[rpowers]

I've had this conversation a couple of times now. If AI can just scan a video and provide bullet points, what's the point of the video at all? Same with UI/UX in general. Without real users, then it starts to feel meaningless.

Some media is cool because you know it was really difficult to put it together or obtain the footage. I think of Tom Cruise and his stunts in Mission Impossible as an example. They add to the spectacle because you know someone actually did this and it was difficult, expensive, and dangerous. (Implying a once in a lifetime moment.) But yeah, AI offers ways to make this visual infinitely repeatable.

[Blahah]

Lots of people really prefer watching videos. I'm very grateful that tools exist for those of us who don't.

[raincole]

> make this visual infinitely repeatable

I'm quite sure that was how people thought about record players and films themselves.

And frankly, they were correct. The recording devices did cheapen the experience (compared to the real thing). And the digitalization of the production and distribution process cheapened it even more. Being in a gallery is a very different experience than browsing the exact same paintings on instagram.

[whatevertrevor]

I don't agree with this for two different reasons.

First: I don't think the analogy holds.

Recording a performance is not the same as generating a recording of a performance that never happened. To be abundantly clear, I'm not making an oversimplification generalization of the form "Tool-assisted Art is not Art actually", but pointing out that there's a lot of nuance in what we consume, how we consume it and what underlying assumptions we use to guide that consumption. There's a lot of low effort human created art, that IMO is in a similar bracket, but ultimately to me, Art that is worth spending my time consuming usually correlates with Art that has many many hours of dedicated labor poured into it. Writing a prompt in a couple minutes that generates a 20 minute podcast has a lower chance of actually connecting with me, so making that specific use-case easier is a loss for me. Using AI in ways that simplify the tedious bits of art creation for people who nevertheless have a strong opinion of what they want their artpiece to say, and are willing to spend the effort to fine tune it to make it say that, is a very valid, very welcome use-case from my perspective.

Second: Even if your premise that digitization devalued art is true, it doesn't necessarily imply it's something actually bad.

I have no intention to see the Mona Lisa in person, I'm glad I can check it out on the internet and know that I'm uninterested in it. You might think it has devalued it for me, and you'd be technically correct, but I'm happier for it. People have access to more art, and more information, that allows them to more accurately assess what they truly connect with. The rarity of the experience is now less of a factor in deciding the worth of it, which is a good thing because it draws me towards the qualities of it that matter more: the joy it could potentially provide, and the curiosity it could potentially satiate. Instead of potentially being railroaded into going to the circus because everyone seems to be raving about it, yet I have no idea what they do beyond what people say about it.

Of course there's a huge element of filtering bias on social media, because people still want their experiences to look and sound AMAZING after the fact. But at least with more information you have the potential to make a more informed decision.

[EbNar]

> If AI can just scan a video and provide bullet points, what's the point of the video at all?

Maybe, just maybe, the video format is being abused. Blogs are much more time-efficient. Frankly, every time I see some interesting topic linked to a video, I just skip it. I don't have the time or will to listen to some "content creator" blabbering to increase their video length/revenues. If I'm REALLY interested, I just use some LLM to summarize it. And no, I don't feel bad for doing this.