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

81–90 of 456 posts

Re: Not by AI

#81

Post by lelandfe »

brookst wrote: post #42
throwaway33381 wrote: post #22

Earlier 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 dunno, I have a friend who has effectively automated her entire job at this point through ChatGPT, and her role would almost certainly disappear if her bosses were aware.

Netflix also infamously used AI to generate background images for an anime, which is work that previously would have put food on the table for illustrators.[0]

It's hard to look all of this and think that all the jobs are going to stick around. I know at least 5 copywriters who have made their entire living as adults writing banal junk for small companies. All 5 of those careers will vanish in the coming years.

[0] https://www.cined.com/netflix-uses-ai-to-generate-anime-shor...

Re: Not by AI

#82

Post by brookst »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #62
brookst wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cr…

Would you be happier if your car / bicycle / city bus was produced entirely by hand, with no tools or automation?

Labor will shift. Bemoaning new efficiencies and new empowerment because they reduce the need for meaningless labor consumption is backwards. We should be sensitive to those whose lives will take an unexpected turn (I may be one of them!), but we should do so in the context of celebrating greater individual leverage to create and produce.

Re: Not by AI

#83

Post by MetaMalone »

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…

Love the connection to home studios. Everybody was able to make more music much more easily - but it also inflated the music industry with a lot of mediocrity. So some will find ways to use AI for greatness, but most won’t.

Re: Not by AI

#84

Post by debacle »

tarkin2 wrote: post #40
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…

I imagine there'll be a lot more talk of the soul from a lot of techies from now on. Or at the least talk of the human touch from people who were erstwhile trying to get machines to automate everything.

"Yes this AI generated forgot password flow is great, but it doesn't have soul."

I like it.

Re: Not by AI

#85

Post by beepbooptheory »

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…

> Whoever has emerged victorious participates to this day in the triumphal procession in which the present rulers step over those who are lying prostrate. According to traditional practice, the spoils are carried along in the procession. They are called cultural treasures, and a historical materialist views them with cautious detachment. For without exception the cultural treasures he surveys have an origin which he cannot contemplate without horror. They owe their existence not only to the efforts of the great minds and talents who have created them, but also to the anonymous toil of their contemporaries. There is no document of civilization which is not at the same time a document of barbarism.

Re: Not by AI

#86

Post by smrtinsert »

wunderland wrote: post #58

I think the distinction will increasingly be hard to define. If you take a photo today using the latest iPhones, the camera module is doing a ton of image processing, detection of humans in the frame, brightening of faces, etc. The idea of a “no filter” photo is sort of impossible in this world; the camera has already applied a number of filters to improve the contrast and colors in various ways (even if the goal is…

> Soon, many digital image editors will incorporate some simple AI-powered features to detect edges, faces, various objects, etc. Are content-aware plug-ins to Photoshop AI?

This happened years ago. Agreed with the first part though - there is almost literally no possible route to avoid AI on consumer phones.

Re: Not by AI

#87

Post by sharemywin »

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…

I wonder if people have actually tried prompting chatgpt for lists of creative things.

make up a list of fictious creatures and describe them. make sure the names aren't reused.

Re: Not by AI

#88

Post by Spivak »

ducktective wrote: post #13

Can LLMs produce new content?

Is Theseus' ship new? This question is where humans and AI are roughly the same. If you could look into an artist's brain (or anyone's in any field) and trace the influences back you would probably start to wonder if the number of truly original ideas had by all of humanity is actually quite small.

Re: Not by AI

#89

Post by cmoski »

can16358p wrote: post #6
echelon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Art will continue to evolve with AI. Another argument I keep hearing (most recently from pg), is that we'll always need non-AI training data. That, too, doesn't follow. Training new models on synthetic data does not mean we get stuck in a particular mode or style. We'll continue moving, improving, and trying wildly new things. Bootstrapping with synthetic data doesn't block evolution - it enables faster evolution, ev…

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.

The problem you've identified is that using a skill is available only to those who have bothered to hone the skill. Why should we have to bother learning something? It's simply not fair. If I want to be an artist I shouldn't have to practise or educate myself. The simple desire to be an artist should be enough!

Note: I don't really care if people use AI to generate anything but they should be forthright about doing so.

Re: Not by AI

#90

Post by sharemywin »

sharemywin wrote: post #87
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…

I wonder if people have actually tried prompting chatgpt for lists of creative things. make up a list of fictious creatures and describe them. make sure the names aren't reused.

These seem pretty creative to me? are they? I'm not a fictional guy so I don't really know?

can you be extraordinarily creative and unusual?

Sure, here are five highly creative and unusual fictional creatures:

Crystalline Leviathan: The Crystalline Leviathan is a massive creature that lives deep in the ocean. Its body is made entirely of iridescent crystals that refract light in all directions, creating a dazzling display. The Crystalline Leviathan feeds on deep-sea creatures and can grow up to hundreds of meters long.

Plasmic Shapeshifter: The Plasmic Shapeshifter is a shape-shifting creature that can manipulate its own plasma to take on different forms. It has no fixed appearance, but usually appears as a mass of writhing, translucent tendrils. The Plasmic Shapeshifter is highly intelligent and can mimic the voices and mannerisms of other creatures.

Quantum Butterfly: The Quantum Butterfly is a tiny, delicate creature that flits through the fabric of space-time. Its wings are made of pure energy, and it can move at incredible speeds. The Quantum Butterfly is believed to be responsible for some of the most unusual quantum phenomena, such as entanglement and superposition.

Cosmic Serpent: The Cosmic Serpent is a serpentine creature that lives in the void of space. Its body is covered in shimmering, rainbow-colored scales that reflect the light of distant stars. The Cosmic Serpent feeds on cosmic radiation and can survive in the most inhospitable environments.

Dream Weaver: The Dream Weaver is a mysterious creature that lives in the realm of dreams. Its body is made of ephemeral, mist-like substance that can change shape at will. The Dream Weaver is said to be able to influence the dreams of mortals, and can even enter their dreams to communicate with them. It is rumored that if you catch a Dream Weaver and release it, it will grant you a wish as a reward for sparing its life.

Post reply on HN