How do you verify if badge usage is legitimate? People do everything for SEO
Not by AI
301–310 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#302How do you verify if badge usage is legitimate? People do everything for SEO
This is addressed on the page: https://notbyai.fyi/#legal-effect-of-not-by-ai-badge
> displaying the badge on any asset does not guarantee the content is not majorly created by AI.
Re: Not by AI
#303This is monumentally stupid lmao
Re: Not by AI
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 pis…
Jobs will be lost, people will still do it as a hobby. When I go for a swim or a run, I don't try to compete with general population, mostly try to improve myself. And that's what will happen for digital illustration and CGI business as well, to my understanding.
My glimmer of hope is if everything we see on a daily basis online is created by AI/AI-assisted tools, then we will go back to trying to be more creative in real life and our local surroundings.
Re: Not by AI
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you just copy and paste from Reuters then you're not a real journalist. ChatGPT can't travel to a war zone to find out what's going on there. So real journalists aren't going anywhere.
No journalist has a job where they spend all day copy/pasting AP/Reuters. This is a simplistic dismissal of the nature of working in a news organization. It would be akin to me saying that using code from a Stack Overflow response makes one 'not a real developer'.
Agreed, but only because I assume they’ve automated it.
Most small town papers are filled with verbatim Reuters reports.
Re: Not by AI
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unlike in the 80s - most programmers no longer need to know assembler/machine code to do their jobs. The skill floor has been lowered - so that programmers like me can get a job.
Yeah, that's a comparison I've been thinking about. C lowered the skill floor, and then Java/Python lowered it even more dramatically, plus the explosion of open source tooling, cloud infrastructure, and general hardware improvements. The average modern junior data scientist could build a software application in a day that would have taken a team of senior C developers months or years to build in 1990. Yet we have no…
I feel like the dev job may change, but as long as people have difficultly describing their requirements so that a programmer can understand, they'll have difficulty describing their requirements so that an AI can understand.
It's one thing to ask for a pong game, it's another to ask for a program that "does a kyc process" or something similarly complex
Re: Not by AI
#307Earlier 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…
If you need examples of creativity, look at the math. Math is full of the novel (at the time of invention) concepts: complex numbers, groups, automorphisms, etc., etc.
None of these concepts can be obtained by rearranging the "parts". Sometimes a new concept requires the invention of "parts" that had never existed before, and, in turn, becomes a "part" in the future inventions.
Re: Not by AI
#308I am a professional writer (not in English language), novels published, short stories and the like, some awards, etc, nothing fancy, nothing big. I pay bills writing for corporations and other customers. I just want to say that some answers here are like when artists talk about engineering, we simply don't understand the topic and it shows.
As someone who has been both an artist and an engineer I could not agree more. It's fascinating reading commentary on the arts from people who have always been STEM types because their entire concept of art is completely different from that of people who consider themselves artists. They constantly conflate creative problem solving and creative expression, which are two fundamentally different processes. I don't want to denigrate anyone here but I do sometimes get depressed by how artless people in the tech world are. I value art (in all its forms) because it connects human beings across space and time through our shared experience of the human condition. The best comment I've seen so far in this thread is the one about how AI art is meaningless because "AI doesn't fear death or loneliness."
Re: Not by AI
#309> 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…
"Why did innovation and creativity stop" because ideas are remixed is like saying when do the flowers stop blooming because the sun exists. The sun is an integral piece of why flowers grow.
Read How to Ride a Bicycle. Human creativity is just a lot of work, often connecting novel ideas together while doing so.
Re: Not by AI
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm not the one preserving the word 'remix' in this context, I just wanted to put it in the terms that GP was using. It certainly sounds more absurd when you use that word.
But the point is that human creations are always based on something else, so pointing out that AI is basing its output on a database of previous work does not necessarily mean that it is not creating new art, or being creative, or however else you want to put it.
It's like the ridiculous lawsuits that claim a song is stolen because it uses the same chord progression as an older song, where there are almost always centuries-old examples of that same progression from Beethoven et al.
Your point seems to be that the reasoning is absurd because it's defending an incorrect premise, and the premise is obviously wrong because the reasoning is absurd, so I'm not you'll want to know what the people on the other side of this discussion think.