Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not by AI

notbyai.fyi

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#21

Post by doomleika »

grugagag wrote: post #9
doomleika wrote: post #3

Not sure if this is good idea as it provided self identified data from bots to harvest

But still, content creators get badges/s I generally agree that it will become increasingly harder to distinguish non-AI generated content and authenticity will suffer a lot. Maybe the solution to this is get connected with other humans directly and provide authenticity as first hand experience.

From consumer’s perspective they don’t care where it came from. In commercial setting(read: 99%) it’s always get stuff cheaper and better. AIGC fits both, the only better options is run faster than the waves and hope it don’t take you(i.e. “learn to code”)

This is the “disruption” we tech and VC has been talking XR/Crypto/5g/metaverse is about. Except it came with large body counts for those who are directly impacted by SD/Llama in the wild,

Re: Not by AI

#22

Post by throwaway33381 »

transitivebs wrote: post #2

A quote I heard recently that really resonated with me: "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available

No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the market.

Re: Not by AI

#26

Post by prox »

can16358p wrote: post #5

I like it. I like the idea of not having a war on AI-generated content, rather, simply declaring that a non-AI-generated content is what it is, while being OK with AI-generated content too (unless they abuse the badge, of course).

Don’t a few countries have a law/code for photoshopped models for instance at the moment?

Re: Not by AI

#27

Post by brookst »

underyx wrote: post #17

> If humans rely solely on AI to generate content moving forward, any new content generated by AI may just be recycled content from the past. To be honest, I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. I guess we are still better than AI at remixing sufficiently novel combinations of concepts but I think much of this AI content aversion comes from some kind of phobia, or an unwillingness…

Exactly this. The vast majority of art is unoriginal and derivative. That doesn’t mean it’s bad art, just that it is not revolutionary.

So what? There are a handful of truly revolutionary artists each generation. Faulting AI for producing merely good and interesting art is missing the point.

Re: Not by AI

#28

Post by miklosme »

> If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant.

Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant.

These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.

Re: Not by AI

#29

Post by sho_hn »

underyx wrote: post #17

> If humans rely solely on AI to generate content moving forward, any new content generated by AI may just be recycled content from the past. To be honest, I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. I guess we are still better than AI at remixing sufficiently novel combinations of concepts but I think much of this AI content aversion comes from some kind of phobia, or an unwillingness…

You're probably onto something, but then it's also nothing new that we attribute value to handmade goods over industrial goods. Because they're backed by storytelling (real or imagined), rare/exclusive, etc.

It's clear that amidst a deluge of AI-generated content, audience urges for authenticity will rise. Attention is in more finite supply than content, has been even before generative AI; only so much will stick out, and it will perhaps be the most authentic or analog content and goods.

The real question is whether AI/AGI can make it past the "authenticity threshold" and xenophobia to where we also accept AI storytellers and brands as eligible.

Re: Not by AI

#30

Post by galleywest200 »

throwaway33381 wrote: post #22
transitivebs wrote: post #2

A quote I heard recently that really resonated with me: "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available

No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the…

Using it to write vs. using it to help you are two very different things.

For example: sometimes I will pass a paragraph through an LLM and ask it to return it in a more "active voice". Then I _manually_ edit my original paragraph, if I wish, to make it seem more suitable for my current goals.

This is sort of like Photoshop for photographers.

Post reply on HN