Well, i've heard our ancestors were afraid of books when they came out, then they were afraid of movies and cinemas, then some people were afraid of the internet. The story continues with AI.
Not by AI
241–250 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#242This is a good idea. I already did something like it to my works.
However, the items I added to my works have a stronger claim than 90% AI-free: I used "100% AI-free organic content."
I think I'll keep this stronger claim because I can; I have not tried any of these tools. Not even once. I refuse to.
I am betting on the fact that if I don't, I'll start to have more influence, like Paul Graham said a few days ago.
Re: Not by AI
#243Lol I had a similar idea and registered certifiedaifree.com and withoutai.com.
You could make one a registry of sites with such content, and the other another badge. If you make a new badge, you should make it a super retro-esque 90s era site badge.
Re: Not by AI
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many rational reasons for a person to see these questions differently to you and plenty of explanations of those reasons around. You may disagree with them, but to claim that differing views must spring from phobias or other irrational mental states rather from a different assessment of the evidence is baseless ad-hominem. I would strongly recommend avoiding statements of that form in general as they achiev…
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?…
The first paragraph is just a non sequitar anyway.
Re: Not by AI
#245> 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 a longstanding question: see The Anxiety of Influence
Re: Not by AI
#246> 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 imagine there'll be a lot more talk of the soul from a lot of techies from now on. Or at the least talk of the human touch from people who were erstwhile trying to get machines to automate everything.
Searching Google/SO for some obscure error message? Nah, thanks. I'll take the AI with no soul.
Re: Not by AI
#247a 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
I disagree. It's both. If I'm playing the piano alone in my room and nobody else listens to it, I'm still having the aesthetic experience called "art". Many people make art just for themselves without the intent of showing it to anybody else, and it's not somehow less artistic than something that other people see. Art is an experience somebody has, including the artist.
Re: Not by AI
#248Earlier 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?…
The first paragraph is just a non sequitar anyway.
Care to explain?
Re: Not by AI
#249Re: Not by AI
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Maybe they didn't stop, but they're converging towards zero. In the past hundred years, artists were coming up with a lot of things that had not existed for all of humanity. Nowadays, it's rare to find truly original style. The space has been explored thoroughly. It's also not just random search. It's no coincidence that most image generation prompts have an existing artist or style in them. If you leave it off, you…
>Maybe they didn't stop, but they're converging towards zero. In the past hundred years, artists were coming up with a lot of things that had not existed for all of humanity.
How do you distinguish this from survivorship bias? There were probably tons of shitty artists 100 years ago but you haven't heard of them.
> It's no coincidence that most image generation prompts have an existing artist or style in them.
I've been thinking about this. I don't think it's evidence that anything is getting worse, because a lot of the prompts people use are referring to recent artists/styles. Is it possible that leaving out the style/artist leads to an average of every style which doesn't really work?