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

381–390 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#381

Post by jetsetk »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #78
miklosme wrote: post #28

> 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.

Creativity is not equivalent with digital output volume. I think we’re going to see an explosion of waste. We are information processors. The input makes the output. What happens when you close that loop?

You can observe this trend w/ AIfluencers already: They create short guides on how to leverage AI tools like chatGPT to generate income/reach and all of their typical bullet points equal generation of low-quality noise:

Examples: let chatGPT.. 1. write blog posts 2. generate scripts for youtube videos 3. create short stories so you can sell them as a book

Painful to see. I would like to think nobody in his right mind is willing to consume these delightful pieces of work. Dead internet theory on the next level.

Re: Not by AI

#383

Post by roenxi »

gspencley wrote: post #50
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…

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…

That seems like a straightforward one; if humans are incapable of original thought then the original part probably came from sources that are not human and 'innovation' in the sense of 'an AI couldn't do this' never existed. We just need to make the AI better at interfacing with the real source of novelty - reality - than the current method of trying to interpret existing pictures on the internet.

There will be a big leap forward when we get to teaching these things from video streams so they can get the concept of 3D properly.

Re: Not by AI

#384

Post by Aachen »

> The Not By AI badge currently does not hold any legal effect significance

Of course it does. If you make a purchase based on this badge and you later find out it's false, that's fraud. You don't need to have a certification program before false advertising becomes illegal.

Re: Not by AI

#385

Post by 52-6F-62 »

jetsetk wrote: post #381
52-6F-62 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creativity is not equivalent with digital output volume. I think we’re going to see an explosion of waste. We are information processors. The input makes the output. What happens when you close that loop?

You can observe this trend w/ AIfluencers already: They create short guides on how to leverage AI tools like chatGPT to generate income/reach and all of their typical bullet points equal generation of low-quality noise: Examples: let chatGPT.. 1. write blog posts 2. generate scripts for youtube videos 3. create short stories so you can sell them as a book Painful to see. I would like to think nobody in his right mind…

At best it's annoying noise, at worst it's a psychic trap that will confuse and inhibit the personal development of many.

Re: Not by AI

#387

Post by yyyk »

donatj wrote: post #142
omnicognate wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many rational reasons for a person to see these questions differently to you and plenty of explanations of those reasons around. You may disagree with them, but to claim that differing views must spring from phobias or other irrational mental states rather from a different assessment of the evidence is baseless ad-hominem. I would strongly recommend avoiding statements of that form in general as they achiev…

Hear me out. In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word. It is to believe the mind to be non-functionally pure[1] in the programmatic sense. Output based somehow other than purely on input. And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from? A random number generator?…

>In the most basic sense, to believe the mind a box that can output things not based on input is inherently to believe it "irrational" in the truest sense of the word.

No, it believes that the mind has an internal state. We have many physical cases of state which is in practice undecidable. Moreover, in many formulation of quantum physics one can have a state which is unreachable even in theory - not just hidden variable style QM theory, there are ways to get unreachable state even in 'regular' QM[0].

>And if that's the case, the question is where does that irrationality come from?

The universe itself. The linked PDF - you might be familiar with the author, he features often on HN - provides one method this is possible. Though, I'm not saying this is true, I suspect it may not be.

[0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1306.0159

Re: Not by AI

#388

Post by dodslaser »

tablespoon wrote: post #376
zirgs wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unlike in the 80s - most programmers no longer need to know assembler/machine code to do their jobs. The skill floor has been lowered - so that programmers like me can get a job.

> Unlike in the 80s - most programmers no longer need to know assembler/machine code to do their jobs. The skill floor has been lowered - so that programmers like me can get a job. Assembly isn't that hard. You'd have still gotten a job, but your employer just wouldn't have gotten as much productivity out of you (so they'd either have had to hire more programmers or write less software).

The same goes for creating art without AI.

Re: Not by AI

#389

Post by LoganDark »

I'd appreciate something a bit more inclusive of alterhuman identities, but that's just a super minor nit.

Other than that, it doesn't seem like a bad idea for people to be able to mark their work as "created by a real person" with a cool little badge like this. It's simple but it works.

Re: Not by AI

#390

Post by zzzeek »

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…

when human made content is "recycled" from past human content, it is not "recycled" using statistical algorithms, it's recycled based on understanding, meaning, aesthetics, emotions, and a whole list of traits that LLMs will never have.
Post reply on HN