If the story is good, I'll read it, regardless of whether it was written by an AI, a human, or a dog. I don't really see humans as being special, of only wanting to read stories that have the "human touch," whatever that is.
Fair enough, but I absolutely see humans as being more special than machines. What interests me in a story, art, poem, whatever, is that it's a human communication. Even if a machine can do it technically as well, or better, I want the human one, not the computed one.
A world where everything is generated by a machine is a dystopian world, in my view.
I guess we are different in this case, as I primarily read something for its content, rather than its author (although the author is often a good proxy for the quality of the content). A world where I can instantly generate whatever content I want is a utopia for me, rather than a dystopia.
And I don't want to deny you that. My fear is that your preference will be the only choice. One person's heaven can indeed be another person's hell.
But at least a lot of those people will be trying to express something even if all AI can give them is an approximation of what they would make if they had the talent.
But that just makes the issue more important. I don't want to lose what little meaningful art is actually left. Art serves a critically important social function, and if that art is no longer from people, that function is no longer served.
Is a world where you already know what the content is, and thus there won't be any point in taking it in.
And we have to do this to some degree to simply navigate the world of content. I already filter for action films or documentaries depending on my mood.
Sure, a world where I have to already know the entire script for a film to have it appear is (while technically astonishing) not great for me individually, one where I can say I want a new Poirot and get it is incredible.
Humans are the ones who created the very AI that you're talking about. The AI is not an act of nature but something made real by human creativity.
I don't understand why you (and others) think this is an important point, though. Let's say, for the sake of argument, not just that you're correct, but that we're not even made of flesh. That we're actual robots called "humans".
I don't see how that changes anything. I'd still prefer "human" communication over communication from a different machine pretending to be "human".
Why? Because what others of my species/model feels and thinks has a unique importance and meaning to me, and having fake versions of that communication around reduces my connection to others of my species/model and devalues the society of them that I am a part of.
Can you explain why exactly? Is it a religious view? Seems to me we're just meat robots.
Yeah. What have humans ever done for us?
Except for roads. And buildings. And infrastructure and machines.
Art is a way in which we grapple with such questions. I am yet to see a surprising contriubtion by an AI.
I'd imagine that you'd prioritize saving a human child from a fire over saving a machine or a meat based robot. Why?
My point is your composition or substrate or whatever is irrelevant.
> Can you explain why exactly?
Because humans designed and built machines before machines could design and build humans.
The content may be entertaining, emotional, and compelling. But I just won't view it the same way, because I am not in communion with an AI the same way I would be with a conscious, mindful human. There's no space for meaning because half of the author-reader relationship is missing.
A cynical mind would suggest I am seeking not the communion itself, but the rewards such a communion provides and they're probably right. If you lie and claim a human wrote it (and it is otherwise indistinguishable from human work), I will probably appreciate the work the same way I would a human-written work.
If AI were a conscious being, I don't think I'd mind that they aren't human, the same way I wouldn't mind reading the work of a space alien. There would still be a mind on the other end. But until and if that ever happens, if I know about it, I don't think it'll ever be the same for me.
In contrast, a new virtual world for GTA 8 -- I don't care if that is from an AI or a human. I feel like either could be just as immersive as the other.
I certainly don't find things particularly meaningful in the folds of a terrain, the placement of trees, or the exact shape of a background building. This is all 'canvas' and I pretty much assume a computer did most of the work with humans doing some combination of providing input and output to the program. If AI took this over entirely, I don't think it would change anything.
However, placing particular buildings, terrain features, or what-have-you can be meaningful. A bar next to a church may be cliché, but if a human did it, there is meaning to be had; if an AI did it, it's just two buildings and either a coincidence or the same cliché that the AI has learned.
Put another way, I think virtual worlds function as both canvas and art. AI handling the canvas doesn't change anything for me. AI handling the art, does.
I agree entirely -- as long as the AI, or space alien, wasn't pretending to be human or replace humans.
You’re not a machine, you’re part of an ecosystem, you’re like a plant, but for some reason you can move around more freely than a plant so you think you’re detached from the earth and that you’re some software running in hardware but you’re not, you’re integrated into the biosphere. Is the planet a machine ? Maybe, but comparing ourselves to machines is just an analogy to help us understand ourselves.
