</text></item><item><author>vages</author><text>This article’s main point is that AI technology has economic  potential. It goes about this by parodying common arguments against whether such AI can develop into goal-driven beings.&lt;p&gt;One example of such criticism is this five year old piece: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wired.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai&amp;#x2F;&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.wired.com&amp;#x2F;2017&amp;#x2F;04&amp;#x2F;the-myth-of-a-superhuman-ai&amp;#x2F;&lt;/a&gt; Few are skeptical about AI technologies’ economic impact. In that sense, the article misses the ball slightly, but it’s so funny that I don’t mind.&lt;p&gt;To state my point in the vein of the article: The bulldozer did change our economy. It does most, if not all, of its productive work in cooperation with a human. Turning a bulldozer on and letting it run by itself is usually a waste, and may be dangerous.</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>Planes are still decades away from displacing most bird jobs</title><url>https://guzey.com/ai/planes-vs-birds/</url></story>