161–170 of 456 posts
* If there is any kind of real value to having this badge, then people will just use it even if they're using AI
* Rejecting technological advancement is like begging for extinction
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, it's a tool. The skill floor, as in the minimum amount of skill to produce something passable, has been lowered -- dramatically lowered -- but the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result. It's similar to music. DAWs and samples didn't kill off music; instead, it made it easier than ever for a teenager with a computer and a passing interest in music to create a song and share it with a world. As a c…
> the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result the fear from the current professionals is that the new ai raised floor is good enough to be usable commercially, and thus, cut a chunk of economic value from the professionals. There is no fear that AI stops people with the intrinsic interest in creation to stop creating - their ceiling and productivity would sky-rocket as a result in fact. And it would be _the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The AI aversion has several reasons: 1) The output, while impressive on the surface, is bland and recycled. It will drag down the general level in the same manner that CGI has destroyed movies. 2) People don't want to consume AI generated content in the same manner that they generally don't watch Stockfish vs. Stockfish. 3) It is not phobia, it is disgust at humans being dehumanized. The phobia seems to be on the sid…
Regarding point #3. The problem people have with AI is that it is cheapening the things that make us "special". If anything I can draw, paint write, create, and pour my heart and soul into can be acceptably approximated by a "bot" in five seconds or less, then what do I have to offer to the world beyond my "work" output? The things that creatively inspire me have been commoditized in a way where it's exponentially ha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Perhaps opening the AI content firehose will force everyone to start carefully curating what they consume. This might actually be an improvement, and might be the way out of today’s limbo where crap content is snuck onto our plates half the time.
> 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…
For me, I actually really like that human content is recycled. The discussions around AI, art, and humans always talk about art as a separate product produced by the human. I feel like many pieces of art (not all, for example zombie realism) has a piece of the human inside of it.
An example I used in a comment in this post is Raymond Carver. His short stories are about blue-collar men in the mid-west. Carver was a blue-collar man from the mid-west. I find that interesting, and I liked that he pulled from his life experience to write stories.
I get very excited when I realize that the work I'm engaging with is recycled in some way. Like a song's chorus sharing lines from a separate artist, or a style that seems similar to a different writer I know. I love that. It makes me feel more connected to the creator and makes me like them more because we share similar interests.
An example that comes to mind for me are the manga Hunter x Hunter and Jujutsu Kaisen. The creator of Jujutsu Kaisen loved HxH and it 100% shows. The crazy powers, the complicated fights, the walls of texts explaining what happened in a fight, etc. All of those come from HxH and I love the creator was inspired by it. Sometimes reading Jujutus Kaisen makes me feel like I'm bonding with the creator over our mutual love of HxH.
With AI created work, I feel like we're missing the human touch. And as I pointed out in another comment here - I don't think it's hard to bring it back. Show me the prompts and the chat log. Why did you choose those prompts? Why did you ask the AI to write in X style? How does that X style make you feel?
On the other hand, maybe the AI prevents some of the human touch from coming through. I imagine much of the recycling that comes from humans is unintentional. The song you wrote on guitar has that riff not because you're copying a band, but because you've listened to so much 90s indie rock that you just make what you love - without realizing it.
Maybe in the future this changes. I'd love to see someone spend some time with an AI and mold it to such a way that what it produces can emulate the user's love and interests. Don't forget to show and share the chat log!
[EDIT]: To add onto this, I've actually done the above. I've played some text adventure games in the past, and I got ChatGPT to play with me. I told it that I had stat points (Health Points, Magic Points), that I had two types of attacks, and that there are three types of monsters. That experience invigorated me to write paragraphs on world building - just so I can feed it into ChatGPT and live in that world.
I seem some instances that are similar like this - but people just end up not sharing the prompts they feed into ChatGPT. I'd love to see those prompts. I've love to see what someone did to get ChatGPT to act a certain way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Art will continue to evolve with AI. Another argument I keep hearing (most recently from pg), is that we'll always need non-AI training data. That, too, doesn't follow. Training new models on synthetic data does not mean we get stuck in a particular mode or style. We'll continue moving, improving, and trying wildly new things. Bootstrapping with synthetic data doesn't block evolution - it enables faster evolution, ev…
People aren't angry/worried because they don't have a competitive advantage any more--people are angry/worried because they sense (I think correctly!) that AI will eliminate the part of their work that they find enjoyable. Artists, by and large, don't do art because they enjoy having art--they do art because they like /the process/ of producing art. If that process can be done faster and better by AI, then yeah, sure…
Then I spend 95% of my hobby time tediously sanding boards and applying finish and this is NOT the fun part of my hobby.
I will say the only time I've gotten compensation directly as been for the latter because nobody likes doing that stuff.
I'd say AI will make creatives into micromanaging middle managers, the type that gets way too involved in a critique of your every decision is still going to micromanage, they'll just be harassing an AI instead of humans.
Fundamentally the creative act of making book cover art has always been specification. You can say to an artist "make me a book cover looking like ..." or you can hire a guy and give him no direction and trust him to decide what to do. But the creative act was the specifying, not the mechanics of turning that idea into printing ready art.
Another problem you run into is AI is as currently produced, a groupthink enforcement technology, and most people will be turned off by that. The blandest least offensive corporate dining experience is likely McDonalds. How much do hipster foodies prefer going to McDonalds over ... anywhere else on the planet? AI can only create the ideal big mac, and you can make money shipping big macs, but only selling to poor people, everyone else wants something else, even if in a strict corporate inhuman sense its inferior in every way to a big mac.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a tool only when used as a tool, in the sense you're talking about. For example, I can write a sentence, and being a non-native English speaker, I can tell there's something wrong with it but I just can't place my finger. So I ask the AI to rephrase it for me. Now I can pick and choose an option from those the AI offered, or I can just keep my version if it turns out it's good enough. I feel this is an acceptab…
> Your DAW example would work if DAWs could generate samples, beats, and whole songs by the click of a button. But are you truly the author, then? They absolutely can, at least with 15-20 clicks rather than 1 at the moment. Drag in drum loop, drag in melodic loop, use Scaler2/Cthulhu/Captain Chords to come up with a chord progression, use a synthesizer preset to play the chords, drag in vocal sample, put on Ozone AI…
> 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.