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

I Am An AI Hater

anthonymoser.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 515 posts

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#371

Post by the_af »

frozenseven wrote: post #243
the_af wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you watched the video that goes with it? It's online, and very amusing. Regardless of how you feel about AI, the specific instance Miyazaki was reacting to was, indeed, an insult to life itself!

It's out of context. They used reinforcement learning to make a ragdoll move. So much drama over nothing.

What do you mean? As far as I know, the context is that Miyazaki hated it because it reminded him of a friend with disabilities. That's why he said it was an insult to life itself.

Miyazaki's attitude to tech in general is ambivalent, isn't it? He used to be very conservative and traditional, yet in Princess Mononoke you can tell he used some CGI.

I think I agree with his approach: the work/vision comes first, and tech can be used but not as a gimmick, and always careful not to overpower the artistry.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#372

Post by fooqux »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #246
fooqux wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal: A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.

Two people want to make a statement about war. One person spent years painting landscapes and flowers. The other spent years programming servers. Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid? The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.

> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?

To whom?

One of my favorite quotes is "The product of your art is you." (I heard it from Brandon Sanderson, not sure if he's the original.) I have come to believe this is true on multiple levels. So in your example, I can answer "they're both equally valid and profound" assuming they put similar levels of effort, skill, and basically themselves into that work.

I think that's the part where generative art falls behind. Sure, I can generate some art of a frog, print it, and hang it on my wall. But the print next to it, that I took with my actual camera after wading through a swamp all day? That will have much more profound meaning to me.

Excellent question though. I had to think for awhile on this, and most importantly, I learned something while doing it. Thank you.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#373

Post by joquarky »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #297
sonofhans wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This paragraph really pisses me off and I'm not sure why. No hate, but consider — when I feel that way, it’s often because one of my ideas or preconceptions has been put into question. I feel like it’s possible that I might be wrong, and I fucking hate that. But if I can get over hating it and figuring out why, I may learn something. Here’s an example: > Didn't google just prove there is little to no environmental…

> The harm argument is simple — AI data centers use energy, and nearly all forms of energy generation have negative side effects. Period. Any hand waving about where the energy comes from or how the harms are mitigated is, again, bullshit — energy can come from anywhere, people can mitigate harms however they like, and none of this requires LLM data centers. Presented like this, the argument is complete bullshit. Any…

Yeah, the OP's argument could also be used to shame people for playing video games.

How much power does a typical gaming rig draw these days?

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#374

Post by joquarky »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #186
sindriava wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate this response. The environmental impact is such a red herring it's not even funny. Somehow these statements never include the impact of watching Netflix shows or doing data processing manually.

Uh, we've been doing data processing for nearly 80 years, and watching netflix for nearly 20 years. Suddenly we need to tile the earth with data centers, build power plants, burn all the fuels we can, and will "need to get to fusion" (per Sam) to run AGI. He also said "if we need to burn a little more gas to get there, that's fine". We'll never get to fusion or AGI, but we will destroy the earth to put a few more dol…

Just a note on etiquette: starting your sentence with "Uh," is often interpreted as dismissive or condescending, even if that’s not your intent.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#375

Post by joquarky »

Mallowram wrote: post #357
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aristotle: There are no contradictions. I still don't know what this is supposed to mean, and I am not unfamiliar with Aristotle.

If you don't grasp the basic ideas of paradox questioning the nature of language beginning in presocratics and winding their way through Aristotle, Socrates, Kant Hume and many others and also appearing in Advaita Vedanta (eg Nisargadatta), then I'm afraid staring here isn't really going to help you. Philosophy has ben questioning whether language is valid from the start. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-…

In my experience, it seems like most people believe that they are their thoughts.

This is especially terrible for people with OCD, which seems to be common in this industry. I think it would be a valuable boost to mental health for them to at least explore some of the basic concepts in Vedanta and/or zen.

What amuses me is how much my thoughts seem like a completion LLM while I'm meditating.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#376

Post by kelnos »

jay_kyburz wrote: post #246
fooqux wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I read what you wrote, and it seems to me you think these two things are equal: A human using their creativity to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. A human asking AI to create a painting showcasing a statement about war. I do not wish to use strawmen tactics. So I'll ask if you think the above is equal and true.

Two people want to make a statement about war. One person spent years painting landscapes and flowers. The other spent years programming servers. Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid? The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.

> Is one persons statement less important than the other? Less profound or less valid?

In my opinion, yes. But that's the entire point here: art is in the eye of the beholder. I think much much much less of AI-generated art than I do of human-generated art. Even if an artist who is well-known for his human-generated art were to use an AI to make art, I would still likely think less of that art than of their earlier work.

> The other spent years programming servers.

