There's a typo in the "Mission" section "Only by limiting the reliance on AI and continue to create original content can propel us forward as a species".
An AI wouldn't have made that kind of mistake
Not by AI
181–190 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#182A 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
Leaving out “soon”, there’s truth to that, but the immediacy really depends on how this generation of AI develops and where it encounters its limits. It’s not there yet and we actually don’t know how far these current advancements will take us.
It’s tremendously useful technology for many domains already and you can see the stepwise refinements that will permeate many parts of our lives. Big money corporations are productizing those elements already.
But to be as fair to the pessimists as the optimists, its actually still a very big leap from Modjourney and GPT-4 to something that becomes the next camera or typewriter in terms of ubiquity. Because we saw a huge leap recently, we feel close and excited — and we might prove to be in hindsight — but we also might see that there are some hard conceptual limits that we won’t see anyone break through for another fifty or hundred years.
Re: Not by AI
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 do…
> I'd rather they don't insult me and just send me the prompt. and the prompt makes no sense to you, because you are not able to interpret it the way you would interpret the generated output of said prompt. The information isn't in the prompt, and never was.
I think the correct response here would be to reply to sales emails with double the length of AI generated and leading-on text.
Re: Not by AI
#184Not 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.
I fully believe that once AGI gets in the hands of the common people, then internet communication will stop being as popular. At least communication in the form of talking to strangers online. It will be too hard to determine if you are actually talking to a real person or not. And people also may feel too worried that their likeliness will be used by an AI model to generate deepfakes of them.
Re: Not by AI
#185I 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?
Yes, for example in Argentina it's mandatory to add a text legend that warns if the human figure on a graphic publicity has been been retouched
Re: Not by AI
#186So cringy. Should we also add badges for doing it without autocomplete, syntax highlighting. Hell, why even bother with text, if you didn't develop it by punching cards then you're not a real developer.
I unironically agree
Re: Not by AI
#187a lot of people in this thread seem to have no understanding that some people enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand. Every framing in here to the tune of “everyone will use AI” is nakedly utilitarian. Sometimes people pain pictures or write not just because they enjoy the act. Sometimes people paint pictures or write because they want to communicate; not everyone will feel like they’re communicating from themselves when the words or pictures come from a machine. Generating content from a dataset is a way of exploring the dataset; generating content from within is a way of exploring yourself. They are simply different.
and fwiw, a lot of the assumptions in here are akin to saying at the dawn of photography that nobody would ever paint any more. Photography of course replaced certain entire categories of painting, but didn’t erase painting from the face of the earth altogether. Of course there are far more photographs than there are paintings, but volume alone is not the totality of meaning.
Generated content is strictly culturally regressive anyway. After a hundred years of ChatGPT will people still be writing prompts with “in the style of [person who produced all of their work before the year 2000]”? That would be a sad and boring future.
Re: Not by AI
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a GIGANTIC difference between a hammer and a button that when clicked builds a cathedral.
There's also a gigantic difference between spending 10+ years learning to play the drums and recording my playing at a recording studio, and dragging in a drum loop from Splice. Listeners don't seem to care either way.
Look into the history of drum machines. When they arrived in the late 70s, they sounded terribly mechanical. In the next couple of decades, small amounts of variation were added to make them sound more natural, the way many photographers today are adding artificial artifacts to photos that have been cleaned up too much by cameras' semi-automated post-processing algorithms.
But how sterile will art become? Already most people become inured to mass synthesthesia, where pureed sterilized Disney-fied content is fast becoming the unavoidable norm in so much of our media (e.g. pop and country music). Today's AI yay-sayers are receptive to a synthetically generated window onto the world are looking only at the first step in what will surely be a progression -- from a highly variable world of human-wrought artifacts to a homogeneous digitally simplified model of the world, one that will evolve into something ever more 'palatable', until... what? Is that a trend you would welcome?
Not I. Especially with Microsoft and Google and other gigacorporations calling all the shots in the absence of informed enforced guardrails to constrain how this rapidly evolves.
Re: Not by AI
#189Earlier 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…
There's a GIGANTIC difference between a hammer and a button that when clicked builds a cathedral.
And there remains a GIGANTIC difference between what AI does today and its version of a cathedral-button.
It’s a bit more like a hand crank that builds a lopsided toolshed at this point. Which is absolutely incredible, to be honest, and couldn’t have been anticipated by many people five years ago, but doesn’t necessarily entail that the cathedral-button will arrive any time soon.
We kinda have to be patient.
Re: Not by AI
#190Finally, someone could read my mind.