alt Hacker News>that a hobby is only a hobby if there is no community and you do it solo
Didn't say that.
>Sounds like you're saying tennis can't be a hobby. Nor videogames, nor making movies, writing stories, etc.
Nope, those are not conclusions you can draw from what I said.
>hobbies via a community is still a hobby
Yup, don't disagree with that.
>There is no requirement that to qualify as a hobby it has to be completely audience-free.
Never said that.
What I did say as that producing a product which is meant to be consumed by others and which offers you no joy if it isn't consumed isn't a hobby- it's a job. Money doesn't need to be exchanged for it to be a profit-seeking activity. And to be clear: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. But what I am saying is that, fundamentally, AI can't make a proper hobby obsolete.
The OP is disheartened because his "hobby" is no longer relevant because AI can do his hobby better than him. Just take a step back and think about that: does it make any sense? Can you think of a reasonable example of a hobby where this dynamic can ever occur?
Like, AI has gotten pretty good at music. Does that mean everybody who was in a band for the fun of it all disbanded because AI can make music better than them? Of course not; they still enjoy making music. Now, a band who is trying to make money off of their efforts may be facing a different reality: if people are able to generate better music than what they can produce for way cheaper, then staying in a band for profit is a hard sell. But note that in both instances, these people (who are clearly operating within a community) are doing the same exact activity, but one set of people are doing it as a hobby while the other is doing it as a job.
And again, to be clear: I'm not saying the OP's feelings aren't valid. They wanted to produce something that others would find valuable, and AI made their efforts obsolete. That sucks, and they're clearly not alone. What I'm disagreeing with is the notion that that is a hobby. And that's an important distinction, because the OP is claiming they don't have a hobby anymore and I'm claiming they never did. They should have a hobby- a proper hobby- because it's important for humans to have hobbies for their own well being.
Replies
> What I did say as that producing a product which is meant to be consumed by others and which offers you no joy if it isn't consumed isn't a hobby- it's a job.
You're literally saying the same thing again - that $FOO isn't a hobby if it needs an audience.
And, it's still wrong - there are hobbies that require an audience, and they're still hobbies.
I see what you're saying but I don't fully agree. Art is the obvious counterexample, like the poetry circles of old. The hobby was writing and sharing your poetry with peers. If no one was reading it, there would be much less joy in the production. That doesn't make it a job, it just makes it a social hobby.
The thing with that poster is that the output is not wholly art but also utility, so the AI could fully subsume that thing, if the consumers only care for the utility part. And software in general, qua art, is not an art that anyone but the author consumes, except for video games. So you're kind of right but also I think OP was using software as an artistic outlet through a utility output, which was neither a job nor is his current despair unfounded.
OP if you want to keep writing software for others you have to abandon the utility function and make art, such as games. That will fix your issue. And no, AI cannot make games as good as a human can.
There are hobbies that are heavily social.. I don't know what kind of maniac would make videogames purely for themselves
Imagine an apocalyptic zombie world, and what the last remaining man seek to do is... make video games for himself