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

401–410 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#401

Post by varispeed »

famouswaffles wrote: post #395
varispeed wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that AI is using pattern matching while humans use reasoning to come up with new things. That means AI is not capable of producing meaningful _new_ content like discovering new mathematical theorems, because AI does not understand maths, whereas humans can come up with something meaningful based on _understanding_ of the content they have learned from. This is why when you ask e.g. ChatGPT about som…

Complete nonsense. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01618-2 Language models can generate novel functioning protein structures that adhere to a specified purpose. Structures that didn't exist before nevermind found in the dataset. The idea that there's some special distinction between the reasoning LLMs do and what Humans do is unfounded nonsense. A distinction you can't test for (this so called "true unders…

This is the same as getting ChatGPT to calculate something. It is likely that it can infer a correct result from the training data and give right "new" answer, but it doesn't mean it has any understanding of maths.

That's why these models like ChatGPT are trained on massive models, to hide the fact that the AI is actually very dumb pattern matching machine.

The only reason they found these "new" protein structures is because AI could match them to a pattern that it learned from the training data.

They even claim this:

> akin to generating grammatically and semantically correct natural language sentences on diverse topics

Just like ChatGPT can generate grammatically and semantically correct natural language, except if the topic is not something it was trained on it will output grammatically and semantically correct nonsense.

> ProGen can be further fine-tuned to curated sequences and tags

Which suggests there still needs to be a human that can reason to be able to curate the sequences, something AI can't and probably at this stage never be able to do.

This is something companies running these models won't openly admit, because that would confuse investors.

Re: Not by AI

#402

Post by hummus_bae »

a254613e wrote: post #11

So cringy. Should we also add badges for doing it without autocomplete, syntax highlighting. Hell, why even bother with text, if you didn't develop it by punching cards then you're not a real developer.

[dead]

Re: Not by AI

#403

Post by jeffbee »

famouswaffles wrote: post #397
jeffbee wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is only mostly a joke. OpenAI's LLMs have a definite voice, and that voice is "your real estate agent is also your manager". If a person finds ChatGPT's output good enough to turn in as an assignment at school, or mail to a colleague, I think that person has little appreciation for the possibilities of language.

They don't have a default voice not a definite one. Output can be easily adjusted to sound like whatever

Not effectively in my experience. Even if I ask it for a discursive treatment in the style of William F. Buckley I always seem to get what reads like a transcript of Entertainment Tonight.

Re: Not by AI

#405

Post by lumb63 »

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…

Looking for a phobia to describe AI content aversion is an incorrect approach. It yields no explanation other than that “something must be wrong with those people”. Instead, try looking at it from a rational biological standpoint and it makes perfect sense.

We biologically have a desire to live. Part of living is confronting threats to our survival, and hopefully defeating them. Our minds are what provided us with the ability to survive despite there being stronger, more vicious competition out there. Why would we want to surrender our one competitive advantage?

People aren’t stupid. They know that AI will continue to progress (“technology must progress”, says the technologist) and that it threatens their way of life. Truckers know that AIs will automate their jobs. Artists know it will automate theirs. Everyone knows that AI is coming for them, sooner or later. If not in their career, then maybe in their social life, like video games and social media have decimated in-person communication.

Those are things we need in order to survive. Our jobs provide us the money we need to meet our needs, and give some of us meaning in life (no, UBI proponents, receiving a check doesn’t solve all the problems). Our social lives are paramount to our health. What will humans be doing all day when AI has taken all our jobs and we are all talking to chatbots all day which cater to our every proclivity? Maybe that is some folks’ ideal worlds, but certainly not mine.

Given the mixed results we’ve seen with technological innovations in the past, rather than giving a negative connotation to the people who are cautious or concerned about AI, why not listen to them? Rather than having a phobia, maybe they have a valid point.

Re: Not by AI

#406

Post by AgentME »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #180
can16358p wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the same. Many artists hate because they feel threatened. I think the opposite: creating art (e.g. Drawing) was only for the ones who had drawing skills. Now, it's being democratized and everyone, regardless of being talented in drawing or not, can freely express their feelings and creativity. I think it's a great thing.

> I think the opposite: creating art (e.g. Drawing) was only for the ones who had drawing skills. Now, it's being democratized and everyone, regardless of being talented in drawing or not, can freely express their feelings and creativity. There was never anything stopping anyone from picking up a pencil and learning to draw. The idea there's some inborn "talent" for art is absurd. There is only people who practice an…

People used to have to learn HTML and about web hosting to be able to publish text on the internet for others to read. There was never anything stopping people from putting in the effort to do this. All that website builders, social media sites, and forums like HN do is allow people to accomplish this without putting in any kind of work. It's a terrible thing that's caused a race to the bottom in the web, reducing the variety and quality level of most people's browsing experiences.

Re: Not by AI

#409

Post by bobsmooth »

mjr00 wrote: post #35
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

Exactly, it's a tool. The skill floor, as in the minimum amount of skill to produce something passable, has been lowered -- dramatically lowered -- but the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result. It's similar to music. DAWs and samples didn't kill off music; instead, it made it easier than ever for a teenager with a computer and a passing interest in music to create a song and share it with a world. As a c…

> people don't really tolerate bedroom recordings with $10 mics any more

It's called bedroom punk now.

Re: Not by AI

#410

Post by sage92 »

goatlover wrote: post #353
underyx wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 anim…

I don't have a definite conclusion on anything, but I remember having this discussion with a friend a long time ago, and it made me think... What he was trying to convince me was that all of those things you mention can be seen as subclasses of other natural things:

Digital simulations are self-explanatory - All things simulated must have an existing thing they are simulating. Digital is one type of representation of an already existing thing. It can be seen as a subclass of concept/drawing/painting/.

Branching timelines are more abstract, but it's ultimately based on the idea of a tree. Dilemmas over branching decisions have existed as long as we have been able to think. We branch timelines in our imaginations while playing chess or doing any strategic endeavor where decisions and responses to those decisions matter. FFT: Decision tree, binary tree, random forests, etc. These don't quite cover the complexity of QM, but it's hard to ignore that there is overlap.

A nuke is a type of bomb, which is a type of rapid expansion, which is just an expansion of something (volcano, lightning, comets, etc...)

My friend's point was that of course a caveman won't be thinking about quantum mechanics, but they were thinking about the more basic things that ultimately led to their descendants thinking about QM.

Just food for thought.

Post reply on HN