It's just a sidenote, but HN is not a single person and doesn't hold a singular opinion. We have both sides argued for in both threads. Not that I disagree that there might also be some bias going on ("our" vs. "their" field), but some inconsistency is normal.

I very much know that, but it is still interesting to see the differences in how the threads are. Even if it is not the same people arguing in both.

I think the big difference is this is a tech forum. Of course it's ok for tech to put artists out of work, but not our precious selves.

I think the big difference is that artists seem to freak out about AI because it will supposedly replace them, while programmers freak out because it's allegedly violating their copyrights. Obviously this is a generalization and not true in all cases, but those really are different concerns.

Artists are freaking out out of fear that AI will replace them (it has already begun doing so) and because their copyrights are being violated, and with a general disgust at the quality of the content.

Programmers are only freaking out about copyright because they naively believe AI can never automate them out of a job, whereas everyone else (artists included) deserves what's coming to them.

It's the same concern in both cases, but different interpretations of the stakes involved.

> Programmers are only freaking out about copyright because they naively believe AI can never automate them out of a job

That's the crazy thing, programmers have already automated their job away but no one has realized yet! Behind our backs they just input a description of what they want into their "compilers" and the friggin thing spits out a ready to go program that does exactly what they asked! The prompt usually needs a bit of fiddling to make it work correctly, but anyone could do that right?