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

271–280 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#271

Post by jareklupinski »

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…

Our language, Tiger, our language, hundreds of thousands of available words, frillions of possible legitimate new ideas, so that I can say this sentence and be confident it has never been uttered before in the history of human communication:

"Hold the newsreader's nose squarely, waiter, or friendly milk will countermand my trousers."

A Bit of Fry & Laurie Concerning Language: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MWpHQQ-wQg

Re: Not by AI

#272

Post by moffkalast »

teucris wrote: post #235
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’ve always interpreted statements like “there’s no such thing as an original idea” or “everything’s a remix” not literally, but rather as a reminder that new ideas are born from a cultural context and the ideas in it, using those ideas like a language of creative expression. I often take it a step further and use it as a reminder that new ideas are rarely born from one person but rather the contributions of many, ea…

Isn't the "no such thing as an original idea" point more about there being so many people alive now that one cannot think of anything that somebody else hasn't though of as well?

So many advancements (like the airplane) often get invented simultaneously by different people in completely different areas of the globe without any connection to each other.

Re: Not by AI

#273

Post by furyofantares »

nerdponx wrote: post #131
mjr00 wrote: post #35

Earlier 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…

The skill ceiling isn't higher. It's just in a different building next door to the current one. The same thing happened with the film to digital transition. The skill range didn't change, the set of skills itself changed.

The ceiling refers to what you can produce at the top end, not the specific skill used to achieve it.

Re: Not by AI

#275

Post by freejazz »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #196
freejazz wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

My point is more that, in the way the law works out, what you get to protect is the part of an expression that is unique to you, which can include mashups, etc. My point being that this is perhaps distinct from novelty, as novelty isn't a requirement of copyright, just independent creation.

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

Full stop yes. Independent creation of the same thing is not an issue in copyright law in the US. I do not speak about Euro copyright, as I'm merely a US atty. In US copyright law, a necessary element of infringement is access to the allegedly copied work - if access to the work is rebutted, then there is no copying and no infringement. The copyright stands.

Re: Not by AI

#276

Post by sandworm101 »

PurpleRamen wrote: post #125
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…

> 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…

>> Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works.

Copyright exemptions (fair use/fair dealing etc) are a million times more complex than that. There are times when one adds almost nothing yet will still get protection. Take political humor. A standard bit is just to point out something funny. Look at how often political comics (John oliver/stewart etc) just play a clip of some politician. No edits. No commentary. The clip speaks for itself. That is still protected speech. Understanding how the comic adds to the clip cannot be expressed in numbers.

Re: Not by AI

#277

Post by xdennis »

redox99 wrote: post #255
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…

I'm not sure what's your point. People that enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand will still be able to do that.

They can, but they won't be able to compete.

When photography replaced many of the uses of painting, some painting jobs were lost, but photography ones were gained. Now, many creative jobs will be done by computers, leaving the world less enjoyable for people who enjoy creating.

Sure, some people will continue to be creative, but look at what happened to art after photography: we got modern art, where people just piss on a canvas and sell it for millions based on the name of the artist alone, not the value of the art.

AI is progress in the same way nukes are progress: you have to get it or you'll be left in the dust. But is humanity better for it?

Re: Not by AI

#278

Post by telotortium »

simonw wrote: post #266
mikhmha wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Once you have an AI to also prototype the plugin ideas, such an idea list may become useful. I've always seen that the owners of any product have more product improvement ideas than they could economically implement.

Re: Not by AI

#279

Post by precompute »

Thanks, now they can find original works they can train on by looking for these images.

Anyway, I like the initiative. We'll need much more to make a digital divide that can guarantee human autonomy.

Re: Not by AI

#280

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

> 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.

I have things I have written that took me two years for 8-10 pages. I wrote them to help me think through certain things.

Could ChatGPT have written it for me? Maybe. Probably not, though - I kind of had to discover what the content was supposed to be.

Could it have written it better than I did in two years? Probably not. Two years leaves you a lot of time to polish the phrases.

Could ChatGPT have taught me what I learned in those two years? No way.

Post reply on HN