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

The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

therationalist.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#61

Post by gregdoesit »

wakana wrote: post #60
gregdoesit wrote: post #57

The whole article feels to me like it’s generated by GPT-3 based on a few prompts. There’s a reference to Forbes article not linked, but otherwise zero things backing up this 1% claim. The thing that makes this very suspicious is the continuous repetition of the same content, the anonymous writer and the fact that the only other article in this publication is about a tool that’s even better than GPT-3. GPT-3 certainl…

I posted on this thread earlier too: Hi! I am the person that wrote this, and used GPT-3 and a few other writing tools to help me wordsmith it. All the points, however, is original work and not AI generated. I am not a native English speaker, so I have been using these tools to avoid awkward sentences/paragraphs. (Clearly this has not been the outcome I was hoping for) As for the erroneous citation to Forbes: there w…

So why delete my comment on the publication instead of addressing it? Then why delete my second comment? And why not make it clear the article is generated by ChatGPT, at least partially?

Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote.

It’s a reason for people to stop reading anonymous authors, or articles that don’t make it clear that it’s not an AI writing part of the article.

I’ll be honest: I feel duped reading a wall of text to realise it’s at least partially generated, and this whole article could have been the prompts you used to generate it.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#63

Post by NickC25 »

fullshark wrote: post #39
oj2828 wrote: post #4

“ The creator economy, once hailed as the solution to economic inequality and the savior of the middle class, is facing challenges that threaten its very existence.” Not to nitpick, but did anyone really believe that becoming a tik tok influencer was a reasonable career path for more than a couple hundred people? I don’t see how most middle class people would’ve been helped by the creator economy

I think a massive number of 15-25 year olds think it's not only a reasonable career path, but their preferred career path. They don't expect to become middle class though, they expect to become rich and famous.

What people forget is that when everyone is an influencer or a creator, nobody is.

When a youngster tells me they want to be an influencer for their profession, I simply ask them "who are you influencing, and what sort of credibility do you have in order to influence them?"....seems to get the kids every time - they haven't put 2 and 2 together. The credibility needed to influence comes before everything else, and people really don't understand that, for some strange reason.

The original influencers were people who were already doing cool stuff and just decided to film it and post it on Youtube 10+ years ago. Shit, the electronic musician, deadmau5, was streaming his production sessions online in like 2007 or 2008. To me, that's a creator - someone who creates for a profession and would be doing so regardless if social media existed or not. The guy was also an early influencer in the music tech space because he would talk on his streams "hey yeah I've been using this plugin or that piece of gear in my latest tracks, here's what it sounds like, and here's how I use it". I dig that, that's legitimate - you have a professional talking about tools used in a professional environment and how to use them.

Nowadays everyone seems to think that because a few hundred bots have followed their Instagram account, they are entitled to make millions of dollars by posting stupid dance videos or copying the latest trend.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#64

Post by wakana »

gregdoesit wrote: post #61
wakana wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I posted on this thread earlier too: Hi! I am the person that wrote this, and used GPT-3 and a few other writing tools to help me wordsmith it. All the points, however, is original work and not AI generated. I am not a native English speaker, so I have been using these tools to avoid awkward sentences/paragraphs. (Clearly this has not been the outcome I was hoping for) As for the erroneous citation to Forbes: there w…

So why delete my comment on the publication instead of addressing it? Then why delete my second comment? And why not make it clear the article is generated by ChatGPT, at least partially? Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote. It’s a reason…

I am not as comfortable having a back and forth on substack than I am on HN. I am not sure as to why people who use tools like [1], [2], [3], [4] have to declare as such that the parts of the content may have been edited with help from computer tools if the end goal of conveying the information has been satisfactorily achieved. This seems like a rehashing of the "AI generated art is not real art" debate [5] again.

[1] https://huggingface.co/EleutherAI/gpt-j-6B [2] https://huggingface.co/docs/transformers/model_doc/bloom [3] https://www.jasper.ai/ [4] https://openai.com/api/ [5] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/02/technology/ai-artificial-...

