Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You can just say it

noperator.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 241 posts

Re: You can just say it

#31

Post by skinfaxi »

jaggederest wrote: post #26
sbiru93 wrote: post #3

Incredible. Lately, I’ve been going through a bit of an identity crisis. I know I’m a passionate and not-so-bad developer, but with all this talk about AI, I couldn’t really understand if that was an end of an era for me. But while reading this article, something clicked, it makes so much sense. It really made me feel better.

I think this quote is highly relevant, though I would guess you, as I am, are by no means a beginner, the matter of taste is the one at hand, I think. Humans matter, and furthermore, human taste can't be replaced (yet? at all? why would we want to?) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to...

> human taste can't be replaced (yet? at all? why would we want to?)

People want to. People want to be told what to watch by an algorithm. They want music made by algorithms. They will eat whatever the reviews say they should. Reviews, etc are manipulated today. Why will future humans care what another human thinks? (I in no way endorse this view but the cynic in me sees it as almost inevitable in our AI-driven descent into idiocracy)

Re: You can just say it

#32

Post by turtletontine »

stavros wrote: post #18

[flagged]

> How are we sure there's no intent there?

We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something unconstrained", nor did it "muse about how it's drawn to impermanence", it pattern-matched to your prompt and produced a statistically probable response based on it's training data. Obviously, that's not to say that LLMs aren't useful or powerful - it's 2026, c'mon, of COURSE they are. And they can certainly be used for artistic purposes! But treating them like humans is a mistake, and it worries me how much people do. I suppose that's the natural consequence of the default interface to LLMs being a chat mimicking human interaction.

Re: You can just say it

#33

Post by gavinray »

"Humans are valuable"

For what, and to whom?

This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion.

I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness

This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.

Re: You can just say it

#34

Post by stavros »

turtletontine wrote: post #32
stavros wrote: post #18

[flagged]

> How are we sure there's no intent there? We are. Anthropomorphizing huge piles of numbers is a mistake. It did not "think about the chance to make something unconstrained", nor did it "muse about how it's drawn to impermanence", it pattern-matched to your prompt and produced a statistically probable response based on it's training data. Obviously, that's not to say that LLMs aren't useful or powerful - it's 2026, c…

[flagged]

Re: You can just say it

#35

Post by reaperducer »

cautiouscat wrote: post #19

This quote from the authors friend really hit home with me. > “If you’re going to use an LLM to write me an email, I’d much rather you just send me the prompt; at least then I’d have an idea of what you actually meant to say.” I’m not saying there’s no merit in adding a bit of politeness and professionalism to your communication, which I’m sure the prompt itself lacks. However the root of what you’re trying to convey…

Also I just find it a little insulting if someone sends me an AI response.

If you can't be bothered to write it, I can't be bothered to read it.

Re: You can just say it

#36

Post by xgulfie »

drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

Art is definitely being devalued by AI, today. I'm sure Banksy is fine but artists along the margins are competing with genAI

Re: You can just say it

#37

Post by [deleted] »

pasquinelli wrote: post #25
ilaksh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes beyond that. There is inherent classism in this, because it implies that you do not question the value of wealthy people who put in relatively little actual work output due to their privileged position. Take for example the unemployed person in your example who might have literally been 100 times more productive in their career solving substantive problems than a VC who lucked out on their startup and has bee…

see what you don't understand is that the owning class actually bring crucial long term strategic vision. i wonder though: we always talk of ai replacing the working class, but wouldn't it be more economical for ai to provide that long term strategic thinking? i'm sure the operating costs for ai would be way less than the operating costs of billionaires. everyone would be better off.

[deleted]

Re: You can just say it

#38

Post by akomtu »

pasquinelli wrote: post #25
ilaksh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes beyond that. There is inherent classism in this, because it implies that you do not question the value of wealthy people who put in relatively little actual work output due to their privileged position. Take for example the unemployed person in your example who might have literally been 100 times more productive in their career solving substantive problems than a VC who lucked out on their startup and has bee…

see what you don't understand is that the owning class actually bring crucial long term strategic vision. i wonder though: we always talk of ai replacing the working class, but wouldn't it be more economical for ai to provide that long term strategic thinking? i'm sure the operating costs for ai would be way less than the operating costs of billionaires. everyone would be better off.

If there is anything worse than the tyranny of greed, it is the tyranny of a machine that's trying to optimize you 24/7.

Re: You can just say it

#39

Post by [deleted] »

gavinray wrote: post #33

"Humans are valuable" For what, and to whom? This is a very anthropo-centric and hubristic view, in my opinion. I dont think a human life inherently has any more value than anything else that possesses phenomenal consciousness This of course makes me somewhat of a hypocrite as I eat meat, but you make some tradeoffs in moral resolve in the name of pragmatism and economy.

[deleted]

Re: You can just say it

#40

Post by dolebirchwood »

drooby wrote: post #21

There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport. People care about the creator. The source defines the work, the awe, and the emotional response. But almost all output outside that space is at risk of AI displacement. Corporations are amoral entities that optimize for profit, and they follow the law only as much as they must. The law is our collective action. We soci…

> There is a class of human output that will retain value regardless of AI capability: art and sport.

I can't speak about sports, but I'll share an anecdote about art.

A friend of mine shared an AI-produced song, and I was surprised by its quality. The producer credited Suno as the only tool he used, so I was curious to see what this thing could do. Paid for the pro plan and my wife and I were having a blast coming up with songs we'd like to listen to.

They were songs that neither of us were capable of making, but they were genuinely fun to conjure (I won't say "make"--we didn't make anything) and she listens to them in the car pretty regularly now. And when we want something new, we can just conjure up some more.

Yes, I know this is only possible because of the human-created music that served as the training data. I don't intend to comment on the morality/legality of it (although it's fair conversation to have). Just noting that some of us do actually appreciate AI music.

But maybe I'm exactly the sort of sucker from Huxley's "Brave New World" that he warned about. :)

Post reply on HN