> 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).

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.

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.

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.

Or, she stumbled upon some article or the very Wikipedia page about it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chind%C5%8Dgu

Emacs and/or vi, depending on your inclination, have text editors covered already, of course ;-)

i also do this for ui and app logic: go to some Microslop service, they are all like these...sad but true

For example, the inner water tank of a robotic vacuum.