Hacker News Reader

Comment by Humdeee | Hacker News Reader

It's an interesting predicament. Assuming these stories between person and machine are indistinguishable and of same quality, then the difference here is the ability to scale. Without giving bias because of humanity reasons, why should we give entitlement to output derived from a human over something else of same quality?

I hate making analogies, but if we make humans plant rows of potatoes, should that command a higher price and seen more valuable than planting potatoes by tractor 20 rows wide?

View on HN

> Without giving bias to humanity

No, we should absolutely be giving bias to humanity. Flesh and blood humans matter, their lives matter, their thoughts matter and their work matters.

Machines are tools for them to use not entities given the same rights and same consideration.

I reject your whole premise.

So you instead want to what? Ban the tools because they interfere with doing things the human way?

no force the people creating and profiting from the tools to get permission from the people they mine the data from or cease operating

Descartes told us that animals are mere soulless automatons, not entities given the same rights and same consideration as humans.

Well ok, that was 300 years ago and views have changed dramatically since then.

Nice strawman.

Exactly; their flesh, blood, energy, etc. does matter. This is my argument for it, not for your argument against it, lmao. There's nothing more remarkable about my planted potato row vs the tractor planted rows, and my energy can be spent elsewhere. I am not entitled to making a living hand planting potatoes if there's not a market for it.

People have the choice to continue making stories and they'll have a fanbase for it and always will, because that's ultimately apart of freedom and choice. Many are less what I'll call purists here, and don't care about how it came to be, they just want a quality story.

What you're loosely proposing is art being a protected class of output, when we have tools that can match and soon with the potential to surpass. Is that not a terrific way to stunt what you're trying to defend?

For transparency, I am an advocate for human made art, but I am against stunting tooling that can otherwise match said creativity. I see that as an artform in itself.

> with the potential to surpass

I think AI art will by definition never surpass human art. Humans can be inspired by things other than the art of others.

> For transparency, I am an advocate for human made art,

If you believe AI tooling is an artform then you categorically are advocating against human made art as far as I am concerned.

This is just gatekeeping. Art is not better because it was made by hand as opposed to with technology. If I use a generative model to make art then I’m an artist.

> If I use a generative model to make art then I’m an artist.

You are free to think so, but it really doesn't make you an artist any more than wearing a medal you bought second hand makes you a war hero.

Something else did the work and you're just claiming credit. It's honestly kind of sad.

Thank you for providing such an excellent example of how easy it is to dismiss things without understanding them.

I would argue art is better when it's the result of the effort and vision of an individual

prompting a search engine to stitch images together on your behalf might result in an image you can call art, but imo all the art generated wholecloth like this sucks. necessarily derivative. put into the world without thought.

My favorite critique of LLM work: "why would I bother to read a story that no one bothered to write"

This is just the fallacy of the Protestant work ethic with different words. Things don’t need to be difficult to be good. You can’t tell how hard an artist worked just by looking at the piece. There’s a lot of truly terrible art that has had a ton of work put into it.

It’s very easy to make bad art quickly with powerful tools. It’s also possible to carefully craft prompts which generate amazing results that win awards. Source: I’ve done this. You should see the reactions when people have heaped flowery accords on a drawing and then find out it’s Dall-e. The irony of the transition from “art is rebellion” to pearl-clutching is almost the best part.

That critique says more about your understanding than it does about the work.

Seriously asking: if I customize my order at a fast food joint am I a chef? How is that different from prompt engineering to generate art?

Saying seriously asking and then asking an unserious question is like saying no offense before telling someone to fuck off.

Plenty of people would disagree so clearly this is not a settled matter

Good thing it’s not up to them then. They don’t get to say that something isn’t art.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com