26 ms·

Not by AI

• julienreszka 4y ago
  I may never understand the appeal that luddism has to certain people.
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I know. I have also always that that people that have a problem with straw man arguments are such simple-minded nitwits.
• transitivebs 4y ago
  A quote I heard recently that really resonated with me: "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available
  • echelon 4y ago
    Art will continue to evolve with AI. Another argument I keep hearing (most recently from pg), is that we'll always need non-AI training data. That, too, doesn't follow. Training new models on synthetic data does not mean we get stuck in a particular mode or style. We'll continue moving, improving, and trying wildly new things. Bootstrapping with synthetic data doesn't block evolution - it enables faster evolution, even. (I'm using synthetic data to train new models to great effect.) People are angry that we've lowered the opportunity cost barriers and so they're expressing their frustration. It's a good thing that life's choices no longer fence us in as much. Everyone should get a chance to learn how to express themselves through art with the new regime of tools. Despite changing economics, there will still be a top 1% that do better than the rest of us.
    • can16358p 4y ago
      I think the same. Many artists hate because they feel threatened. I think the opposite: creating art (e.g. Drawing) was only for the ones who had drawing skills. Now, it's being democratized and everyone, regardless of being talented in drawing or not, can freely express their feelings and creativity. I think it's a great thing.
      • Riverheart 4y ago
        Hard disagree. Most people can draw if they put in the time but they don't. Artists did and bet their careers on it but now their effort is being trivialized by people who want a bot to "draw the owl". This is all explained well by "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain". People apply their childhood drawing symbols to realistic art in their teenage years and get frustrated. They never learn to see with an artistic eye and quit.
        • bluefirebrand 4y ago
          I used to think I was not "talented" at drawing until a girl I was dating gave me that book to read. I was skeptical at first but after going through a couple of the drawing exercises I was convinced. They are so cleverly constructed to make you step outside of your normal brain and just draw, it's kind of amazing the results. I'm never going to be an artist professionally but I do actually draw as a pastime now and I have improved substantially. I think if I had practiced more as a kid and teen I may have pursued art professionally. Part of the problem is that adults see a kid upset that their drawing isn't very good and say things like "That's ok, you're just not an artist. Not everyone can draw" and people internalize that. It's supposed to make the kid feel better and it might cheer them up in the moment, but it also convinces them that they cannot learn to be better at things they are not immediately good at. Toxic Feel-Good shit.
      • 52-6F-62 4y ago
        Art is already the most democratically available act. Anyone can learn the skills involved. Its not a select few. It’s about expressing and finding yourself and developing a soul through creative action, not just a squirting out a picture that looks “correct”. You only shortchange your own soul’s development by trying to skip the hard steps that it takes to develop a skill like that. Because you can make an image on a computer that looks like it was drawn does not mean you can draw. Hell, I’m not even sure it means you can express yourself. The inputs you contribute when using an AI prompt are so minimal compared to the informational input required to create something in the physical space. Don’t let anyone convince you that it’s an exclusive act. Find a pencil and get at it.
    • erganemic 4y ago
      People aren't angry/worried because they don't have a competitive advantage any more--people are angry/worried because they sense (I think correctly!) that AI will eliminate the part of their work that they find enjoyable. Artists, by and large, don't do art because they enjoy having art--they do art because they like /the process/ of producing art. If that process can be done faster and better by AI, then yeah, sure, they /might/ be able to still do art for a living (some artists will be able to leverage their experience to maintain an advantage; other, less flexible ones will lose work)--but the work they do will likely not be commensurate to the work they were doing before, and will likely be less enjoyable to them. The thing that worries people about AI is that it'll make all creatives into middle-managers.
      • VLM 4y ago
        To me, creative fine woodworking is making a cool idea based on the world around me and experiences I've had that balances engineering needs with artistic form. Then I spend 95% of my hobby time tediously sanding boards and applying finish and this is NOT the fun part of my hobby. I will say the only time I've gotten compensation directly as been for the latter because nobody likes doing that stuff. I'd say AI will make creatives into micromanaging middle managers, the type that gets way too involved in a critique of your every decision is still going to micromanage, they'll just be harassing an AI instead of humans. Fundamentally the creative act of making book cover art has always been specification. You can say to an artist "make me a book cover looking like ..." or you can hire a guy and give him no direction and trust him to decide what to do. But the creative act was the specifying, not the mechanics of turning that idea into printing ready art. Another problem you run into is AI is as currently produced, a groupthink enforcement technology, and most people will be turned off by that. The blandest least offensive corporate dining experience is likely McDonalds. How much do hipster foodies prefer going to McDonalds over ... anywhere else on the planet? AI can only create the ideal big mac, and you can make money shipping big macs, but only selling to poor people, everyone else wants something else, even if in a strict corporate inhuman sense its inferior in every way to a big mac.
