AI Is Killing the Magic
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
ft.comOtherstory
calmmixed
Debate
40/100
AICreativityEntertainment
Key topics
AI
Creativity
Entertainment
The article 'AI Is Killing the Magic' from the FT discusses how AI is changing the entertainment industry, sparking a discussion on HN about the impact of AI on creativity and the value of human-made content.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
11s
Peak period
4
3-6h
Avg / period
2.4
Comment distribution12 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 12 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 20, 2025 at 2:46 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 20, 2025 at 2:46 PM EDT
11s after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
4 comments in 3-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 22, 2025 at 3:13 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45647587Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 2:24:16 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
It's artistic essentialism, and similar to copyright, evokes a sense of "what color are your bits."[1]
1. https://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23
A conduit to the inner state of an Internet compression machine is interesting in its own way, but is definitely not "the same thing."
If so, that reads like pop-sci. We misunderstand authors all the time perhaps even most of the time. This theory has no bearing on reality.
Pedantically, so do AI models to the inner states of their creators and the creators of their training data, but this is such a chaotic process that you can’t even attempt to infer anything about any of their internal states by observing their output.
More humorously, the argument you're making is a pseudoscientific basis to bolster a belief in essentialism. It's extremely easy to see that because my neural circuits are mirroring yours and telling me that is the case.
When we have silicon based life forms with full autonomy, free of corpo-fascist influence, I will enjoy their art.
Meanwhile I will sit satisfied hating on whatever this dross is.
People generally have the expectation that there is a human to be understood (even if imprecisely or incorrectly) on the other side of a piece of art. Expectation violation (especially after some effort has been spent) is just about the most basic source of disappointment there is.
Can you say specifically what you think is “pseudoscientific” about the claim that there’s a chain of causality from artist’s mental state to viewer’s?
How exactly does a piece of art come into your awareness if not by some chain of causality preceding it?
You think there was just artist and viewer and no chain of physical events in which the former is affecting the latter’s consciousness? Talk about pseudoscientific mumbojumbo!
Wow first time Ive read this. The hubris of Silicon Valley couldnt come crash down any sooner.