Hacker News Reader

Comment by stets | Hacker News Reader

> As I’ve mentioned before, we now live in a world where creative people have to prove they created the thing they created.

Do you? Just stop caring. I don't think it makes sense to keep asserting that you're an AI vegan in order to please randos. You'll always get hate creating/building anything online. The people that enjoy your work won't care if it's AI or not or they'll believe you.

View on HN

It's not just other creatives that care, it's consumers. There's a lot of backlash on steam against games that contain AI content. Personally, while I think GenAI has a place, I think this backlash is good. People have gotten way out ahead of their ski's and have gone way too hard on quantity instead of quality. If you use ChatGPT to do research for your book? Great. I bet it's better for it. Did you use ChatGPT to write your book? I have zero interest in reading it. It's a strong signal that no work was put into writing it so I should invest no work in reading it.

I don’t really care if someone use AI, I care if the result is slop. And it very much seems like it’s very rare for those who use AI to care about the result and avoid producing slop.

If it was bad, the hand produced result will also be criticized, but AI tools distort all the signals that let you avoid slop beforehand. No you need to invest time to recognize the slop and that time will not be given back to you.

> backlash is good

Because pre-AI, slop didnt exist? At least in the past meaningful criticism involved much more than name calling. I guess criticism slop is a natural progression and matches low effort creative slop. 0 moral higher ground

AI slop accusations are tiring, spammy, and most of the time without any evidence to back it up other than prejudice and bad attitude[0]

[0] https://www.davidrevoy.com/article1163/authenticity-problem

This response is basically culture war bickering.

The parent didn't imply that slop didn't exist pre-AI, so that's a purposeful mischaracterization.

The simple fact is that AI absolutely exploded the amount of slop and, at the same time, lends itself to concealing the source of slop. There are other variables too distinguishing the human reaction to AI slop from the human reaction to human slop, but even ignoring that: Just the two things I mentioned, together, mean that, yes, of course, any rational person is going to constantly question (internally or out loud) whether things are genAI. So if "rational" is "good", then yes, the backlash is good.

It's unreasonable to require evidence before even saying that something seems like bad genAI. And it's only a "prejudice" or "bad attitude" if you disagree with the premise (that genAI content is often bad in some way, either intrinsically or practically). Which, fine, make that argument. But that's not the argument you're making.

Even disregarding the bizarre assertion that a human author could "just stop caring" at will, this is still unrealistic even on a practical level. Enough consumers want to know whether prose is AI that it matters.

The publishing market has been brutal for many years now: even before AI, there have been multiple stories of angry backlash for any number of reasons causing a book to get yanked before it is even officially released.

With such a small number of people actually buying new books now, the cohort of angry, vindictive Twitter/Goodreads loudmouths has a lot of power and publishers are terrified of them. "Not caring" about them isn't an option, from a business perspective.

I have yet to be so-accused, but if I ever am, I'm just going to accuse the accuser of being an AI. :)

Sounds like something an AI would say.

You're not wrong, and you're right to push back on that. The speech pattern is real.

I think the theme with negative-style statements, eg 'it's not this -- it's this', is authority groveling, ie when you are missing a brain, any successful claim registers toward credibility. It indicates that you know something.

I suspect as LLMs evolve, that will disappear.

Edit: "you" = the model, not literally you. Poorly written, pardon.

We must prove ownership and creation to collect revenue in many situations. Its even more problematic that AI gets used to steal content, or directly impersonate creators. AI devalues everything.

A lot of writing publications are so overwhelmed by submissions that they run an AI tool on everything and don't even read the ones that fail (for whatever threshold they think is best). Plus look at the recent backlash against the book where the author according to detectors used about three quarters AI gen. If you do your art for anyone but yourself you care a great deal about your work showing as human and being treated as having soul rather than testing as machine and being treated as witch hunt grade slop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com