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

471–480 of 515 posts

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#471

Post by jstgunderscore »

This discussion always seems to revolve around art requiring one or more of the following factors:

- Intention to create

- Effort in creation

- Transformation of the medium/canvas

- Originality

- Meaning as interpreted by the artist

- Meaning/influence to the consumer

- Cultural influence of the art

Without an extensive discussion to define all of these terms, I think its fair to say that there are many human-created works with little-to-no amount of many of these factors, yet a lot of people would still classify them as art. Yet if a AI creates something that satisfies just as many or more of these factors, people seem far more hesitant to call it art.

I'm neither Pro or Anti "AI can create art," as defining what qualifies as art has been a futile exercise since forever. I feel similarly about the AI intelligence and consciousness questions; if we can't define it for ourselves, how can we hope to define it for another entity? I think the discussions can be productive in fleshing out your viewpoint, but otherwise are fruitless.

Ultimately I think humans are highly functional biological machines that have created something that can mimic us convincingly, and we should just come to terms with that without getting bogged down in debates over definitions.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#472

Post by calf »

jstgunderscore wrote: post #471

This discussion always seems to revolve around art requiring one or more of the following factors: - Intention to create - Effort in creation - Transformation of the medium/canvas - Originality - Meaning as interpreted by the artist - Meaning/influence to the consumer - Cultural influence of the art Without an extensive discussion to define all of these terms, I think its fair to say that there are many human-created…

Yes but I actually (tend to) believe Hinton and the other CS scientists, so the terms aren't even the main issue, whereas this author's typical mainstream revolving terms consists of anthrocentric worries about what is really a scientific crisis--it smacks of rearranging the deck chairs while the Titanic is about to hit the iceberg that is the AI/AGI technological revolution/singularity.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#473

Post by codyb »

utyop22 wrote: post #249
codyb wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect we're in a bubble... and when it pops, the useful, profitable work will stay around. A bunch of things will also disappear. And then we'll wait till the next bubble. Gains seem to have leveled off tremendously. As far as I can tell folk were saying "Wow, look at this, I can get it to generate code... it does really well at tests, and small well defined tasks" And a year or a year and a half later we're at l…

What profitable work? Please do post numbers in the form of free cash flows to the firm (or equity) ;). Also you seem to forget that irrespective of cash profits in the future, will this investment generate excess returns? Nope. That's what investors care about. Its not even profit actually.

I dunno, I barely use the stuff. But, I'm sure someone will find something to do with some part of it lol.

People seem to like the ability to summarize things quickly, and quickly scaffold up presentations, reports, and flows I guess?

Regardless, whatever it is that the masses decide is worth paying enough to keep the business afloat will probably survive.

And the rest will... dissolve.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#474

Post by GuinansEyebrows »

jstgunderscore wrote: post #471

This discussion always seems to revolve around art requiring one or more of the following factors: - Intention to create - Effort in creation - Transformation of the medium/canvas - Originality - Meaning as interpreted by the artist - Meaning/influence to the consumer - Cultural influence of the art Without an extensive discussion to define all of these terms, I think its fair to say that there are many human-created…

at times, we must accept the inherent humanity in others' creations when humanity is, in fact, involved.

we must not accept the charade of humanity in machine-generated regurgitations of the utmost average.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#475

Post by uncircle »

rsynnott wrote: post #444
pmdr wrote: post #56

Is Ed Zitron's newsletter banned here? I haven't seen a single article of his on HN and he's been ranting about AI for years now.

Tend to get flagged; there's a minority here who react to any open criticism of our benevolent future robot overlords badly.

On this site they're the majority. You can find much more nuance anywhere else, in here is just mostly fervent AI- and techno-optimism.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#477

Post by viridian »

joquarky wrote: post #373
TeMPOraL wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

The logical end step of these trains of thoughts is always the same. If you aren't contributing to the solution in a big way, you should kill yourself. And even if you can't take that step, you should absolutely not have children, and advocate that others do the same.

Viewing energy use as an axiomatic evil necessarily leads to the removal of man from the earth.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#478

Post by petralithic »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #465
petralithic wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like just presenting a meme isn't a real argument, so there's not really any point you're making to miss.

If you practiced some media literacy, you'd realize that (a) there is a point to that meme and (b) that there is a reason why you are on the receiving end of it.

Just saying it doesn't make it so. I can post similar memes and say "haha that's you" while pointing at you and citing your lack of media literacy when you disagree, that doesn't mean it's a cogent argument. Maybe there is an argument in that meme, but you're not specifying it and therefore I will not take it as a serious comment.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#479

Post by petralithic »

kelnos wrote: post #378
petralithic wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But I don't think that's what we're talking about here.

Actually that is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about AI beginners putting in some words into a text box, I'm talking about creatives who use workflow managers like ComfyUI to create exactly the output they envision in their minds. In this way, the AI generation is merely a tool to get out whatever is in their head via synthesized means rather than manual (literally, hand) means. For example, this is a list of node work flows, it's similar to game programming in that you have inputs and you want to transform them to certain outputs, and that transformation work is thoughtful by the human and is what I imbue the creative aspect to.

https://modal.com/blog/comfyui-custom-nodes

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#480

Post by petralithic »

Jensson wrote: post #411
petralithic wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the person who had the idea to do so and did so. AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case. It is still up to you to get the best looking banana you can then display it.

Why end there, why isn't the manager who told the artist to make a piece the artist? > AI doesn't do anything you don't tell it to, it is the banana creator in this case So if I tell the AI "create me a piece of art", and it gives me a cool image, I am the artist? So, if a manager tells a person "create a piece of art", the person goes and tapes a banana to the wall, the manager was the one who created the art? Edit:…

The AI created it but you choosing to display it is the art, performance art specifically, not that the image itself is art (but again if someone looks at it and it moves them, the image itself could also be considered art); did Duchamp manufacture the urinal he turned into The Fountain? No, but then why do we still consider that art? By your logic, he wouldn't be an artist.

Not sure why you're talking about managers, that seems one step removed. Michaelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to create something, is the Pope the artist? But then let's say Michaelangelo then uses some machine or hires his subordinate to paint for him, who is the artist then?

Post reply on HN