Hacker News Reader

Comment by ssfdg | Hacker News Reader

I don't buy this analogy and I think it takes a depressingly reductive view of creativity. In both cases, the photographers had to take the time to go to a place, see a view they thought was worth capturing, operated their equipment to get a shot, and then had enough discernment to recognize which of their final products were worth something. Both the traditional photographer and the modern photographer can create images of value in different ways.

If you want to shoehorn AI into this analogy at all then no one is even bothering going hiking at this point, let alone seeing anything worth capturing. It would just vomit up endless permutations of statistically average images that look like the kind of pictures people take of landscapes.

View on HN

However, for writing software with AI the analogy still works. Just as the photographer needs to pick a shot worth capturing, you have to figure out software worth building. That often also involves some leg work: you need to understand the problem and user needs. Then you need discernment to figure out where the software works well, and which parts need improvements

Well yeah and then you can be liberated by the fact that maybe getting to the landscape and experiencing it and not taking the photo was the goal all along.

You can be creative and take the photo for your sake but at the same time accept that you can generate 1000s of them and many of the generated ones will be more liked by the general public than your creative one.

There used to be no such thing as a woodworker. It used to be a number of different professions, such as the jointer, the cabinet maker, the planer, etc. now with modern tools it’s merged into one job

But surely the reasons for that change are not "the invention of a free army of unpaid minterns."

Ex: Much-more furniture being sold are duplicates from a factory process; There are better tools—which do not substitute for executive function.

Here is why it works in more than one way:

In the past few could afford to be photographers due to time and money. Many were not the most artistic or talented minds in the universe on the subject (you can’t find those until you give everyone a camera) but just people who enjoyed it and could make money off of it. Those who gained experience with the old tech were essentially AI models trained on statistically good probabilities of getting good shot. You had smaller selection and the model / brain quality determined what % of the best that photo was between 0 and 100% for any sunset. In modern days more people get a camera - more people with bad taste and more people with good taste. You also get more attempts at the shot - more photos taken, more tries. More tries means you are now preserving more of that moment from more angles and extending the time your taste people have to pick the best shot of all possible.

Your plethora of statistically average photos happen if you don’t have anyone filtering the ginormously increased output. If the problem is really valuable, someone will filter it. Possibly a model.

The real filter is value, not capability anymore. Do you have the empathy and taste to know what matters? The AI tokens/cost lets everyone make and become interested in making of someone hasn’t solved their problem. And then if search isn’t improved - everyone will just repeat the making of the same thing over and over. So if you don’t want repeated slop. fix search.

Or do you copy everything and everyone into making more of nothing.

"Those who gained experience with the old tech were essentially AI models trained on statistically good probabilities of getting good shot"

I am so glad I am not you. What a miserable way to live your life.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com