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

331–340 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#331

Post by krisoft »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #213
krisoft wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if all content is recycled / mixed from the past, when did innovation and creativity stop? And the obvious answer of course is that recycling / mixing can be innovative and creative. The dichotomy only exists in our heads. I believe this is because of how our culture choose to reward intelectual output. Your output needs to appear sufficiently original to be worthy of reward and protection. For example a musician w…

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 feel like this heavily requires “citation needed”.

You might have missed that I was stating my belief. I can only cite myself as the ultimate authority on what beliefs I have or don't have.

If instead of believing something I will know something you will notice from the lack of "I believe" and the appropriate citations. If we would need to provide citations for any belief we could not talk about theories and ideas we have which as of yet lack the sufficient evidentiary backing.

Now of course it sounds like what you are trying to express is that you are disagreeing with my belief. Which is perfectly fine.

> 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.

Yes. Humans are full of contradictions therefore you won't see black-and-white behaviour from them.

Re: Not by AI

#332

Post by woah »

xdennis wrote: post #277
redox99 wrote: post #255

Earlier 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…

Are you saying that photography is a bad thing?

Re: Not by AI

#333

Post by woah »

kredd wrote: post #304
xdennis wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Pretty messed up that it used to be that you'd put hard hours into running and exercising and then you could be faster than anyone else in your village, and now any asshole can just sit on a horse

Re: Not by AI

#334

Post by LordDragonfang »

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…

I mean, if the examples are to be believed, GPT4 seems to be able to explain what's funny about a given image. It's not out of the question that it or some future iteration could reduce that very thing to a discrete set of numeric scores.

Re: Not by AI

#335

Post by ihaveajob »

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…

People have been saying this for millenia.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes%20...

Re: Not by AI

#336

Post by lukko »

xdennis wrote: post #261
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

> "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 The problem is that it automates the best parts and transforms the user into a curator/manager. Some people want that, but other enjoy the creative part more. To bring it back to photography, that's the problem…

Yep, exactly - I think people generally regard artistic work as getting to a successful end result. When actually the process of creating something, and potentially wrecking something at any moment, is usually the most fun / exciting and fulfilling part. That magical process is lost with AI generation.

Re: Not by AI

#337

Post by buggy6257 »

brookst wrote: post #315
datpiff wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

People born in the 70s are 53 at most. They are almost certainly not "mostly dead" yet.

Re: Not by AI

#338

Post by rambambram »

KodingKitty wrote: post #324

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

> So I decided not to label anything I do because it is done by humans.

I also liked the idea behind the label, but on second thoughts the whole idea behind a label sounds counter intuitive to me. Like there's some kind of truth in sticking a label on something. So, should I trust a label then? Is there some authority in a label? Do I even need authority to point out what's real and what's not? What's reality then? Does it even matter? Anyway, you get the point. A lot of questions.

And then I read further on that site, and it tells me how to use the label. Don't change the label. Don't change the color, don't change the text. I think it's human to break rules, in one way or another. Or at least to push the boundaries. So - to me - it's more human to change this label, and not use it as intended by the creator of the label.

Maybe that's the difference between AI and humans. AI will follow rules (set by it's masters), whether it allows for randomization or not, it will follow rules. Human beings - sometimes - break rules.

Re: Not by AI

#339

Post by nonbirithm »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #312
Kim_Bruning wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't think that if you want to accomplish art, you have to enjoy the process of these specific modes of art or you're failing yourself. And I think that's what a lot of AI artists want, is to have the results, and a big portion of that problem has been solved.

And saying that, I don't disagree with the idea that learning how to draw causes a larger mental development than writing prompts, and that prompters will forever miss out on that human development. It's just that not all people are motivated enough to "climb the mountain" of being a decent enough illustrator, whether hobbyist or professional. Some of them are happier with the process of getting decent results quickly than stumbling over themselves for years just to reach the point of what AI can accomplish now. Maybe the process of drawing is painful because of the way they treat the process, discouraging them from persisting, but it's hard to change people, and they're capable of defining failure on their own terms. And those people will always exist. Not everyone who wants to draw will end up enjoying it or succeeding after their preconceived notions are shattered. That in my mind means there will always be a target audience for generative art tools.

I think AI art could reveal a lot of diminished self-confidence towards life in general, and I could imagine that some portion of the people flocking to the generative programs would have become manual artists if they believed in themselves more, but they don't, and AI has won them over because they get to skip steps to have the result. Maybe they didn't want to do though the challenges of self-development to gain a new skill, but imagined artistry as nothing more than a fun hobby, and AI art aligns with that notion (mistaken or not) than doing months and months of practice, in a way that no technology has been capable of up until this point.

But does that mean those people have failed as artists and soul-searchers? I think that's still up for debate. AI could quickly become the new kitch (if it isn't already) but they're happy creating it, and many are happy consuming it. I don't define myself as an artist and have no insights as to the "value" of AI art as opposed to human art, since I'm a programmer who's stumbled into this other world and I feel that's a domain I shouldn't be making solid declarations about. But I believe both types of art have their place. Maybe a collaborative project between artists of both denominations would be useful in showing the unique qualities of both styles of creation.

Re: Not by AI

#340

Post by [deleted] »

simonw wrote: post #266
mikhmha wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I feel like if you have to ask what plugins to build you’re doing it wrong. You should know what plugins to build by being a user of Datasette and understanding its limitations for your self.

I know Datasette better than anyone else, and I still couldn't come up with 40 useful ideas in less than a minute.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN