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

191–200 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#191

Post by lukko »

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

I don't think it's like any tool that has come before in that it can take much of the decision-making process away from the artist - it is much more like hiring someone to paint a picture than using Photoshop.

For image-making, there is a decision in the prompt and selecting images, but that is very different to making a decision about each color and brushstroke, and working to finish a painting. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and why great masters are celebrated. Creating stuff with AI will suit certain people, I definitely don't think necessarily the 'best' will automatically use it. It does seem to take away a lot of the fun of making images and truly original work will always push quite far outside the training set.

Re: Not by AI

#192

Post by bluefirebrand »

Riverheart wrote: post #32
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.

Hard disagree. Most people can draw if they put in the time but they don't. Artists did and bet their careers on it but now their effort is being trivialized by people who want a bot to "draw the owl". This is all explained well by "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". People apply their childhood drawing symbols to realistic art in their teenage years and get frustrated. They never learn to see with an artistic…

I used to think I was not "talented" at drawing until a girl I was dating gave me that book to read.

I was skeptical at first but after going through a couple of the drawing exercises I was convinced. They are so cleverly constructed to make you step outside of your normal brain and just draw, it's kind of amazing the results.

I'm never going to be an artist professionally but I do actually draw as a pastime now and I have improved substantially.

I think if I had practiced more as a kid and teen I may have pursued art professionally.

Part of the problem is that adults see a kid upset that their drawing isn't very good and say things like "That's ok, you're just not an artist. Not everyone can draw" and people internalize that. It's supposed to make the kid feel better and it might cheer them up in the moment, but it also convinces them that they cannot learn to be better at things they are not immediately good at.

Toxic Feel-Good shit.

Re: Not by AI

#193

Post by roywiggins »

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…

Okay, but if that's true, does that make all figurative art remixes of these? That seems like a stretch. And where did they come from?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurine?wprov=sfla1

Re: Not by AI

#194

Post by korax_nyx »

I am a professional writer (not in English language), novels published, short stories and the like, some awards, etc, nothing fancy, nothing big. I pay bills writing for corporations and other customers.

I just want to say that some answers here are like when artists talk about engineering, we simply don't understand the topic and it shows.

Re: Not by AI

#195

Post by kif »

tiborsaas wrote: post #176

It 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 w…

The way to properly make it is to have someone else make it and claim it as your own :)

Re: Not by AI

#196

Post by PurpleRamen »

freejazz wrote: post #155
PurpleRamen wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For some incomprehensible reasons, people seem to accept "mixing A and B is not a new idea because A and B already exist." Like... why? In copyright-law (and I think patents?), there is the Threshold of originality. Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Which IMHO comes down to how much of a and b can you still see in the mix, and how much did mixin…

Copyrights don't protect novelty. Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright. You cannot do that in patent. Only one is an invention in the eyes of the law. The threshold for originality in copyright is the bare minimum, so it's not a good standard for "invention". Patents have a much higher bar to overcome, and it is hard to put into a simple explanatory phrase. I think what…

> Copyrights don't protect novelty.

Yes, and no. I can't speak for laws in the USA, as I'm from Europe. But Copyright-laws in the EU do have parts which specifically target mixing and mashups of content, and how much new content of your you need to add to make it count as a separate work. These parts were recently updated, because of YouTube, the meme-culture and so on. But it's my understanding that for music and text-quotes, the whole concept is already longer around. So I guess US-Laws do have something like this too?

So of course, this does not handle novelty on a global scale for all of mankind's knowledge and content, but the general Idea and how to handle it is there.

> Two people can independently create the same thing and both be entitled to copyright.

Similar maybe. But for literally the same, I doubt it. People are getting already sued for having too much similarity.

Re: Not by AI

#197

Post by shwoopdiwoop »

Setting aside the conceptual criticism, the execution of this badge is also done poorly.

If the goal is to highlight creation by humans, I’m struggling to see how slapping a big fat sticker that says “AI” in large type on it would be a good idea?

All it does is give AI more attention and associates the work with it.

Re: Not by AI

#198

Post by donatj »

omnicognate wrote: post #159
donatj wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear me out. In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word. It is to believe the mind to be non-functionally pure[1] in the programmatic sense. Output based somehow other than purely on input. And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from? A random number generator?…

This is a profoundly counterproductive way to approach a debate and I won't engage with it.

I don't see how coming at a debate from first principles is somehow counter productive?

Shining light on the unsupported parts of the other person's argument is step one of debate.

I contend there is no proof of a machine capable of creation purely from the ether.

Re: Not by AI

#199

Post by simonw »

fsflover wrote: post #123
raincole wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 2. No one else did mixing A and B before. The "Mixing A and B" is a new idea. With such definition, GPT-4 can create new ideas.

I'm finding it spectacular for generating ideas. Ask it for "40 ideas for plugins I could build for Datasette" for example. The results are comparable to what I've seen from a meeting room full of humans for an hour, but GPT-4 generated them in less than a minute.

Re: Not by AI

#200

Post by noobermin »

andrewfromx wrote: post #172

Seems 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?

Do you think half of the people using the tools now want them to have rights once they achieve AGI? The entire point of these people are going for is they want a race of slaves because enslaving humans is now illegal.
Post reply on HN