[flagged]
Not by AI
61–70 of 456 posts
Re: Not by AI
#62> 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…
Exactly this. The vast majority of art is unoriginal and derivative. That doesn’t mean it’s bad art, just that it is not revolutionary. So what? There are a handful of truly revolutionary artists each generation. Faulting AI for producing merely good and interesting art is missing the point.
I don't know about other people but I don't "fault" the AI anything, nor am I even particularly bothered by AI-generated content per se.
What fills me with dread is the obvious glee over removing human work from sellable products, when there is no viable alternative to working for most people. We've created a world where a lot of jobs can be automated, and that is somehow a bad thing, and it's going to be used to crush people. It's a labor issue not a philosophical one.
Re: Not by AI
#63> 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…
The AI aversion has several reasons:
1) The output, while impressive on the surface, is bland and recycled. It will drag down the general level in the same manner that CGI has destroyed movies.
2) People don't want to consume AI generated content in the same manner that they generally don't watch Stockfish vs. Stockfish.
3) It is not phobia, it is disgust at humans being dehumanized.
The phobia seems to be on the side of AI corporations, who quickly step in any discussion that questions their business model.
Re: Not by AI
#64So 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.
It’s the same thing we heard from musicians who didn’t want to learn technology in the 70’s: using a synth or sequencer means it’s not “real music”.
Those purists are mostly dead. Everyone uses technology in music today. And music is better for it.
Re: Not by AI
#65A 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
But then the AI is the writer and you're just an editor or curator. So perhaps don't call yourself a writer if the AI produced a significant amount of the content. Same goes for Stable Diffusion/Midjourney prompters who shouldn't really call themselves artists. (Things would of course change if they do significant postprocessing of the output, though I'd still think this is much easier than coming up with something novel on the spot.)
Of course, it's not my place to say who should or shouldn't call themselves a writer, but I'll simply personally respect someone more if their stories aren't ghostwritten by the AI.
Re: Not by AI
#66Why not NOT_WITH_COMPUTER just to show how ridiculous this is?
Re: Not by AI
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably onto something, but then it's also nothing new that we attribute value to handmade goods over industrial goods. Because they're backed by storytelling (real or imagined), rare/exclusive, etc. It's clear that amidst a deluge of AI-generated content, audience urges for authenticity will rise. Attention is in more finite supply than content, has been even before generative AI; only so much will stick out…
Perhaps opening the AI content firehose will force everyone to start carefully curating what they consume. This might actually be an improvement, and might be the way out of today’s limbo where crap content is snuck onto our plates half the time.
Don't we already, though? I mean, how many of the hundreds to thousands of mediocre movies that hit Netflix, Hulu & co every year do you watch? If they were AI-generated, would it actually matter to you?
As far as I can tell, there's just two interesting things to watch out for:
- Personalized AI-generated content. What if the movie were just for you? What if it expired like a Snapchat, never to be seen again by anyone else? Would this tickle us? Would we succumb to new filter bubbles, increasing the distance between us?
- Can AI make the movie that's so good that it sticks out and does become the one we watch collectively?
Re: Not by AI
#68A 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…
> the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result
the fear from the current professionals is that the new ai raised floor is good enough to be usable commercially, and thus, cut a chunk of economic value from the professionals.
There is no fear that AI stops people with the intrinsic interest in creation to stop creating - their ceiling and productivity would sky-rocket as a result in fact. And it would be _these_ productions that wow an audience.
Re: Not by AI
#69A 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
Feeling pretty stupid for all the time I invested in pinhole photography and darkrooms, 20ish years after photoshop was released, about now. Guess the best artist all have $5000 to spare for a MBP and monthly creative cloud subscriptions too…
Re: Not by AI
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the…
I think nearly everything you said is likely wrong. AI doesn’t “do everything for you” any more than word processors, music sequencers, or CAD does. AI allows people to operate at higher levels of abstraction, is all. Yes, fewer people will type repetitive copy in to word processors. But that’s fine. You are mistaking activity for productivity . Few people go into writing because they enjoy typing. AI offers leverage…
I work as a professional writer. Editing is a part of the process but for a large portion of work, editing does not exist outside the publishing sphere. Publishers will be unable to handle the sheer load of submissions given to them by "writers". More established ones such as penguin house have already determined that with increased competition they will likely see sales drop predictions for smaller workshops that have existed are believed to fold due to the scale of operations in the years to come. These problems already existed before AI or Chat GPT but due to the scale will make them much worse.
The end has come.