    • brucethemoose2 4y ago
      Training ESRGAN, I quickly learned that AI sniffs artifacts humans can't see. And I got particularly funky results training a model on selected previous generation upscales. Hence I disagree. Even of the training data curators are perfect, there is a risk of "model inbreeding." And the curators are not perfect. In fact, they seem to prioritize (by necessity) volume and speed over quality and curation when training these LLMs and diffusion models.
    • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      I’m not sure what the last line says. Doesn’t the top 99% do better than the rest? I think you are making the common HN argument that it is “ableist” to think doing art should require any kind of skill or something. I don’t really agree that the AI is so good but let’s say it is, if that’s the case why do you think anyone will afford a computer to use the AI or even a house in which to type or say all these magic prompts?
  • julienreszka 4y ago
    Cortes vs the Aztecs
    • sho_hn 4y ago
      Aside: "1491" is an informative book that might dispense with that particular metaphor.
  • throwaway33381 4y ago
    No, using AI to write is basically having it do everything for you. It's not a tool it's a replacement. In the years to come several hundreds of thousands of jobs will begin to disappear from copywriters to fiction and non fiction writers. Replaced by roles such as marketers to historians. It's not photoshop for photographers is just going to push the vast majority of people wanting to pursue these fields out of the market.
    • galleywest200 4y ago
      Using it to write vs. using it to help you are two very different things. For example: sometimes I will pass a paragraph through an LLM and ask it to return it in a more "active voice". Then I _manually_ edit my original paragraph, if I wish, to make it seem more suitable for my current goals. This is sort of like Photoshop for photographers.
      • throwaway33381 4y ago
        On the other note, online submissions for publishers will be retroactively filled with spam due to the ease and ability to publish and submit content. It already happened with Clarke's World. The end is coming not a revolution. Just the end.
    • brookst 4y ago
      I think nearly everything you said is likely wrong. AI doesn’t “do everything for you” any more than word processors, music sequencers, or CAD does. AI allows people to operate at higher levels of abstraction, is all. Yes, fewer people will type repetitive copy in to word processors. But that’s fine. You are mistaking activity for productivity. Few people go into writing because they enjoy typing. AI offers leverage, which is the most amazing thing for anyone interested in producing work. Ask any professional writer: revisions are a chore. Authors often say a novel is 10% writing, 90% rewriting, and they don’t enjoy the rewriting part. So, IMO, contrary to your doomer take, I think we will see more people producing better work because they can focus on the parts they love and not do the grind that was only ever a necessary evil. (The exception being those who love the grind and not the product)
  • mjr00 4y ago
    Exactly, it's a tool. The skill floor, as in the minimum amount of skill to produce something passable, has been lowered -- dramatically lowered -- but the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result. It's similar to music. DAWs and samples didn't kill off music; instead, it made it easier than ever for a teenager with a computer and a passing interest in music to create a song and share it with a world. As a consequence, though, the standards for mixing and mastering have gone up massively; people don't really tolerate bedroom recordings with $10 mics any more. I imagine most amateur musicians in the 90s didn't know what a compressor actually did (I certainly didn't). Seeing the results of talented artists who are experimenting with AI[0] makes you realize that there's still going to be a massive gulf between skilled artists using SD etc as a tool, versus those who think they can be artists just by putting keywords into an image generation AI and calling it a day. [0] https://twitter.com/jamm3rd/status/1619896080619159553 https://twitter.com/jamm3rd/status/1619896080619159553 https://twitter.com/jamm3rd/status/1633758455952703488/photo/1 https://twitter.com/jamm3rd/status/1633758455952703488/photo... (moderately nsfw I guess)
    • chii 4y ago
      > the skill ceiling is now higher than ever as a result the fear from the current professionals is that the new ai raised floor is good enough to be usable commercially, and thus, cut a chunk of economic value from the professionals. There is no fear that AI stops people with the intrinsic interest in creation to stop creating - their ceiling and productivity would sky-rocket as a result in fact. And it would be _these_ productions that wow an audience.
      • randcraw 4y ago
        Not if creators are paid nothing for their work. I think inescapably, the profession of writing is about to take a big hit from GPT-X, with the few remaining journalists paid considerably less than before. There will be an exodus of talent, leaving... Microsoft and Google to write our news for us?
