> Basically, one reason I’ve lost a lot of will to do anything is because of AI’s existence, and I don’t want to use it. Because I have zero personal time, zero time whatsoever to do anything, so sometimes I’m thinking, “Oh, I could do this task or that task so much faster if I used AI,” but I don’t want to use AI, so then I don’t want to do the task at all. So I don’t have the time to sit down and model something because I know there is a faster way, but I don’t want to use the faster way, so the thing doesn’t get done.
I'm not completely sure, but I think her reasoning is that AI made it a lot easier for random people to just have the idea and translate it into an image in a minute or two, and this cheapens the whole experience for her, to the point that it no longer seems worth doing.
It's sort of a funny point. I think most painters are happy that they don't have to go out and grind up snails to make their own purple pigment, but are perhaps less happy if somebody can produce a painting indistinguishable from their own effort with no manual handwork skill at all. It's like there's a minimum threshold of human skill and investment for an object to be interesting beyond its pure functionality, and functionality has little to do with art (but a lot to do with, say, software).
I know I have experienced this, and I bet a lot of people here have experienced this, with writing code by hand vs having Claude do it. I genuinely enjoy writing code, but now to get that joy, I have to commit to writing code _for the sake of writing code_, since it's no longer necessary to do it to achieve the end goal I have.
I have the exact same feeling as you towards coding AI for hobby projects. Though this sentiment isn't new, and AI is just a detail.
I'm not a musician, but I'm attracted to synthesizers and bought a couple in the past just for fun. I immediately get caught in a quicksand of DAWs and plugins and whatnot, which kill the fun for me (it's too similar to work), but at the same time I can't ignore the tools because now the synth is too "bland".
It's a weird kind of FOMO paralysis.
In fact if we're being honest, there is some weird unprompted bitterness in your response that is pretty common in the AI space. Creatives who don't like AI are always haughty elitists who don't like that the peasants can now create works as brilliant as them.
In reality, most artists I know wouldn't use AI because the friction is part of the joy of creation for them. Or maybe they want to feel like the work truly emerged from their own brain. Or they find their art practice both productive and meditative, and those are equally important to them. Or numerous other reasons, mostly compelling.
I'm not an artist, or even particularly creative, but the only reason I would undertake any hobby is because I enjoy the process. I like building Gunpla models, which seems irrational if you are only thinking about output. If someone were to say to me, "You know, they sell plastic toys of the RX-78-2. You could just buy one if you wanted it," I would stare at them blankly.
Politely, I suggest that prefacing a claim about a stranger's emotions by saying that the claim is "fact" and "honest" is presumptuous.
But I do think you're right about the "friction [being] part of the joy". I think a better version of my comment is that enjoying those frictions isn't completely straightforward, and the temptations of a frictionless (and maybe subpar) alternative make those frictions less enjoyable still, as simonbw's comment observed.
But she claims that the fact that AI exists decreases her drive to create. That is a much stronger and less obvious argument, and something that doesn't apply to you if you're still building those models.
If she simply "enjoys the effort", as you claim, she would do the same as you - continue enjoying it. But she is not.
I’d extend that to suggest—based on conversations with the artists in my life, anyway—that for many, the friction along the path from an idea to a work is where the art happens in the first place. That the art happens in the additions and subtractions and judgments the artist makes along the way as they bring the artifact into being. That without that, it’s something closer to manufacturing.
I’m reminded of how we around here grumble at piles of vibe-coded slop, even if they notionally solve the users’ problems at hand. It’s not strictly that “it’s insufficient at satisfying the problem brief,” it’s that it’s missing all the other latent considerations—structure, coherence, legibility, maintainability, determinism, good judgment—that a skilled code craftsperson would have worked in along the way almost without thinking.
Depressing for artists of code itself—liberating for the people whose artistic practice is maybe one level of abstraction up—whose obsession is iterating through “finished” products til they fit just so, til they reflect the high-level intention just right. For whom the code part was always an annoying-but-necessary slog, akin to, as another commenter said, grinding the snails for pigment…
“I dread what it means for the code base at work, but damn if I’m not cranking out every single side project I’d never gotten around to…”
I had the same experience when I was a front-end dev and all the JS frameworks were getting big. I didn't want to use them, I tried to stay away from them as much as I could. I reluctantly learned Angular after being put on a project where they were using it. After 5 years, I wanted to leave my company and started looking around for dev openings. Whoops. Literally every front-end dev role was now "full stack role" and unless you knew ReactJS or one of the other now common JS frameworks in depth, you had no options. I was able to pivot into a few other roles that were essentially front-end related, but have yet to get back to doing dev work unless its on my own hobby time at home.
