If this gets popular enough, then AIs scraping the Internet will get trained to insert the badge in their content.
Not by AI
351–360 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#352Lol, "Not by AI" badge can be officially used on works that are 10% AI.
Re: Not by AI
#353Earlier 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…
I'd say it's possible that there have truly not been any original ideas, and the earliest human ideas might've been just remixing observed natural phenomena. What would muddy the waters there is that humans are complex organisms that in turn exhibit naturally complex behaviors both on an individual and a societal level. And there's even emotions that we feel due to our biology. But if you define all these as phenomen…
The earliest humans didn't know everything we know today. How could they had any ideas about digital simulations, branching timelines or nuclear war?
There's a million things today that didn't exist back then, and many things that came to exist culturally over time, or were discovered. Do you think they were sitting around the fire talking about how the molecular motion registers as a conscious heat sensation in animals or what the proper interpretation of QM is?
Re: Not by AI
#354I scripted a tutorial video, recorded it, and edited it. Then I used WhisperAI to generate a transcript for subtitles . The question is: can I use “not by AI” on the video, or did using AI for the transcript make it partially the product of AI, and not really mine?
Re: Not by AI
#355> Use this badge if your artwork, including digital and traditional art, contains less than 10% of AI output.
Isn’t this already a “made by AI” artwork?
And how much is 10%? If a traditional painter that uses photo reference starts using AI generated photorealistic imagery instead, is that more or less than 10%?
Re: Not by AI
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Totally agree. The idea that ideas/bits can be owned is a slippery slope with bad policy at the bottom. Maybe it was once necessary as a sort of training wheels for innovation, but it has long since become more of a drag than it's worth.
Re: Not by AI
#357I scripted a tutorial video, recorded it, and edited it. Then I used WhisperAI to generate a transcript for subtitles . The question is: can I use “not by AI” on the video, or did using AI for the transcript make it partially the product of AI, and not really mine?
I'd say yes as the transcription is not transformative on the original, it's also possible to check whether it's identical or not.
Re: Not by AI
#358Earlier 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…
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…
If we follow this line of thinking: in the, let's call it, "pre-AI" days all of the ideas that we have of the form "Mixing A and B" are ones that at least one human found to be interesting/valuable (and the ones that become common and get remixed must have been interesting/valuable to many humans). Maybe the "originality" of the idea isn't the thing we care about, per se, but rather that fact that somebody though it was interesting to shine a spotlight on this region of the idea space for the first time.
But now that we have software that can generate massive amounts of "Mixing A and B" ideas automatically... I dunno, seems like we're heading toward a sort of "pollution of the idea atmosphere" where we get a ton of new/remixed ideas dumped into the world that haven't passed through that initial filter of a human vetting them as particularly useful or valuable or interesting in the first place.
Re: Not by AI
#359> 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. Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant. These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.
We're already past the point of diminishing returns on "human creativity".
And I would argue that the current (mostly recent productions) Netflix catalog is indeed repetitive and stagnant. Originality in tv production is currently in a race to the bottom.
Re: Not by AI
#360> 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 think some of it comes from the smug disdain that generative art fans throw at traditional artists.
If anything, that smug disdain is a reflection of the perceived elitism of traditional artists.
A small culture war that was smouldering long before the appearance of generative models.