        • zirgs 4y ago
  • _the_inflator 4y ago
    Exactly, but the implication is different for me. I dislike all the filters and think this is the weirdest thing ever, to blur oneself on photos. People, who heavily use blurring to mask their wrinkles, produce - in my opinion - photos that look like grimaces. I find the pictures as well as the people using filters somewhat scary, because what happens if you meet them face to face? Use something like Google Glasses and real time filtering? For literature, it could be interesting, how authors use new tools, where and in what sense. Maybe have more conclusive plots? Less inconsistencies? Have AI imitate dead poets' style? We will value the classics more I guess, since they were done the old fashioned way.
  • ape4 4y ago
    In a novel-writing application - you write the first paragraph and the AI can finish the chapter.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • chongli 4y ago
    I feel a better comparison is like asking a painter if they use a camera. At some point we just say “you’re not a painter anymore, you’re a photographer.”
  • Sol- 4y ago
    But then the AI is the writer and you're just an editor or curator. So perhaps don't call yourself a writer if the AI produced a significant amount of the content. Same goes for Stable Diffusion/Midjourney prompters who shouldn't really call themselves artists. (Things would of course change if they do significant postprocessing of the output, though I'd still think this is much easier than coming up with something novel on the spot.) Of course, it's not my place to say who should or shouldn't call themselves a writer, but I'll simply personally respect someone more if their stories aren't ghostwritten by the AI.
    • zirgs 4y ago
      Are Pollock or Malevich real artists? Their work doesn't require great technical skill.
  • totetsu 4y ago
    Feeling pretty stupid for all the time I invested in pinhole photography and darkrooms, 20ish years after photoshop was released, about now. Guess the best artist all have $5000 to spare for a MBP and monthly creative cloud subscriptions too…
  • jhanschoo 4y ago
    I don't think an AI can do traditional art anytime soon :) robotics don't have the dexterity of human hands (yet), not at the cost of human artists
  • jaqalopes 4y ago
    The "writers" who can benefit from AI are not artists. They might be bloggers or journalists or researchers. But there is no way that a generative AI can produce, say, your memoir for you. How could it? You have to say what happened. Your life experience can't be generated. Ditto for any sort of novel above the level of the most basic imitative genre stuff. I'm certain AI could spit out a perfectly passable airport paperback romance, for instance—but how could it possibly write Infinite Jest?
    • mbauman 4y ago
      The key isn't that the "AI" writes the whole darn thing. It's a "get-out-of-writers-block-free" pass. I've successfully used chatGPT for exactly this process. I'm writing something — unique, by me! — and I want to link a few thoughts together in a succinct way. I outline what I want and ask the AI to generate some plausible prose. I almost never use the prose word-for-word, but goodness is it helpful.
    • Veen 4y ago
      I’m not so sure an AI couldn’t, in theory at least produce a memoir if you fed it your diaries, emails, social media chats and histories, photos and videos from throughout your life, and so on.
      • jaqalopes 4y ago
        This feels like a good point. I am curious how the "feeding" would occur here. If there's an API to do this sort of thing right now I'm not aware of it. But I definitely believe that it's coming!
        • ayewo 4y ago
          The recently announced GPT-4 [1] now supports feeding it with more “context” when writing a prompt than previous models. It supports a context length of 32k tokens (approximately 25,000 words or about half a novel). 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154527 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154527
  • quitit 4y ago
    There's more oil painters now than at any time in human history. New tools open doors, not shut them.
  • swatcoder 4y ago
    Leaving out “soon”, there’s truth to that, but the immediacy really depends on how this generation of AI develops and where it encounters its limits. It’s not there yet and we actually don’t know how far these current advancements will take us. It’s tremendously useful technology for many domains already and you can see the stepwise refinements that will permeate many parts of our lives. Big money corporations are productizing those elements already. But to be as fair to the pessimists as the optimists, its actually still a very big leap from Modjourney and GPT-4 to something that becomes the next camera or typewriter in terms of ubiquity. Because we saw a huge leap recently, we feel close and excited — and we might prove to be in hindsight — but we also might see that there are some hard conceptual limits that we won’t see anyone break through for another fifty or hundred years.
  • lukko 4y ago
    I don't think it's like any tool that has come before in that it can take much of the decision-making process away from the artist - it is much more like hiring someone to paint a picture than using Photoshop. For image-making, there is a decision in the prompt and selecting images, but that is very different to making a decision about each color and brushstroke, and working to finish a painting. It's orders of magnitude more difficult and why great masters are celebrated. Creating stuff with AI will suit certain people, I definitely don't think necessarily the 'best' will automatically use it. It does seem to take away a lot of the fun of making images and truly original work will always push quite far outside the training set.