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#65

Post by JonChesterfield »

wakana wrote: post #60
gregdoesit wrote: post #57

The whole article feels to me like it’s generated by GPT-3 based on a few prompts. There’s a reference to Forbes article not linked, but otherwise zero things backing up this 1% claim. The thing that makes this very suspicious is the continuous repetition of the same content, the anonymous writer and the fact that the only other article in this publication is about a tool that’s even better than GPT-3. GPT-3 certainl…

I posted on this thread earlier too: Hi! I am the person that wrote this, and used GPT-3 and a few other writing tools to help me wordsmith it. All the points, however, is original work and not AI generated. I am not a native English speaker, so I have been using these tools to avoid awkward sentences/paragraphs. (Clearly this has not been the outcome I was hoping for) As for the erroneous citation to Forbes: there w…

I really enjoyed this exchange.

- This looks machine generated

- Hi! I'm the person who wrote this by using a machine to generate 'the words' but the important parts are original

- Oops, didn't cite my/its work

Especially in the context of an industry of content creation falling over.

Thank you both!

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#66

Post by JonChesterfield »

oj2828 wrote: post #4

“ The creator economy, once hailed as the solution to economic inequality and the savior of the middle class, is facing challenges that threaten its very existence.” Not to nitpick, but did anyone really believe that becoming a tik tok influencer was a reasonable career path for more than a couple hundred people? I don’t see how most middle class people would’ve been helped by the creator economy

Definitely. Back when I was young something like half my school wanted to be a professional footballer. There was a period after that where lots of people wanted to be esports gamers. Tiktok is currently _the thing_ which has taken that spot, as far as I can tell.

I think there was a trend towards "I want to be a programmer, cos they get paid loads and have free food", but don't know whether that's still with us.

I'd blame this on a mixture of unfounded optimism and, for my generation at least, literally everyone offering the career advice of "Do what you love and it'll all work out great". Nonsense but sounded plausible at the time.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#67

Post by metadat »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #38
bell-cot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS. Just how far into can’t-do-arithmetic self-delusion do you need to be, to believe that “you need X thousand followers to succeed financially” jobs could actually be available to more than a few people out of every X thousand???

Yeah but not everyone's trying to be an influencer, most people are still doctors, engineers, etc

Perhaps you haven't already heard: Becoming an influencer is what a large portion of kids today dream of and fully expect to succeed at.

"The importance of school is secondary because I am easily going to become a rich and famous YouTuber or TikTokker."

Source: Many school teachers.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#68

Post by giraffe_lady »

KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #38
bell-cot wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THIS. Just how far into can’t-do-arithmetic self-delusion do you need to be, to believe that “you need X thousand followers to succeed financially” jobs could actually be available to more than a few people out of every X thousand???

Yeah but not everyone's trying to be an influencer, most people are still doctors, engineers, etc

Most people are still low wage or "gig economy" service workers. Which is a big part of why these escape-the-grind fantasies are popular and have been for generations. The problem is the world we've made not how people are trying to navigate it with hope in their hearts.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#69

Post by Invictus0 »

d-us-vb wrote: post #15
Invictus0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? I'd imagine there are tens of thousands of people who are credible social media influencers and content creators.

Even a few tens of thousands of people is less than 1% of the people making an attempt. He’s right in being skeptical that “people” (who?) thought that “being a creator” was a viable career path, as the article suggests was the case.

It's like saying being a professional basketball player is not a viable career path because most people don't make it. The mere fact of it's exclusivity is besides the point.

Being a content creator/influencer is a viable career path. There are creators with disabilities, creators that never speak, creators that never show their face. Not everyone makes great money but for many people the money is enough.

Re: The creator economy: the top 1% and everyone else

#70

Post by NetOpWibby »

wakana wrote: post #64
gregdoesit wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why delete my comment on the publication instead of addressing it? Then why delete my second comment? And why not make it clear the article is generated by ChatGPT, at least partially? Also, this is a good example on why anonymous accounts writing content will be trusted less. You say you used ChatGPT for parts of it. Unclear on what “parts” mean and how much input you had, versus what the AI wrote. It’s a reason…

I am not as comfortable having a back and forth on substack than I am on HN. I am not sure as to why people who use tools like [1], [2], [3], [4] have to declare as such that the parts of the content may have been edited with help from computer tools if the end goal of conveying the information has been satisfactorily achieved. This seems like a rehashing of the "AI generated art is not real art" debate [5] again. [1…

We're on HN now.

Why have you deleted every comment on your post mentioning GPT-3? There were at least 4 or 5 comments mentioning it and you've deleted every one.

Post reply on HN