Hacker News Reader

Comment by ebiester | Hacker News Reader

Let's frame it more generously: The reward is based on being able to contribute something novel to the world - not because nobody else can but because it's another contribution to the world's knowledge.

View on HN

If the core idea that was intended to be broadcasted to the world was a "contribution", and LLM simply expanded on it, then I would view LLMs simply a component in that broadcasting operation (just as the internet infrastructure would be), and the author's contribution would still be intact, and so should his enjoyment.

But his argument does not align with that. His argument is that he enjoys the act of writing itself. If he views his act of writing (regardless of the idea being transmitted) as his "contribution to world's knowledge", then I have to say I disagree - I don't think his writing is particularly interesting in and of itself. His ideas might be interesting (even if I disagree), but he obviously doesn't find the formation of ideas enjoyable enough.

The primary motivation should be wisdom. No one can become wise for you. You don't become any wiser yourself that way. And a machine isn't even capable of being wise.

So while AI might remove the need for human beings to engage in certain practical activities, it cannot eliminate the theoretical, because by definition, theory is done for its own sake, to benefit the person theorizing by leading them to understanding something about the world. AI can perhaps find a beneficial place here in the way books or teachers do, as guides. But in all these cases, you absolutely need to engage with the subject matter yourself to profit from it.

If that's the source of author's existential crisis, they may possibly find it interesting to meditate on the idea that there's no thinker behind the thought, and the impermanence of "self".

Even if they don't buy all the way into the whole hard incompatiblism thing, the idea is that they may find some value in the process.

It sounds as if the reward is primarily monetary in this case.

As some others have commented, you can find rewards that aren't monetary to motivate you, and you can find ways to make your work so unique that people are willing to pay for it.

Technology forces us to use the creative process to more creatively monetize our work.

Let's be honest, humans have been creating slop for much longer then machines. Not a bad thing, but don't put it all on a pedestal.

Now you can contribute something novel to the world by pressing a button. Sounds like an improvement.

If one merely presses a button (the same button, not choosing what button to push based on context), I don’t see what it is that one has contributed? One of those tippy bird toys can press a button.

I can draw a circle on a piece of paper and that's a serious contribution?

Where is the line drawn?

Is me sneezing a contribution to the world of art, since art is all about interpretation™®© and some smarmy critic will do a piece on how my sneeze is a visceral physical performative art illustrating the downfall of the modern world where technology binds us and we spend too much time inside surrounded by screens and dust and co2.

Nah, I just sneezed. That's all.

It sounds to me like you are maybe agreeing with me but thought that I was expressing the opposite of what I did, and so are phrasing it as if it were disagreement?

Or maybe you are just agreeing, and did understand that my point was that I don’t think pressing a button is a contribution.

If you are disagreeing with my comment, can you explain how this is disagreeing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com