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

321–330 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#321

Post by bloak »

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

In a test of verbal reasoning, photographer is to Photoshop as writer is to ...?

I don't think "AI" is the way most people would complete that sentence. Perhaps "Word"? Or "LibreOffice" if "Photoshop" were replaced with "Gimp"? Personally I use Emacs or Vim. You could incorporate AI into any of those tools, but how exactly? And would it be a core part of the functionality? And would it be something that the best artists make much use of?

If you used AI to make the spelling/grammar checker more reliable, probably most people would use that (assuming no privacy problems), but if there's an AI-driven autocomplete for sentences probably a lot of people, including the best artists, would turn it off, just like I turn off the autocorrect on a word processor today.

If an AI can complete the sentence, then perhaps the sentence isn't worth completing, at least if we assume that the reader is as clever as the writer and has similarly sophisticated tools. Perhaps the AI-driven tool should instead put some kind of wavy line under the second half of the sentence to indicate that it's boring and obvious and doesn't need to be there.

Re: Not by AI

#322

Post by dwringer »

tiborsaas wrote: post #176

It feels like a good time to read this again about making music properly :) > I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins w…

Can confirm as a musician this is a very natural progression. Amazing what people out there can do when they are willing to bend some of the rules though. ;)

Re: Not by AI

#323

Post by lxe »

The biggest misunderstanding is that AI content ends up being limited in scope and creativity, and endlessly recycling AI content and feeding it back into more AI will somehow create a world where all content feels cookie-cutter. This is far from the truth.

Re: Not by AI

#324

Post by KodingKitty »

I was tempted to do something similar. But then I changed my mind for a simple reason. Because nowadays all kinds of content and technology is labelled as AI. Sometimes even if it hasn't been touched by AI at all. So I decided not to label anything I do because it is done by humans.

Anyway, nice idea. I like it. Kudos to you.

Yours, KodingKitty

Re: Not by AI

#325

Post by freejazz »

sandworm101 wrote: post #276
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…

>> Basically you evaluate how much work and change went into something, to distinguish it from other works. Copyright exemptions (fair use/fair dealing etc) are a million times more complex than that. There are times when one adds almost nothing yet will still get protection. Take political humor. A standard bit is just to point out something funny. Look at how often political comics (John oliver/stewart etc) just pl…

You are confusing the "copying" analysis element of infringement, with the affirmative defense of fair use. They are not related. A necessary element of proving infringement is showing what was copied, which most likely requires the court to construe exactly what is covered under a given copyright.

Re: Not by AI

#326

Post by pwpw »

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…

Your comment immediately made me think of The Beatles. They are responsible for so many original things. They launched the album era and invented the concept album. They brought in entirely new instruments into rock music. They changed the culture around sexual expressiveness, and they introduced the western world to eastern philosophies.

But when you start to scrutinize everything they did, there are many clear examples of things and people that did those things first and directly influenced them. However, they may have been the first to do it in their specific flavor, which is undoubtedly original.

The most original thing I can think of that The Beatles did was add sound to the runoff track at the end of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, so that it keeps playing the sound infinitely until the needle is removed on the turntable. I’m sure someone with more insight can point to another musician doing that first, but at The Beatles’ scale, we collectively come to believe they were the first to do it.

Re: Not by AI

#327

Post by luplex »

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…

Today's AI doesn't learn, but Future AI will for sure be able to learn from novel experiences

Re: Not by AI

#328

Post by radlad »

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…

What I find amusing is not the statement you quoted, but this one:

> The Not By AI badge is created to encourage more humans to produce original content and help users identify human-generated content.

How does this encourage humans to produce more original content? It may help users identify human-generated content - if they care. But perhaps more usefully it helps AI identify human-generated content to avoid training on its own garbage.

Re: Not by AI

#329

Post by sorokod »

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…

> I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past.

The word "recycled" attempts to carry a lot of weight here, and not successfully.

In 1905 Einstein published his famous four papers that could not have existed without recent work done by Planck, Michelson, Morley and Maxwell.

It would be ridiculous to describe those papers as recycling.

Re: Not by AI

#330

Post by pwpw »

mjr00 wrote: post #35
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

Exactly, it's a tool. The skill floor, as in the minimum amount of skill to produce something passable, has been lowered -- dramatically lowered -- but the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result. It's similar to music. DAWs and samples didn't kill off music; instead, it made it easier than ever for a teenager with a computer and a passing interest in music to create a song and share it with a world. As a c…

> As a consequence, though, the standards for mixing and mastering have gone up massively; people don't really tolerate bedroom recordings with $10 mics any more.

I don’t find this holds true for hip hop, the most streamed genre, whatsoever. There are countless examples of people making it big recording on a cheap mic in their mom’s bed room. One example is Chief Keef. A much more prominent example is Kanye who had terrible mixing on The Life of Pablo to the point where he released patches[0] for the album. He also recorded parts of Jesus is King on an iPhone[1]. To further the point, bootleg recordings and demo tapes of unreleased songs in artists’ back catalog continue to be popular with devoted fans. Average people like good music, even if the quality of the mixing and mastering is not stellar.

Even The Beatles released songs with minimal takes from a live rooftop performance on Let It Be; hardly an ideal recording set up. Although they surely had better mixing.

[0] https://archive.org/details/2016-the-life-of-pablo-updates

[1] https://genius.com/a/kanye-west-says-20-percent-of-jesus-is-...

Post reply on HN