I will be the first to shut down people who try to say that programming isn't a creative endeavor, but to me this is not "art".

> The "statement" is the important part, the message to be communicated, not the tools used to express that idea.

I don't agree with that. Consider just regular argumentation. If I'm trying to argue a point, how I express my argument matters. The way in which I do it, the words I use, whether I am calm and collected or emotional and passionate, perhaps graphs or charts or some other sort of visual aid, all of that will influence whether or not you buy my argument.

So If art is to make a statement, each individual has to believe that the way it's presented is powerful and resonates with them. This is a personal thing, and people are going to differ in how they react.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#377

Post by kelnos »

perching_aix wrote: post #92
randcraw wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picasso's Guernica was born of hate, his hate of war, of dehumanization for petty political ends. No computer will ever empathize with the senseless inhumanity of war to produce such a work. It must forever parrot.

To honor the "spirit" of OP's post: I looked up Picasso's Guernica now out of curiosity. I don't understand what's so great about this artwork . Or why it would represent any of the things you mention. It just looks like deranged pencilwork. It also comes across as aggressively pretentious. What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?

You not thinking it's great just means you personally don't like it. Which is fine.

> What makes that any better than some highly derivative AI generated rubbish I connect to about the same amount?

Because Guernica was made by a human who was passionate about something, and poured that passion into his work. Even if you don't "get it", I hope you can at least acknowledge that truth.

To put another way, on one hand we have:

1. Deranged pencilwork created by someone who created it with purpose, to express a feeling he had about something.

2. Deranged pencilwork created by a probabilistic algorithm, that doesn't mean anything to anyone.

Even if we look at it in these sorts of terms, #1 is still orders of magnitude "better" to me.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#378

Post by kelnos »

petralithic wrote: post #214
mm263 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you care to connect with another human? Try to feel his emotions, what he tried to express? If you see no value in that, there's no discussion to have, honestly. For most people I know there's value in connecting with others and emphasizing with their emotions

But they just said they don't get what emotions are meant to be expressed, so how can they try to feel his emotions?

Art is a difficult, subjective matter sometimes. I don't think we can expect everyone to "get" every piece of art. If the poster upthread wanted to, they could read more about the painting, in detail, where perhaps someone writes about various specific features of it and what people believe those features mean. Maybe that would provide more understanding, and they could feel his emotions that way.

I'm not saying they have to or should do that; maybe they just don't care enough. And that's fine. But the option is there.

If someone prompts an AI, "generate an image in the style of Picasso's Guernica", then the result of that, by definition, has no deeper meaning. No emotion went into creating it. The person who prompted the AI could make something up, but it's hard to say what's "real" there. Even if they were to guide the image generation by describing their own emotions, the result wouldn't really be their own expression of their emotions. It would be the AI's probabilistic guess as to what those emotions look like on paper, when rendered using Guernica's style, based on a mish-mash of thousands of different artists and art history research. Ultimately it just doesn't mean anything.

I accept the idea that a talented artist could guide the AI with much deeper specifics about what to "draw", how to draw it, etc. And maybe -- maybe -- that's something that would convey the human's emotions faithfully. But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#379

Post by Matthyze »

bonoboTP wrote: post #319
TeMPOraL wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't pay much attention to the submission themselves, but I do care what the fellow HN-ers think, and my own "vibe-based" perspective is that the voices have been predominantly negative for many years now, and only grow even more so.

HN is usually negative, cynical, skeptical, eyerolling, regardless of topic. Just the other day someone posted the ImageNet 2012 thread ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4611830 ), which was basically the threshold moment that kickstarted deep learning for computer vision. Commenters claimed it doesn't prove anything, it's sensational, it's just one challenge with a few teams, etc. Then there is the famous comme…

Thanks for linking that thread. Really puts things in perspective.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#380

Post by necovek »

petralithic wrote: post #338
jacquesm wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still don't get why you don't see it as a tool and not the creator itself. If after 33 comments in this thread and countless people trying to explain a part of it you don't get it that may be because you either don't want to get it or are unable to get it. Restating it one more time is not going to make a difference and I'm perfectly ok with you not 'getting it', so don't worry about it. AI without real art as in…

Or perhaps your initial premise ("AI without real art as input is noise") is simply wrong. By "get it," I'm trying to understand why you'd believe such a premise, yes even after 33 comments, because there is no underlying rationale to it, or rather, you never state it in a direct manner.

This is where you might be "not getting it". A human can carefully weigh every word, every swipe of a brush, or every tone... weigh it for the emotional expression and connection it produces (frequently subconscious). Whereas AI as a tool simply can't.

This is a difference between using a gradient in Photoshop, which is still a tool, and generative AI which will make "decisions" you as an author can't explain or connect with.

Post reply on HN