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

I don't want anything your AI generates

coryd.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 345 posts

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#221

Post by handoflixue »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #169
pseudo0 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "steelman" is embarrassingly bad. Why play devil's advocate if you're going to do such a bad job of it? Here's an alternative: - As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the…

> As a form of fair use, models learn styles of art or writing the same way humans do - by seeing lots of examples. It is possible to create outputs that are very similar to existing works, just as a human painter could copy a famous painting. The issue there lies in the output, not the human/model. I've seen this analogy parroted everywhere and it's garbage. Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the…

> Show me a human being that, in an afternoon, can study the art of Rembrandt and from that experience, paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings in a few minutes each, and I'll swear by AI for the rest of my life.

So it's okay to learn, but only if you do it very slowly? I surely don't need to point you to the existence of forgers - you know a human can study the art of Rembrandt and paint plausibly Rembrandt style paintings

> are we just consigning entire professions worth of people to the poorhouses now without so much as a thought?

We have been doing that since the dawn of history - what makes this any different from cars obsoleting the horse drawn carriage? Computers have been automating people's jobs for decades - should we ban programming writ large?

Where, exactly, do you feel the line ought to be drawn?

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#222

Post by fisf »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #208

Feels like "crypto" where if someone says "I am not interested", "I do not like it", or something to that effect then commenters suddenly appear suggesting that this is somehow unacceptable. Look at the top comment. Like crypto, it seems some folks have bet on "AI", and are spooked by any hint of skepticism.

The issue is that both your statements are ultimately very subjective opinions first and foremost.

It's absolutely fine to hold those, but then people extrapolate this to things like: "The "benefits" it provides to end users are, at best, dubious — though everyone responsible for creating it will most certainly enrich themselves." And those are presented as objective value judgments, which ought to require somewhat more than personal opinions to back up.

Why does it not have value for end-users? Why is it bad if people creating those tools become rich? But we live in a day and age, where everyone thinks that their mere opinion needs to be heard and has objective value.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#223

Post by ulbu »

handoflixue wrote: post #217
logicprog wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that machine learning like large language models and image generating systems exploit labor might be up for debate, but the fact that they are disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to the alternatives is certainly true in the same way that it's true for Bitcoin mining. And there's more than just those two aspects to consider, it's also very much worth considering how the widespread use of s…

> disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to the alternatives This is a new one to me. Do you have any source for that? Once a model is trained, it seems pretty obvious that it takes Dall-E vastly less to create an image than a trained artist. I have trouble believing the training costs are really so large as to change the equation back to favoring humans.

It’s so ironic that you have this stance about the value of other people but you feel so humiliated by OP as to think they’re bullying.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#224

Post by Joker_vD »

stolenmerch wrote: post #139
akira2501 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. I don't think this article even remote attempts this claim. The closest it gets is suggesting that if these defenses are too much trouble for you, then perhaps your use case for AI wasn't great in the first place. > but diatribes like this How is this a diatribe? There's nothing bit…

> I don't think this article even remote attempts this claim. It's in the first sentence, "AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative (of content, labor and the environment)."

Any fruit of any manufacturing labour is fundamentally derivative and exploitative: it needs raw materials from the environment, and it needs labour for the intended transformation; if anything, the AI output is less exploitative because the raw inputs don't end up destroyed in the process.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#225

Post by skynet305 »

That's a tremendously ignorant post and clearly doesn't understand ai and what it all contains.

Does the author also think that the ai/ml based deep fold is shit?

This author just shouldn't post about things and form such a strong opinion on something they clearly have no knowledge about

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#226

Post by grotorea »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #191
leetharris wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read an article about this sometime last year. Basically AI is the exact opposite of compression. We take what should be a few bullet points, turn it into some overly wordy bullshit with AI, then the recipient uses AI to turn that wordy bullshit back into a few bullet points. And it costs a ton of compute to do this. Kind of insane. I hope society evolves to work smarter.

I think the compute is going to net zero eventually either through green energy or hopefully better technology, our brains are very efficient computers if we can build a computer that works like our brains, or figure out analog(light based) computers, etc we could maybe get 1000x the compute for the power of a flashlight.

In the future the prompt will be attached as metadata for the recipient's AI to print when asked to summarize.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#227

Post by skynet305 »

rain_iwakura wrote: post #108
stolenmerch wrote: post #52

I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…

The issue is that without loud declaration like this money men will just soldier on with implementing shittier future. It's always do something first and then ask for forgiveness. But at the point you ask for it it's too late and too many eggs were broken. And somehow you're richer at the end of it all and thus, protected from any consequences. While everyone else is, forgive my French, fucked. Has Facebook been a ne…

Ai/ml will change out world.

It already does.

It's a Paradigma shift and probably the most impactful after the internet.

From human to machine interface to medicine, research, content creation etc.

No one cares about some dude posting some negative rant like that.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#228

Post by skynet305 »

akira2501 wrote: post #105
stolenmerch wrote: post #52

I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct m…

> Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. I don't think this article even remote attempts this claim. The closest it gets is suggesting that if these defenses are too much trouble for you, then perhaps your use case for AI wasn't great in the first place. > but diatribes like this How is this a diatribe? There's nothing bit…

[flagged]

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#229

Post by handoflixue »

ulbu wrote: post #223
handoflixue wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to the alternatives This is a new one to me. Do you have any source for that? Once a model is trained, it seems pretty obvious that it takes Dall-E vastly less to create an image than a trained artist. I have trouble believing the training costs are really so large as to change the equation back to favoring humans.

It’s so ironic that you have this stance about the value of other people but you feel so humiliated by OP as to think they’re bullying.

I think you replied to the wrong post?

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#230

Post by arp242 »

RecycledEle wrote: post #207

When Gutenberg asked people what they thought of his printing press, they replied that it lacked the soul of a hand-copied book and they would never buy a book printed on it. Also relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&

Have you seen old manuscripts? They weren't wrong.

But "something vaguely similar to this"-type of argument is fallacious nonsense in the first place.

Post reply on HN