Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I don't want anything your AI generates

coryd.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–345 of 345 posts

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#341

Post by kixiQu »

logicprog wrote: post #308
jamieskella wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plot twist: that article was written by AI.

Well, was it? If you can't show that, this isn't an interesting, clever comment, you're just imagining to yourself an alternate universe where you're right. And I'd be surprised if it was, since LLMs are basically incapable of generating something that isn't vague, generic, and generally in line with common/average sentiments, by virtue of their reward function. AI writing might be indistinguishable from shitty human…

Whether or not they were joking, an AI did not write it. (I did; thank you for your comments!)

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#342

Post by _smfg »

logicprog wrote: post #183
_smfg wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been thinking about this a lot the last two years as someone who also grew up with social community online. It was life-changing for me too, but sometimes I catch myself wishing I could have had these experiences offline instead. I read this a few months ago and I still think about it all the time. Curious about your thoughts. https://maya.land/monologues/2023/08/12/social-media-chalk-m...

That was actually an amazing read, thank you so much. It reflects my thoughts on the matter pretty well — to use the analogy of the article, there are certainly some versions of social media that are poison, and online interaction may be less "socially nutritious" than in person interaction ceterus paribus , but things are rarely eever ceterus paribus! You have to take into account the relative barrier to entry of on…

Really beautiful comment. I agree wholeheartedly with all you said about the last and healthiest option, I've been intentionally doing it too and it's been rewarding, even healing :)

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#343

Post by davidthewatson »

cwillu wrote: post #314
davidthewatson wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

^^ THIS ^^ The middle road I've taken is that I use various consumer AI tools much the way I used the Macintosh or the Atari ST with MIDI when they showed up while I was in music school, as tools that may be used as augmentative technology to produce broader and deeper artistic output with different effort. There's something mystical and magical about relinquishing complete control by taking a declarative approach to…

Please don't do “^^ this ^^”, comments are reordered here.

Thanks for the reminder. I won't make that mistake again. I'm guessing the spatial affordance, for lack of a better phrase, of "^^this^^" arose with ephemeral comments on irc, but is clearly dependent on the message list being static, which is not true here; hence, the technique is out-of-place here. Good to know. Thanks again.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#344

Post by ToucanLoucan »

handoflixue wrote: post #340
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All of your objections are nitpicking about small, localized setbacks Small wars are still wars. No, we don't have any global conflicts with well-naturalized two-sides like the Axis and Allies of World War II, yeah, true enough. But that's not because war is done or distasteful: it's because global hegemonic capitalism now rules all of those societies and makes certain such wars don't happen between the countries t…

> the scale is irrelevant. Okay, seriously? You don't care whether 100 or 100,000,000 people die? You don't see ANY relevant differences between those two cases? It must be perfect, or else we haven't made any progress at all? I don't think I can help you understand the world if you really can't understand the difference there

You take ONE SINGLE POINT out of that entire post just to bitch about me making perfect the enemy of good?

My point isn't that 100 people dying isn't preferential to 100 million people dying. My point is that the 100 people died for stupid, stupid, stupid reasons. Specifically the ongoing flexes of the West over the exploited Global South.

Re: I don't want anything your AI generates

#345

Post by handoflixue »

ToucanLoucan wrote: post #344
handoflixue wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the scale is irrelevant. Okay, seriously? You don't care whether 100 or 100,000,000 people die? You don't see ANY relevant differences between those two cases? It must be perfect, or else we haven't made any progress at all? I don't think I can help you understand the world if you really can't understand the difference there

You take ONE SINGLE POINT out of that entire post just to bitch about me making perfect the enemy of good? My point isn't that 100 people dying isn't preferential to 100 million people dying. My point is that the 100 people died for stupid, stupid, stupid reasons. Specifically the ongoing flexes of the West over the exploited Global South.

Overall, I think you make a fairly convincing argument for all sorts of social changes - the problem is, that's not actually what you're advocating for.

> We ALL deserve progress. We ALL deserve to earn a living commensurate with our skills, and we ALL deserve to be supported, housed, and fed, and we already have the resources to do the vast, vast majority of it.

This is a great argument for UBI, or socialism, or... well, see, the problem is precisely that you never actually define anything actionable here. You've successfully identified a major problem, but your only actual proposal is "oppose AI artwork".

The problem is, "opposing one specific form of progress" doesn't actually do much at all to fix the issue. And indeed, if we had UBI or increased socialism/charity programs, then we wouldn't need to stop ANY form of progress.

And, of course, fixing the underlying issue is incredibly hard. We've tried Communism twice and proven that it's vastly more destructive. The Nordic Model seems to be doing well, but there's all sorts of questions on how it scales. And you're not actually proposing anything, so there's no room for the real, meaningful debate about those methods.

Post reply on HN