I completely removed myself from an industry because I didn't want to change with the industry I spent ten years making a career from. Now with this new wave of AI, I know better. I don't like AI, I think companies are already using it recklessly to pad their bottom lines, but I've seen this movie before. Now I keep pace, I use it at work, I vibe code at home, I create agents and use MCP servers, I work constantly on learning to create better prompts.
Maybe she hasn't been sidelined by a technology yet in her career, but someone told me recently, "AI may not replace YOU? But someone who can use and know AI very possibly could replace you." This same thing is happening in the art world. Unfortunately, either you figure out how to leverage it to stay in the industry, or get passed up by people who are using it to do what you used to do and find yourself too far behind to ever catch up.
Then as companies like Prusa and later Bambu made 3D printing more and more accessible to the masses there was a subgroup of 3D printing fans who were unhappy about the change. They lost interest in the hobby. Some became bitter and spent their time finding things to complain about on Reddit and other forums instead of enjoying their printing.
Logically, enabling other people to produce something shouldn’t subtract from others’ enjoyment of their own hobbies. Many still do woodworking with hand tools even though we can buy factory furniture now.
I think some people are more interested in seeking status and doing things for personal branding reasons than the joy of the hobby itself. For that group, any advancement that makes it easier for other people to do something similar to what they do (even if lesser quality, as is often the case with AI) it interferes with their ability to use that hobby for status. They carved out a niche as the person who did something rare or semi-unique, but making that thing accessible to more people took that away. So their motivation wanes.
For example, I remember frequenting the NerfHaven forums back in the day, and people were designing Nerf blasters in Solidworks, printing drawings out, gluing them to polycarbonate, and using scroll saws to build their own blasters capable of 150fps. Nowadays, I can buy a printer, a hardware kit, and build my own 200fps capable blaster in an afternoon, and there's probably 5-10 new interesting, fleshed out concepts a month.
The explosion in depth, detail, and accessibility in DIY cosplay designs is also incredible.
I described this to a friend and he turned to me, shocked, and said “you’re a sports car hipster!” And I’ve never been quite the same since.
People who loved mixing colors enough to become experts may have been disappointed when their hard-won skills were rendered obsolete by the march of progress.
There are some aspects of my work that are enjoyable on their own and others that I only do because they're necessary overhead to achieve a desired result. I appreciate technology that eliminates the latter but lament technology that eliminates the former.
So when AI obsoletes yet another human skill I suspect a lot of the wildly different emotional responses are dependent on whether someone considers the skill being obsoleted more "enjoyable" or "necessary overhead".
She doesn't like AI, so she avoids using it, fine. But she's also aware that using AI would make doing the task very easy. Because she is aware of AI's ability to complete the task, she would have to consciously avoid using it, and doing that us the problem itself. Having to consciously avoid the action you know is more efficient.
You see the same effect in video games. Being aware of a powerful item or meta tends to compel one to take that path, even if its less enjoyable. And sometimes it can bring the enjoyment low enough that one doesn't want to play anymore. If one were left unaware, they could keep playing blissfully unaware.
This might sound pedantic, but I think it's very meaningful when it comes to art: AI's cannot (yet) produce paintings anywhere near the quality of a human painting. What they can produce are images of paintings, and those are not the same thing.
Are you aware that without explanation you just assumed things can be achieved with less effort without quality degradation?
Oddly a few months ago somebody who was a few years too late DMed me on Tumblr to say he wanted to make NFTs of my photos. I played it cool and eventually asked him "which ones do you want?" which got him to pick the last 5 I posted which proves he isn't even looking.
Nextdoor for a nearby city lately has been spammed my somebody who makes AI slop videos with senseless motion like a bad Instagram Reel about our police department (he's black but seems to love the blue) -- at least he has some sense of praising vs dissing people but to people like that there is not difference between beautiful and ugly, good and bad, just ceaseless motion that never stops.
Unfortunately, if you go shopping in a supermarket or online, you can find a huge amount of bad products that look like they were well designed, but in reality some of their parts are made from wrong materials, and you discover this only at home, after using them for a few months, or for a few days, or even after a few minutes.
For instance, I have seen devices where pressure-regulating springs were not made of spring steel, but of ordinary steel and they lost their elasticity after a very short time, making the device unusable, water buckets supposedly made of stainless steel that were actually made of chromated steel, which rusted at joints after a few months and a lot of diverse devices where parts that suffer cyclical stresses are not make of a fatigue-resistant material, so they break after a short time of use.
There are countless examples of this kind and all have this problem that you cannot detect visually if the correct materials are used, or not, like you can recognize an inappropriate shape.