A human can go into space but not for long, even when we do go we need to take the environment , at least the atmospheric conditions with us to survive. While man has walked on the the moon, we never touched another planet with our own hands.
I mean that's cool, but have you seen life itself? What about conscious matter that can observe itself? The goodness of AI is relative to us, the one that invented it. By some definition we will always be better than it because we created the damn thing in the first place.
Seeing ChatGPT and saying we're not that special is just utterly wrong to me. Even if it is true, accepting that as a fact is dangerous, if not traitorous in some way — reminds me of the Adventists in The Three-Body Problem (massive spoiler ahead) having such a low opinion of humanity that they would rather be destroyed by an alien race.
/philosophical rant I keep coming back to and I need someone smarter to expand upon
But here's the problem. This saying: "Humans are not special" is completely true. To deny this idea is to deny the truth.
Ultimately to save ourselves, our culture must engage in self deception. We must trick ourselves into believing that AI content is inferior and thereby maintain economic demand for content not created by AI. I can see it happening as a mass hysteria similar to how the public was resistant against "new coke" (https://www.damninteresting.com/the-american-gustation-crisi...)
You will see that many people, including people on HN, are already doing this. There's a large cohort of people generating huge adamant denial on the potential of AI.
The OP is sort of being a bit too honest with himself, most people who flat out refuse to acknowledge AI will do so with the idea that AI is inferior and will always be that way.
That's your truth. Humans get to decide what humans consider special. Your perspective is fair: humans are not special to you.
But they are certainly special to me and most other humans. That's my truth. That's not denying some objective truth, because "specialness" isn't an objective thing that can be measured. It's, effectively, an opinion.
You and I measure "specialness" differently.
But even if I agreed with you (and I could easily argue your side of this debate), it still wouldn't affect my attitude towards AI pretending to be human. Humans don't have to be special in some grand sense to consider that problematic.
Well then let's talk about what I mean by "special".
If I gave you some art whether it's written, drawn or filmed and I asked you to tell me whether this "art" was created by a human and an AI, and you have trouble identifying the difference... then objectively speaking humans are no longer special. That is the definition I am using here.
There's no point in making up "opinions" and discussing those because they will always be different. Thus when communicating we are always talking about a shared reality. That includes the "term" special. I have defined what I mean by "special" here concretely so we can keep the conversation consistent rather then diverge onto branches according to our own personal definitions of "special".
>Humans don't have to be special in some grand sense to consider that problematic.
I never said it wasn't problematic. I said it was truth. The truth is the problem. Being honest and aware of reality is the intrinsic problem here. Being delusional is the cure.
Most people can distinguish good writing from that which is merely serviceable, but un-engaging. Reading the latter is like a slow death if its in book form or attempting to be literary fiction.
For news articles and other stuff that's being automated, it's replacing what is already a heavily templated process. The writing there is fine. It's not what I'd call interesting though. That's the difference an actual writer can make.
Sure, but you're talking about the current reality of AI written content, there may very well be very engaging content in the future by AI.
I would. Concerts are pretty bad, people go for the atmosphere or the drugs, strictly speaking the actual music is usually objectively worse than the studio recordings for the same tracks.
It's coming through the speakers either way, the artists are not my friends, I do not care.
What do you think EDM concerts are? They're all prerecorded, the DJ most of the time doesn't actually do anything up there on the stand. And yet people go to these concerts, because it's about the music itself, not who makes it.
> What if I tell you that this page ,including all our comments, is entirely created by LLMs?
So what? If it's good content, it's good content. I've had debates with ChatGPT on a variety of issues and sometimes it brings up a good points that I hadn't considered before on the topic, so if HN were entirely AI driven, it doesn't really matter either. Hell, solipsism is entirely built on the notion that no one besides oneself is real, this would simply be an extension of that concept.
Well yeah, one of the fundamental discoveries of nihilism. Our purpose is that which we make ourselves.
You can be totally distracted from your real existence for 90% of you life, you won’t need anything else. Just have “20 hot wives” or whatever superficial thing makes you happy.
There was no direct selection pressure that coordinated the development of your ability to understand evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology is a side effect of intelligence. Breaking past our darwinian purpose is a side effect of our meta understanding of evolutionary biology and intelligence. As someone else said we, to a limited extend, can make our own purpose.