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

291–300 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#291

Post by varispeed »

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…

The difference is that AI is using pattern matching while humans use reasoning to come up with new things.

That means AI is not capable of producing meaningful _new_ content like discovering new mathematical theorems, because AI does not understand maths, whereas humans can come up with something meaningful based on _understanding_ of the content they have learned from.

This is why when you ask e.g. ChatGPT about something it has not been trained, it can only come up with garbage, whereas a human would likely be able to provide meaningful answer based on looking at the same training data, if that makes sense.

Re: Not by AI

#293

Post by asdff »

debacle wrote: post #84
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.

"Yes this AI generated forgot password flow is great, but it doesn't have soul ." I like it.

The chatbot should feel like it successfully battled inner demons earlier in life

Re: Not by AI

#294

Post by aaroninsf »

An analog to the sudden belated question of the extent to which human language is novel (or not),

is a precursor to a more existential revelation our culture is going to have,

the extent to which the entire precept of the rational self-aware agent that we carry as our model of ourselves, is a confabulated falsehood maintained by our own minds.

Most of what most of us do most of the time is habitual, instinctual, autonomic, pre-conscious, whatever—very few of us are present very much of the time.

Even highly-analytic complex logical reasoning can and does often transpire in something akin to a "fugue state," indeed that is a much-noted aspect of technical work like most here engage in.

That doesn't mean that we are not capable of genuine self-awareness, introspection, and methodical reasoned thought—but I don't think it's controversial (except in our lay conception) whether or not those things are primary or common modes of being in the world.

Record yourself for 24 hours and compare honestly the sequence of your utterances and behaviors with your internal record of agency, and you'll find you are on autopilot in some sense most of the time.

From this I infer that the first "real" seeming AGI will like us be not monolithic capable systems, but relatively loosely coupled aggregates, with many components serving as analogs to aspects of mind and embodiment largely distinct form and only loosely coupled to the "executive" function.

Re: Not by AI

#295

Post by Planktonne »

sharemywin wrote: post #90
sharemywin wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if people have actually tried prompting chatgpt for lists of creative things. make up a list of fictious creatures and describe them. make sure the names aren't reused.

These seem pretty creative to me? are they? I'm not a fictional guy so I don't really know? can you be extraordinarily creative and unusual? Sure, here are five highly creative and unusual fictional creatures: Crystalline Leviathan: The Crystalline Leviathan is a massive creature that lives deep in the ocean. Its body is made entirely of iridescent crystals that refract light in all directions, creating a dazzling di…

Those are all pretty standard, to be honest. Like madlibs for creatures, but with nothing really new.

This, I think, is the key bit of your comment:

> I'm not a fictional guy so I don't really know

HN (and wider social media) is filled with people who aren't familiar with [field] declaring that AI has surpassed humans in [field]; it's not a display of AI's new brilliance but the old[1] display of a speakers' ignorance.

Most of them don't display the same humility as you.

[1] https://xkcd.com/793/

Re: Not by AI

#296

Post by asdff »

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

There's shades to art of course. Not all photography is airbrushed digital stuff, and the mild stuff most people probably do, like changing the exposure curves around in photoshop or lightroom is basically akin to what photographers were doing when exposing prints from their negatives for the past 150 years, only with less time and no chemicals. Likewise, some people might be happy with AI generated fodder to read, others might want other things.

Re: Not by AI

#297

Post by datpiff »

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.

> in the 70’s

> Those purists are mostly dead

Genius argument there buddy

Re: Not by AI

#298

Post by hintymad »

> If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant.

I doubt if this concern is valid for humanity. Creating is an innate desire of human beings. We are going to have lots of AI-generated content, but I have confidence that people will continue to generate high-quality content too. Of course, how to find such quality content will be a different matter in the future. Maybe an industry-standard watermark or metadata for generated content is a cheap enough solution.

Re: Not by AI

#299

Post by throwaway_ab »

Humans will not stop creating due to AI, instead AI produced works and AI assisted works will contribute to the total human output alongside non AI works.

No need to make websites or manifestos, do not worry humans will still human!

Re: Not by AI

#300

Post by asdff »

miklosme wrote: post #28

> If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant. These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.

That's only because the Netflix bean counters end up working like an AI in their ends. AI trains on known things and outputs something from that finite set. Netflix bean counters similarly bet on known things or derivative things and the output reflects that. The difference is, scripts for the unknown things still occasionally get produced in this later situation, which is exponentially more than can be said if 100% of our content came from AI.
Post reply on HN