Another AI company wrote us and here’s our response

Outreach Email and Response

• Many see the AI startup’s email as generic spam, likely automated end‑to‑end and mostly ignorable.
• Others note that replying publicly is useful as a statement and for generating discussion/content.
• Some argue the startup is just another “rent-seeking” layer trying to monetize creators’ work and audience.

What Should Be Automated: Chores vs Creativity

• Strong theme: people want AI to handle tedious tasks (taxes, invoices, laundry, dishes), not the creative work they enjoy.
• Counterpoint: some people dislike the labor of creation but like having finished works; for them, generative tools are empowering.
• Several argue that “boring” physical chores are technically much harder than text/image generation, explaining why industry targets creative content first.

Passion, Profit, and Capitalism

• One side: in commercial art and programming, profit will (and should) dominate; companies will adopt AI to cut costs.
• Other side: treating passion as something only for “your own time” is seen as corrosive; money ≠ value, and profit-seeking is already degrading culture and software quality.
• Some frame this as a broader indictment of capitalism and productivity culture; others respond that industrialization has historically made goods cheaper and more abundant, despite harms.

Art, Culture, and Quality

• Fears: generative AI will flood the world with low‑quality “slop,” dilute culture, and devalue learned skill and “high culture.”
• Supporters argue: most art used commercially is mundane (logos, textbook diagrams, background assets); cheap automation here is a net benefit and can enable more niche works.
• Disagreement over whether we already have a lifetime’s supply of good media and whether more quantity can ever compensate for lower average quality.

AI as Tool vs Replacement

• Many artists and devs use AI as a tool: idea generation, rough drafts, boilerplate code, inspiration, or layout, while keeping the “real” creative work human.
• Others distrust code tools like Copilot, citing unreliability and long‑term maintainability; they see AI as optimizing the easy parts and leaving the hard parts untouched.
• Some insist that refusing AI will make you uncompetitive; others resent being forced into tools they feel devalue their craft.

Legal, IP, and Training Data

• Creators object to models trained on their work without consent or compensation; some call it dehumanizing.
• Others liken AI training to how humans learn from prior art and question where to draw the line.
• Legal cases (e.g., around code generators) are mentioned as trending in favor of AI companies, with reminders that “legal” ≠ “moral.”

Authenticity, Meaning, and Audience

• Several say they can’t enjoy AI-only art; meaning comes from a human perspective and intent, not just surface polish.
• Others distinguish between “deep” art and decorative or utilitarian imagery where authorship matters less.
• Some predict authenticity and human-made work will become a premium, scarce signal in a world saturated with machine-generated content.

Artist Livelihoods and Markets

• Some argue that if AI threatens your sales, the underlying market was already harsh; success hinges more on marketing and connection than raw skill.
• Others stress that many independent artists and webcomic creators do meaningfully monetize online, so AI and platforms directly affect real incomes.