Not by AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Not by AI

#311

Post by hackerbrother » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

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…

There's nothin' you can do that can't be done

Nothin' you can sing that can't be sung

Nothin' you can say, but you can learn how to play the game

It's easy

Nothin' you can make that can't be made

No one you can save that can't be saved

Nothin' you can do, but you can learn how to be you in time

It's easy

All you need is love

Re: Not by AI

#312

Post by 52-6F-62 » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:18 PM UTC

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #112

52-6F-62 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art is already the most democratically available act. Anyone can learn the skills involved. Its not a select few. It’s about expressing and finding yourself and developing a soul through creative action, not just a squirting out a picture that looks “correct”. You only shortchange your own soul’s development by trying to skip the hard steps that it takes to develop a skill like that. Because you can make an image on…

I disagree on the "entering a prompt" part. By a lot. I've been managing to get myself lost (and somewhat unlost) in latent space. Let me tell you, a latent space can be a big place all by itself, even if you stick to 1 seed. Ultimately though, I realize that trying to get everything what you want from a single prompt won't work. Tokens have implications, and they influence each other too much. Long term, one needs m…

I don't think I would be surprised. You're just removing your own inherent and vast set of input and modelling parameters from the equation and offloading it to a more rigid model.

You're already the most complex model and model-maker—the procedure of developing a skill through a creative feedback loop and its output can be vastly more edifying for yourself and others. Don't take my word for it. You can only know by doing it.

These models have their place as useful tools, but are in no way a replacement for the experience of creating and all its challenges. You can't climb a mountain by paying someone else to do it for you. That analogy begs the question—what is the true value in climbing a mountain? What is the value in creating?

Re: Not by AI

#313

Post by SuoDuanDao » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

originalcopying wrote: post #285

soco wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 lar…

Do you have an alternative to suggest? Under most of human history the chosen elites inherited their positions from an ancestor who won an important war. Capitalism may not be an even playing field but the process that lets Elon Musk build landing Rockets is an order of magnitude more even than the process that let Kuresh build pyramids. Is there a model that might be more even still?

Re: Not by AI

#314

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

mjr00 wrote: post #127

kif wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a tool only when used as a tool, in the sense you're talking about. For example, I can write a sentence, and being a non-native English speaker, I can tell there's something wrong with it but I just can't place my finger. So I ask the AI to rephrase it for me. Now I can pick and choose an option from those the AI offered, or I can just keep my version if it turns out it's good enough. I feel this is an acceptab…

> Your DAW example would work if DAWs could generate samples, beats, and whole songs by the click of a button. But are you truly the author, then? They absolutely can, at least with 15-20 clicks rather than 1 at the moment. Drag in drum loop, drag in melodic loop, use Scaler2/Cthulhu/Captain Chords to come up with a chord progression, use a synthesizer preset to play the chords, drag in vocal sample, put on Ozone AI…

[deleted]

Re: Not by AI

#315

Post by brookst » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:21 PM UTC

datpiff wrote: post #297

brookst wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don’t understand the point of your insulting response. Younger generations grew up with technology. Just being part of music. Music goes on just fine, nobody makes that stupid argument anymore.

Re: Not by AI

#316

Post by brookst » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

ask_b123 wrote: post #205

brookst wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are still purist being born (not me tbf). And I'm glad for that.

Are there really still purists who don’t just reject technology for their own music, but who insist that any music that uses technology is somehow not real art? I haven’t met anybody like that in 30 years.

Re: Not by AI

#317

Post by xdennis » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:22 PM UTC

blueboo wrote: post #96

Ironically, this celebration of originality itself recycles a now-familiar, incorrect meme—that generative AI just interpolates/remixes/collages between existing work. It does a lot more than that. It is capable of novelty and striking out in novel directions per the AI artist’s direction. Maybe there’s some soul-grounded capital-t truth forever out of reach, but that’s metaphysics.

It only appears novel because it mixes so much data.

People have always wondered if even people are creating anything new ("nothing new under the sun"), so it's quite silly to say that a model which produces data based on its training set and prompt is doing anything other than mix.

Some day AI will be able to create by itself, but the current state of the art isn't doing it.

Re: Not by AI

#318

Post by krisoft » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:23 PM UTC

telotortium wrote: post #284

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> I think this is mostly referring to the Blurred Lines verdict.

Interesting. I was mostly referring to the "Shake It Off" and the "Thinking Out Loud" copyright cases.

Re: Not by AI

#319

Post by sklivvz1971 » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

> Artificial Intelligence (AI) is trained using human-created content. 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.

This is an absurd thought. AI content is still created by humans using AI, just like photos are created by humans using cameras.

Also who says that AI can't be as creative as humans or better? Why would humans be better at being creative "manually" instead of with machines?

I say AI creativity will be better than simple humans at creating stuff. Humanity will overall benefit from it and the world will be less dull.

Re: Not by AI

#320

Post by gregschlom » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 5:28 PM UTC

Plot twist: this is secretly sponsored by some of the big AI players so that they can easily identify original human-made material to train future versions of their AI on.