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

491–500 of 515 posts

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#491

Post by s1mplicissimus »

petralithic wrote: post #185
s1mplicissimus wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, tools do not dictate what art is and isn't - but using those tools for art doesn't relieve them from being ethically justified. If generating the piece costs half a rain forest or requires tons of soul crushing badly paid work by others, it might be well worth considering what is the general framework the artist operates in. Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered…

There are tons of examples of art that take much more energy than what an AI does, such as an architectural monument. It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethicall…

You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard.

> It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.

I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally". I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#492

Post by mierz00 »

rsynnott wrote: post #440
mierz00 wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not feel anything like crypto to me. Crypto always had hard to understand and abstract use cases. It became popular because the value was going up. LLMs are different. There are an endless amount of use cases that people can easily understand. Now, just how well it does things is debatable but there is a very clear value gain. Hell, I got it give me a list of recipes for the week based on my preferences and…

> Hell, I got it give me a list of recipes for the week based on my preferences and dietary needs then created a grocery list in 2 minutes. I mean, er, yeah, but that's not a multi-trillion dollar industry, is the thing. "People find ChatGPT mildly useful" is not going to cut it, not at current levels of investment.

This reminds me of the Louis C.K skit where he talks about people complaining on a plane, completely forgetting how incredible it is to be flying.

Not so long ago, the example I gave about recipes was something you would only see in sci-fi.

Maybe you’re right there is too much investment, but that’s the same whenever there is a new technology that has completely unlocked new possibilities.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#494

Post by jibal »

anigbrowl wrote: post #493
jibal wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"be polite" Project much?

When I see rude behavior I respond in kind, since that's clearly what the person understands. To do otherwise is to reward trolling.

ALL of the rude behavior and trolling was yours (and you're still doing it) ... there's nothing rude about "Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.". And your behavior violates the site guidelines, whether it was "in kind" or not.

I need to bathe after reading your grossly dishonest excuses. Over and out.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#495

Post by frozenseven »

the_af wrote: post #371
frozenseven wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 te…

For what the demo actually was, Miyazaki's reaction didn't make sense. The anti-AI activists' use of this soundbite makes even less sense.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#496

Post by anigbrowl »

jibal wrote: post #494
anigbrowl wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I see rude behavior I respond in kind, since that's clearly what the person understands. To do otherwise is to reward trolling.

ALL of the rude behavior and trolling was yours (and you're still doing it) ... there's nothing rude about "Is a banana taped to a wall "art?" Your answer to that is the answer to your question.". And your behavior violates the site guidelines, whether it was "in kind" or not. I need to bathe after reading your grossly dishonest excuses. Over and out.

Deflecting a question with a different question is rude. You seem to be taking this a mite personally; I'm not responsible for your bathing schedule.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#497

Post by perching_aix »

pegasus wrote: post #416
perching_aix wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Since you seem to have no problem dishing it, I hope you can eat it as well, so here you go. It's your comment that can be rightly described as pretentious. First of all, "aggressive" doesn't make sense as a modifier to "pretentious" - you were probably influenced to pick this word because of the subject and the feeling of the mural, then self-indulgently left it in, no doubt imagining yourself an innate art critic t…

Yes. I consider these to be trivial attributes of what I wrote.

It was basically all part of the point: I don't appreciate the position taken in the blogpost in the OP, as it is willfully dishonest (its author not only admits, but even flaunts this).

This is why I remarked that I'm following in its spirit. All the points you list out are issues I also have in general with discourse like the blogpost, and with derivative discourse spawned by it. I was expecting people to react badly, specifically in order to demonstrate why. Even felt a bit bad about italicizing artwork, and felt it was a bit on the nose in hindsight. Wouldn't quite call it a flamebait, but in a sense I guess it was one.

In the end though, I got some reasonable discussion out of it, a bit to my surprise. Still kind of processing whether this was an exception to my conjectured rule, or how else I should wrestle with it. I ended up restoring a bit of "faith in humanity" for myself, rather than confirming my resignations.

This isn't to say I don't believe or didn't mean what I said though, to be clear. I just presented it in a way I consider malicious (the way the blogpost is written). You seem to consider so too and have reacted now in kind - although it doesn't read like along this same idea. But then maybe I'm just falling for my own trap at this point.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#498

Post by sonofhans »

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…

Moving the goal posts, IMO. The post I was replying to said “there is no harm.” That’s all I was contradicting. You can argue all day that the harm is _worth it_, but that’s not what OP was doing.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#499

Post by sonofhans »

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?

No shaming in my argument, only pointing out that the “no harms” claim is bullshit.

Re: I Am An AI Hater

#500

Post by pegasus »

perching_aix wrote: post #497
pegasus wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you seem to have no problem dishing it, I hope you can eat it as well, so here you go. It's your comment that can be rightly described as pretentious. First of all, "aggressive" doesn't make sense as a modifier to "pretentious" - you were probably influenced to pick this word because of the subject and the feeling of the mural, then self-indulgently left it in, no doubt imagining yourself an innate art critic t…

Yes. I consider these to be trivial attributes of what I wrote. It was basically all part of the point: I don't appreciate the position taken in the blogpost in the OP, as it is willfully dishonest (its author not only admits, but even flaunts this). This is why I remarked that I'm following in its spirit. All the points you list out are issues I also have in general with discourse like the blogpost, and with derivat…

I see, you were playing "Picasso hater" to OP's "AI hater". Well played, in this case, but you could have just written what you just have above, it would have prevented some confusion and misdirection. Yes, OP is unreasonable and arrogant and thus ends up going totally overboard, even though there is some truth in his complaints (pinpointing better what that is would be a worthwhile conversation to have). In my book, being a hater is not something to flaunt, but rather something to look into. Deep enough understanding inevitably softens that hate if not all the way into appreciation, at least into tolerance. It's the same with Picasso's work: once the missing historical, emotional and artistic context is perceived, the value of the work will become self-evident as well.
Post reply on HN