Not by AI • Hacker News Board

Re: Not by AI

#341

Post by tablatom » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

bogwog wrote: post #152

Spivak wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you just go into the Midjourney Discord you'll see people with absolutely no mechanical artistic talent be create absolutely stunning novel art. The creativity people have there is crazy and the AI is letting them go from head to canvas in a few seconds.

When I see AI art from those communities, it all looks the same to me. People tend to overestimate their talent, and get overly attached to their own ideas. So when a tool like midjourney/stable diffusion generates beautiful artwork based on a low effort prompt from the user, it's comfy to think that they had a big part in it. The reality is that almost everything those tools make is equally gorgeous/amazing regardle…

> as art it's pretty worthless

My experience browsing midjourney supports this. It's amazing how quickly you go from "wow" to "whatever". But that's probably cold comfort for a huge number of jobbing illustrators. Paying clients typically don't want art.

Re: Not by AI

#342

Post by explaininjs » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

buggy6257 wrote: post #337

brookst wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nobody said anything about people born in the 70's. They said "musicians who didn’t want to learn technology in the 70's", which is clearly different.

Those musicians were probably 30+ in the 70's, making them 83+ now. Life expectancy of someone who reaches 30 is 48 years, so yes: most of them are dead now.

Re: Not by AI

#343

Post by contemplatter » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:09 PM UTC

hackerbrother wrote: post #311

gspencley wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Great song, but isn't it just a derivative of songs that came before it? Nothing creative here.

Re: Not by AI

#344

Post by lisp-pornstar » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:11 PM UTC

Makes me think about Real humans [0], in which artificiality becomes a political issue. I only saw the original swedish version of the show.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Humans

Re: Not by AI

#345

Post by TootsMagoon » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:12 PM UTC

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…

Our universe operates under deterministic laws, meaning that all events are the result of cause and effect. As such, all new phenomena and entities arise from the preexisting conditions and interactions within the universe. In other words, nothing can come from nothing, and everything that emerges is a product of what already exists.

Re: Not by AI

#346

Post by goatlover » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:22 PM UTC

IIAOPSW wrote: post #126

raincole wrote: post #104

Earlier 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…

All the advances relying on new concepts and discoveries or inventions in science, math, logic and technology would suggest that the basic known parts are not set. So yes, there's been plenty of genuine novelty. Culture as well as new forms of music, food and entertainment come into existence. New words are always being coined as languages are fluid.

Re: Not by AI

#347

Post by dudeinjapan » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

The grand irony is if these ugly badges are widely adopted, AI will plaster ghosts of them just like it does with the "Getty Images" watermark today.

Re: Not by AI

#348

Post by originalcopying » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #313

originalcopying wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

nevermind

Re: Not by AI

#349

Post by offsky » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:23 PM UTC

Ironically, the badge sounds robotic "written by human". How about "written by a human" to make it grammatically correct? And while we are at it, why are the letters AI the biggest thing on the badge? Seems backwards. I suggest flipping the emphasis so "written by a human" is bold and the "not by AI" part is smaller to indicate its inferiority.

Re: Not by AI

#350

Post by munificent » Thu, Mar 16, 2023, 6:28 PM UTC

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

The problem with analogies is that you can pick one to say whatever you want. The analogy isn't necessarily true just because it feels right.

Asking a photographer if they use Photoshop creates a framing where the artist still did went out and took a picture to create the work and then Photoshop only modifiers their original creation.

But you could just as easily say "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they have a camera". That sounds ludicrous, but that is exactly what generative AI offers: the ability to create content essentially ex nihilo.