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

261–270 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#261

Post by xdennis »

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

> "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

The problem is that it automates the best parts and transforms the user into a curator/manager.

Some people want that, but other enjoy the creative part more.

To bring it back to photography, that's the problem with digital, you blast through hundreds of photos and spend most of your time selecting and editing at the computer.

With analog, and especially wet plate or direct positive paper, it takes a while to compose your picture and you only have one chance to take it and develop it. It's very easy to mess anything which is what makes the process more meaningful. And you're left with a unique copy, not an artificially limited single copy.

Re: Not by AI

#262

Post by tarkin2 »

siva7 wrote: post #246
tarkin2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It won't only be error messages people will use AI for, but the generation and regeneration of whole applications; that is, your job.

Re: Not by AI

#263

Post by tarkin2 »

chii wrote: post #54
tarkin2 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hand crafted goods have been a thing ever since industrialization of production started. recently, they market it as upmarket boutique to be handcrafted, and i suspect that ai generated content vs hand-crafted content is going to go down the same route.

Indeed. A very niche market, of course.

Re: Not by AI

#265

Post by zirgs »

jeffbee wrote: post #7

Your new mission as a human is to write is such a way that nobody suspects you are an LLM. When you are done writing, ask an LLM to write on the subject you have addressed, and if the output is similar, scrap yours and start over. If you need a badge to alert people to your humanity then you have been acting like a robot, a behavioral deficiency only you can correct.

Just use plenty of racial slurs, bigoted language and the like. Lobotomised AIs like ChatGPT won't be able to generate anything like that.

Re: Not by AI

#266

Post by simonw »

mikhmha wrote: post #230
simonw wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Really? I feel like if you have to ask what plugins to build you’re doing it wrong. You should know what plugins to build by being a user of Datasette and understanding its limitations for your self.

I know Datasette better than anyone else, and I still couldn't come up with 40 useful ideas in less than a minute.

Re: Not by AI

#267

Post by idle_zealot »

sandworm101 wrote: post #260
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…

>> I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. "A man with a new horse visited the hardware store in Dagwood last week to try and find a new hitching post for his stable." That simple sentence has enough entropy that I can say, with confidence, that is has never been uttered by anyone in the history of human civilization .

Right, and so do many sentences produced by LLMs. I don't think that's the bar anyone is using for originality.

Re: Not by AI

#268

Post by AnimalMuppet »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #126
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…

There's two variations, one stupid one not. The stupid one is "novelty no longer exists and maybe never did". You've covered it. The not stupid one is this question about the closure under creativity in the same sense that numbers are closed under multiplication and addition. Sure you can make infinite numbers, but you can never multiply and add your way to a cat, because a cat isn't a number. Is everything we do rea…

Your "deep question" fails to address gspencley's point: If everything we do is a rearrangement of basic known parts, where and when did we get the basic known parts? From cavemen? From apes? From protozoa? Someone, at some time came up with the basic known parts.

So, was that real creativity, or not? If not, why not? If the parts are really "basic", they didn't come from other, pre-existing parts.

And if it was real creativity, why is it impossible for us to do the same?

Re: Not by AI

#270

Post by gowld »

grog454 wrote: post #141
dale_glass wrote: post #77

I get the concerns with AI, but this kind of thing has always looked odd to me. Like imagine a label on a thing that says "Made without CNC machinery". So instead of finishing the thing on a CNC mill, they instead stuck it on a Bridgeport manual mill, and finished by hand. Or somebody finished the cast with a file. Okay, and so? In the end, a hammer is a hammer. If it hammers well, what difference does it make how it…

> In the end, a hammer is a hammer. If it hammers well, what difference does it make how it got that precise shape? "Hand made" has been a selling point since things were first made by things other than hands. Example: "The factory, known as the Ateller, [...] it is the place where our craftspeople assemble each BUGATTI by hand."

That's because "handmade" was a proxy for "high quality", in situations where machines lack the skill to meet tolerances and fine details and customization that humans can.
Post reply on HN