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

201–210 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#201

Post by mock-possum »

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…

Recycling / remixing content from the past *is* innovation and creativity.

Re: Not by AI

#202

Post by dinkumthinkum »

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…

This is overly reductionist. If you are struggling then your notion of recycled is too broad. But your day humans are shockingly unoriginal, I mean this seems to part of this new fashion to downplay anything done by humans as of it us trivial compared to some imagined alien race Kurzweil singularity thing or something. It’s a bit sad but it is not a very well-founded position.

Re: Not by AI

#203

Post by kmeisthax »

>Understanding that there is a blurred line between what is considered AI-generated vs human-generated, if you are a content creator, such as a writer, researcher, artist, music producer, sound designer, or filmmaker, and you estimate that at least 90% of your content is created by humans, you are eligible to add the badge into your website, blog, essay, publications, resume, or whatever your project is. The 90% can include using AI for inspiration purposes or to look for grammatical errors and typos.

This is subjective as all get out. If you write a novel and use Stable Diffusion to draw the cover, does that make the whole novel less than 100% human-generated?[0] What if they had used, say, lots of prompt engineering and inpainting runs instead of just typing in what they wanted and grabbing the first thing they saw? If, say, painting programs start using image generators as brush engines, does that lower the percentage more or less than the inpainting case?

[0] Keep in mind that most covers are designed and drawn by publishers, not the original writers. Writers making their own cover art is very much a self-publishing thing.

Re: Not by AI

#204

Post by thunderbong »

zemo wrote: post #187

a 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 th…

From an article posted here recently[0]

> Art is not what I think when I’m painting. It’s what you feel when you’re looking

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34921883

Re: Not by AI

#205

Post by ask_b123 »

brookst wrote: post #64
a254613e wrote: post #11

So 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.

It’s the same thing we heard from musicians who didn’t want to learn technology in the 70’s: using a synth or sequencer means it’s not “real music”. Those purists are mostly dead. Everyone uses technology in music today. And music is better for it.

There are still purist being born (not me tbf). And I'm glad for that.

Re: Not by AI

#206

Post by dinkumthinkum »

welshwelsh wrote: post #178
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…

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. Th…

No, this a straw man. The line of reasoning here, first, makes a lot of presuppositions about AI and it is overly reductionist about human intelligence. I see this comment constantly in all HN threads about AI, “humans intelligence is nothing but probabilistic sparks” or whatever just actually means.

Re: Not by AI

#208

Post by alfor »

We will soon have to accept that we are not special.

We are meat based, the new minds are silicon based.

They have different strengths and limitations than us, will surpass us in all cognitive abilities soon.

Our hardware evolved to help us survive and reproduce but the evolution is a slow process compared to the intelligent design we do.

AI will surpass us and build itself beyond what we can reason about.

We will do art and work because we like to do it, just like playing video games, no other reason will survive.

Re: Not by AI

#209

Post by JohnFen »

kmeisthax wrote: post #203

>Understanding that there is a blurred line between what is considered AI-generated vs human-generated, if you are a content creator, such as a writer, researcher, artist, music producer, sound designer, or filmmaker, and you estimate that at least 90% of your content is created by humans, you are eligible to add the badge into your website, blog, essay, publications, resume, or whatever your project is. The 90% can…

> If you write a novel and use Stable Diffusion to draw the cover, does that make the whole novel less than 100% human-generated?

I have never considered the cover art for a novel (or most books) to be a part of the novel. The thought that it might be never occurred to me. It's the packaging. So, in my view, such a novel would be 100% human generated.

Post reply on HN