They had all sorts of cheap objects shaped like simple household items. Obviously, you don't expect premium quality when you buy these things, but you expect it to at least have some function, but they manage to fail at the most simple things. Examples:
- Sewing needles with the eye too small to fit a thread into, they also bend as easily as a piece of wire
- Tubes of "super glue" that are mostly empty, also when you press on it, it all goes on your finger instead of out of the nozzle
- Screwdriver bits with tolerances so loose they don't even fit the screw, some even had bubbles inside, like swiss cheese
- Packing tape that doesn't stick to carboard, at all
- Steak knives that break at the handle as soon as you start cutting steak with them
- "squares" that are off by more than 1 degree
Peel the wrapping from one end; and just like that; you got a big butter stick-stick!
Is it time to model and 3D print a butter-stick stick-pusher? With a little battery and heating coil at the sticking out end. Getting a slightly soft and sticky enough butter out of the butter-stick-stick without it sticking to the stick? What a buttery sticky thought.
I recommend this book to anyone remotely interested in design. Even today it is fantastic.
I never look at doors, without evaluating their usability, anymore.
That is an interesting point to bring up, because this type of "almost but not quite right" is exactly what AI seems to naturally create.
Or, she stumbled upon some article or the very Wikipedia page about it:
> Chindōgu (珍道具) is the practice of inventing ingenious everyday gadgets that seem to be ideal solutions to particular problems, but which may cause more problems than they solve.
Nobody would look at a fork with a chain separating the end and the handle, or a toothbrush with a 90 degree bend before the head, or a watering can where the spout bends back over to face the opening, and think it seems like an "ideal solution to a practical problem".
What she's doing is something else entirely: making humorous designs which are obviously, viscerally terribly suited for their purpose. The point is that you look at the item and immediately go, "oh that's horrible".
Regardless, even if Chindōgu actually did describe what she was doing, I don't think "design humorously bad products" is such a unique concept. It seems plausible that two people in history could independently come up with it.
Usually this happens slowly enough over time that we can adapt to it sociologically or generationally such that we don't see or feel the pain so distinctly. There likely were people that were upset when commodity paints were introduced because, for them, part of painting was creating your own palate of paints. Of course, you can still do that even today, but it is no longer necessarily tied to the process of painting.
This is happening in areas that we didn't anticipate it happening and happening to a bunch of them at the same time. Ignoring point-in-time AI model quality meaning that a given output is 50, 80, 95, or 99, 100, of 120% as good as a human, we have the ability to use AI now to achieve outcomes in many fields that required some sort of craftsmanship to achieve prior.
People who enjoy the craftsmanship are understandably shaken up because their craftsmanship has been drastically devalued. Some people simply want to achieve the outcome and were previously frustrated by being gatekept by not having the skill or experience that craftsmanship demanded and they are now thrilled to be able to do something they couldn't before. Both of these are understandable experiences and exist/live together without contradiction.
Ohh I missed that! I did actually read (view haha?) the article...
on the bottom (both) WHY?
For example, the inner water tank of a robotic vacuum.
Emacs and/or vi, depending on your inclination, have text editors covered already, of course ;-)
Output success error codes in unexpected range (see: robocopy).
Use special characters to try TUI things but leave the buffer in weird states.
Have many input params, and default to the most useless ones when nothing is passed. Make some params unnecessarily required.
Go on very long tangents for no reason in the manpage, but keep your -h message as just the list of badly named params.
Use stderr as your stdout.
---- I present to you worse-cat:
wcat notes.txt
error: --encoding is required. Exiting.
wcat --encoding=utf-8 notes.txt
┌─────────────────────────────────┐
│ About to display: notes.txt │
│ Are you sure? [y/N/maybe]: │
└─────────────────────────────────┘
y
stdout: ≈3 paragraphs
stderr: [file content]
echo $?
212
(I'll save you the manpage and worse-ls)
I instantly recalled a site from this era and amazeballs it’s still there! Superbad.com All hail!
so linux is already there
In terms of usability, moving to FreeBSD from Linux is quite a positive experience. Pity that hardware and software support is limited on the BSDs.
Results from ls would be a few sentences explaining the types of files in the directory. Add a -l on there and it will give you a general overview of the permissions and size of the files. Ex. “These are rather large files that are primarily, but not exclusively, limited to root.”
Results from cat would give a summary of the file. You’d get the same results, with some degree of randomness from more and less as well.
Using any command with sudo would provide the same type of results, but in all caps.
Trying to pipe commands together would be a slop multiplier.
i also do this for ui and app logic: go to some Microslop service, they are all like these...sad but true
