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

281–290 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#281

Post by glenstein »

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…

I have had exactly this argument before and this has always been my issue with the claim. I recall people saying this about music when I was in college, an example I find especially frustrating because, per my friends argument, all contemporary music is influenced by, say, Bob Dylan, the Beatles, 'the greats' etc, and nothing new can truly be created in the shadow of these classics. It's nuts because it ignores all of human civilization up to that point, and doesn't give credit to people in the present day for being able to be original.

But I think the way you have put it here is more clear than anything I've been able to manage. I think I put it in a more extreme form, which is to say that the earth had no life on it for ~3 billion years, and still no humans until ~100k years ago. At some point the first music was made. And if it could be original then, whatever it was that made that possible, should presumably make it possible now, too.

Re: Not by AI

#282

Post by originalcopying »

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…

it is like they say "there's nothing new under the sun, but maybe behind it?"

Re: Not by AI

#283

Post by rdlw »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #217
underyx wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say it's possible that there have truly not been any original ideas, and the earliest human ideas might've been just remixing observed natural phenomena. What would muddy the waters there is that humans are complex organisms that in turn exhibit naturally complex behaviors both on an individual and a societal level. And there's even emotions that we feel due to our biology. But if you define all these as phenomen…

No true original ideas and there was just remixing natural phenomena? Really? So writing was just remixing all the writing that people saw volcanoes and rainstorms do?

Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.

Re: Not by AI

#284

Post by telotortium »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #213
krisoft wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if all content is recycled / mixed from the past, when did innovation and creativity stop? And the obvious answer of course is that recycling / mixing can be innovative and creative. The dichotomy only exists in our heads. I believe this is because of how our culture choose to reward intelectual output. Your output needs to appear sufficiently original to be worthy of reward and protection. For example a musician w…

I feel like this heavily requires “citation needed”. There are plenty of these “inside the studio” type interviews where an artist describes at length their inspirations and the other artists they admired and wanted to mimic in some way.

I think this is mostly referring to the Blurred Lines verdict. On the other hand, artists have a strong incentive to record their songwriting and recording process, so that they can head off any potential disputes about writing credits from people actually in the studio (this situation is statistically much more likely than somebody not involved suing after the song's release).

Re: Not by AI

#285

Post by originalcopying »

soco wrote: post #259
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…

Copyright laws are a tool, not a reason by itself. They are aimed to give money to inventors, not to judge innovation. You can argue they do judge in order to accomplish their aim, but that's the byproduct, not the aim. So let's not give the laws more meaning and usage than they deserve.

on similar (I think) line of thought, but further along,

the reason to have property (also a tool, or social-technology to be slightly more precise), i.e. ownership over things is a byproduct of having a marketplace in which we can trade.

In this view, the marketplace (or trade, depending on your outlook) is THE WAY to come together and put all our skills together in order to co-create (con-struct) something much larger.

Alas, capitalism means that only a very few chosen elites (which are, by this point, mostly autonomous corporations) get to decide what we all work together to co-create. We as human individuals are only able to participate in this figurative "marketplace" (understood as a social-technology) as the part of merchandise, specifically as 'commodity'-style labor.

Re: Not by AI

#286

Post by tablespoon »

rdlw wrote: post #283
dinkumthinkum wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No true original ideas and there was just remixing natural phenomena? Really? So writing was just remixing all the writing that people saw volcanoes and rainstorms do?

Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.

>> No true original ideas and there was just remixing natural phenomena? Really? So writing was just remixing all the writing that people saw volcanoes and rainstorms do?

> Writing was a remix of pictorial representation, which was a remix of the way things like ox heads, flowing water, and birds look.

That's the kind of absurd reasoning when you take some proposition and try to defend it to the death even though its wrong.

Re: Not by AI

#287

Post by harpiaharpyja »

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…

I think the simpler answer is that GP's assertion is just incorrect, and that humans regularly create genuinely original content.

Re: Not by AI

#288

Post by prox »

sergeenJava wrote: post #185
prox wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t a few countries have a law/code for photoshopped models for instance at the moment?

Yes, for example in Argentina it's mandatory to add a text legend that warns if the human figure on a graphic publicity has been been retouched

That sounds like a good solution I think. “Warning : synthesized image : human, background, 50%”

Gives a bit info.

Re: Not by AI

#289

Post by natch »

This line of thought is harmful and helps nothing imho.

I thought I’d have an open mind and read the “why” section.

> it helps your audience recognize your human-first approach

So, no. Refraining from using AI is not a human-first approach, when using AI can actually help significantly with human problems.

The badge is a false and outmoded signal which says more about the user being a virtue signaling type personality.

Re: Not by AI

#290

Post by joseph_grobbles »

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…

[dead]
Post reply on HN