Stupid purpose, made by AI or not shouldn't matter. What matters is creativity and if as human you can't beat AI's then you should question yourself.
Not by AI
171–180 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#172Seems like it’ll be on the wrong side of history when AI “people” have rights. Then these badges are like speciesist? Think of Data on Star Trek. He can’t make content with a human badge?
Re: Not by AI
#173This ignores that the selection of the generated results being published is part of the creative process. AIs will not learn off an iid sampling of AI output, but of one that is extensively shaped by human preference. And because humans like novelty this will never converge as rhose preferences are a moving target.
Re: Not by AI
#174> 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…
I think it's interesting to contemplate the process... when an AI tool "remixes" existing works to make a new work, is it "merely" using statistical processes to do so, or does it "understand" what it's doing?
But perhaps the process doesn't matter as much as the end result.
Maybe another interesting aspect to consider is: humans create new things (even if by remixing and deriving from old things) all the time, because they want to, because they choose to do so.
Thus far, these AI creations have been made at the behest of humans demanding them.
Perhaps that will, that desire, to make something new in the first place will remain a differentiating factor.
Re: Not by AI
#175Earlier 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…
Unlike in the 80s - most programmers no longer need to know assembler/machine code to do their jobs. The skill floor has been lowered - so that programmers like me can get a job.
Re: Not by AI
#176It feels like a good time to read this again about making music properly :)
> I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.
Re: Not by AI
#177> 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…
Creativity and innovation didn't ever stop.
Its only words and concepts and we keep inventing new ones constantly. We also imbue new meaning to words and concepts over time.
Re: Not by AI
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
The whole idea of "there is no such thing as an original idea" is utterly stupid. It's just a hyperbole and some people are taking it literally. Of course there are original ideas. "C is not an original idea, because it's just mixing A and B..." ok so there are only two possbilities: 1. Someone else did mixing A and B before. Okay then we can recursively find the first person who mixed A and B. 2. No one else did mix…
I think that most people are attached to the idea that humans have some type of "soul", even if they don't call it that. This soul, as the thinking goes, is completely separate from material reality, and allows people to have ideas that come "out of nowhere" and are not inspired by anything in particular. In this way, humans are supposedly different from machines, whose outputs are a mere function of their inputs.
This is the root of the objection to AI. To say that humans are similar would imply that a person's thoughts are a function of their sensory experiences, and that is not a popular view.
Similarly, people like to think that a person's behavior is not a mere function of their experience- that they are capable of "choosing" how to react to their circumstances. They will accept no explanation that appeals to material conditions or biology. A man steals bread not because he is poor and hungry, nor because of some chemical reaction in his brain, but because he "chose" to steal. The part that chooses would his "soul", which cannot be explained in terms of cause-and-effect.
Re: Not by AI
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Not if creators are paid nothing for their work. I think inescapably, the profession of writing is about to take a big hit from GPT-X, with the few remaining journalists paid considerably less than before. There will be an exodus of talent, leaving... Microsoft and Google to write our news for us?
If you just copy and paste from Reuters then you're not a real journalist. ChatGPT can't travel to a war zone to find out what's going on there. So real journalists aren't going anywhere.
Re: Not by AI
#180Earlier 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…
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.
> 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.
There was never anything stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and learning to draw. The idea there's some inborn "talent" for art is absurd. There is only people who practice and people who don't.
What you are actually "democratizing" is the ability to produce finished products without ever putting in any kind of work.
Which means you are absolutely devaluing the people who actually did put in the work.
It is a terrible thing. A miserable race to the bottom of human expression.