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

111–120 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#111

Post by YurgenJurgensen »

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…

Good artists create based on their experiences, not based on the content they have consumed.

Re: Not by AI

#112

Post by Kim_Bruning »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #52
can16358p wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the same. Many artists hate because they feel threatened. I think the opposite: creating art (e.g. Drawing) was only for the ones who had drawing skills. Now, it's being democratized and everyone, regardless of being talented in drawing or not, can freely express their feelings and creativity. I think it's a great thing.

Art is already the most democratically available act. Anyone can learn the skills involved. Its not a select few. It’s about expressing and finding yourself and developing a soul through creative action, not just a squirting out a picture that looks “correct”. You only shortchange your own soul’s development by trying to skip the hard steps that it takes to develop a skill like that. Because you can make an image on…

I disagree on the "entering a prompt" part. By a lot. I've been managing to get myself lost (and somewhat unlost) in latent space. Let me tell you, a latent space can be a big place all by itself, even if you stick to 1 seed.

Ultimately though, I realize that trying to get everything what you want from a single prompt won't work. Tokens have implications, and they influence each other too much. Long term, one needs more than just single prompts, and the tools are still evolving to support that.

Still, you'd be surprised at how much you can express even now.

Re: Not by AI

#113

Post by PurpleRamen »

gspencley wrote: post #50
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…

Philosophical food for thought: if all content is recycled / mixed from the past, when did innovation and creativity stop? In other words, if there is truly no such thing as an "original idea", then how did the ideas that we are pulling from, deriving from and combining come into existence? If all we are saying is that existing ideas inspire new ones, or that most human generated content is derivative, then I complet…

> Philosophical food for thought: if all content is recycled / mixed from the past, when did innovation and creativity stop?

Somewhere around 2016, when the golden Age of Internet-Content ended, as the last undiscovered part was added to the mix...

But jokes aside, does innovation really need to be new? Or would it still innovative if you don't know it when you create something you for you? Take for example all the retro-waves which regularly come back, where people discover something for them completely new, and make up some for them completely new things, which the generations for them already did long ago.

> In other words, if there is truly no such thing as an "original idea"

Does Original mean 100% new? And would it demand that all parts are new, or would it still original if we just arrange old parts in a new way?

Re: Not by AI

#114

Post by jaqalopes »

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

The "writers" who can benefit from AI are not artists. They might be bloggers or journalists or researchers. But there is no way that a generative AI can produce, say, your memoir for you. How could it? You have to say what happened. Your life experience can't be generated. Ditto for any sort of novel above the level of the most basic imitative genre stuff. I'm certain AI could spit out a perfectly passable airport paperback romance, for instance—but how could it possibly write Infinite Jest?

Re: Not by AI

#115

Post by quitit »

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

There's more oil painters now than at any time in human history.

New tools open doors, not shut them.

Re: Not by AI

#116

Post by omnicognate »

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…

There are many rational reasons for a person to see these questions differently to you and plenty of explanations of those reasons around. You may disagree with them, but to claim that differing views must spring from phobias or other irrational mental states rather from a different assessment of the evidence is baseless ad-hominem. I would strongly recommend avoiding statements of that form in general as they achieve nothing good.

I could make a similarly disrepectful and unsupported claim about the mental state of people who believe most human creative activity is simply recycling learned ideas, and we could spend some time flinging insults at each other, but why?

Re: Not by AI

#117

Post by Eupraxias »

NateEag wrote: post #105
sharemywin wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These seem pretty creative to me? are they? I'm not a fictional guy so I don't really know? can you be extraordinarily creative and unusual? Sure, here are five highly creative and unusual fictional creatures: Crystalline Leviathan: The Crystalline Leviathan is a massive creature that lives deep in the ocean. Its body is made entirely of iridescent crystals that refract light in all directions, creating a dazzling di…

I mean, in some sense these are creative. But they mostly read like someone churning out monster manual entries by pairing animal names with adjectives then putting in the obvious two sentences of description. Nothing about it engages my brain or strikes me as brilliant, insightful, or what I'd usually mean when I say "creative".

Agreed, and I think you've put your finger on the thing that no one is talking about.

Further, the complexity of creation with a complete lack of creativity is... really creepy to me, and does the opposite of inspire.

Re: Not by AI

#118

Post by version_five »

dale_glass wrote: post #77

I get the concerns with AI, but this kind of thing has always looked odd to me. Like imagine a label on a thing that says "Made without CNC machinery". So instead of finishing the thing on a CNC mill, they instead stuck it on a Bridgeport manual mill, and finished by hand. Or somebody finished the cast with a file. Okay, and so? In the end, a hammer is a hammer. If it hammers well, what difference does it make how it…

I can see a difference for creative works. I'd be more interested to know that I'm looking at something an artist did intentionally than something sampled from a manifold of similar works. Just like I'd rather (all things being equal) have a real drawing or painting than a print. You can make analogies in other art forms too.

And if someone is going to send me a sales pitch or email that GPT wrote, I'd rather they don't insult me and just send me the prompt.

I think tfa is a gimmick, but i see value in knowing whether I'm relating to a human brain or to a statistical model

Re: Not by AI

#119

Post by IceDane »

Very cringey. Not helped by how it also dictates how you should use it. Why do they care about the shape or the color?
Post reply on HN