  • xdennis 4y ago
    > "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they use Photoshop" – e.g., it's a foregone conclusion, and the best artists will generally adapt to using the best tools available The problem is that it automates the best parts and transforms the user into a curator/manager. Some people want that, but other enjoy the creative part more. To bring it back to photography, that's the problem with digital, you blast through hundreds of photos and spend most of your time selecting and editing at the computer. With analog, and especially wet plate or direct positive paper, it takes a while to compose your picture and you only have one chance to take it and develop it. It's very easy to mess anything which is what makes the process more meaningful. And you're left with a unique copy, not an artificially limited single copy.
    • lukko 4y ago
      Yep, exactly - I think people generally regard artistic work as getting to a successful end result. When actually the process of creating something, and potentially wrecking something at any moment, is usually the most fun / exciting and fulfilling part. That magical process is lost with AI generation.
  • asdff 4y ago
    There's shades to art of course. Not all photography is airbrushed digital stuff, and the mild stuff most people probably do, like changing the exposure curves around in photoshop or lightroom is basically akin to what photographers were doing when exposing prints from their negatives for the past 150 years, only with less time and no chemicals. Likewise, some people might be happy with AI generated fodder to read, others might want other things.
  • bloak 4y ago
    In a test of verbal reasoning, photographer is to Photoshop as writer is to ...? I don't think "AI" is the way most people would complete that sentence. Perhaps "Word"? Or "LibreOffice" if "Photoshop" were replaced with "Gimp"? Personally I use Emacs or Vim. You could incorporate AI into any of those tools, but how exactly? And would it be a core part of the functionality? And would it be something that the best artists make much use of? If you used AI to make the spelling/grammar checker more reliable, probably most people would use that (assuming no privacy problems), but if there's an AI-driven autocomplete for sentences probably a lot of people, including the best artists, would turn it off, just like I turn off the autocorrect on a word processor today. If an AI can complete the sentence, then perhaps the sentence isn't worth completing, at least if we assume that the reader is as clever as the writer and has similarly sophisticated tools. Perhaps the AI-driven tool should instead put some kind of wavy line under the second half of the sentence to indicate that it's boring and obvious and doesn't need to be there.
  • munificent 4y ago
    The problem with analogies is that you can pick one to say whatever you want. The analogy isn't necessarily true just because it feels right. Asking a photographer if they use Photoshop creates a framing where the artist still did went out and took a picture to create the work and then Photoshop only modifiers their original creation. But you could just as easily say "Soon, asking a writer if they use AI will be like asking a photographer if they have a camera". That sounds ludicrous, but that is exactly what generative AI offers: the ability to create content essentially ex nihilo.
• doomleika 4y ago
  Not sure if this is good idea as it provided self identified data from bots to harvest
  • grugagag 4y ago
    But still, content creators get badges/s I generally agree that it will become increasingly harder to distinguish non-AI generated content and authenticity will suffer a lot. Maybe the solution to this is get connected with other humans directly and provide authenticity as first hand experience.
    • doomleika 4y ago
      From consumer’s perspective they don’t care where it came from. In commercial setting(read: 99%) it’s always get stuff cheaper and better. AIGC fits both, the only better options is run faster than the waves and hope it don’t take you(i.e. “learn to code”) This is the “disruption” we tech and VC has been talking XR/Crypto/5g/metaverse is about. Except it came with large body counts for those who are directly impacted by SD/Llama in the wild,
      • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
        If consumers don’t care then where something comes from them why companies waste ink on “ethically sourced” “sustainably farmed” “fair trade” or whatever? Isn’t that a foolish waste of dye?
        • doomleika 4y ago
          I would argue "organic", "fair trade" is more a marketing-feel-good problem than actually solving the problem. There's always many if and buts which complete nullify the effect of the original label means and manufactures are more interested to lie to consumers.
      • RandomLensman 4y ago
        Somehow all this AI cannot break out of the advertising/spam mold it seems. All the billions made in high-value markets just cannot be reached so far.
• can16358p 4y ago
  I like it. I like the idea of not having a war on AI-generated content, rather, simply declaring that a non-AI-generated content is what it is, while being OK with AI-generated content too (unless they abuse the badge, of course).
  • prox 4y ago
    Don’t a few countries have a law/code for photoshopped models for instance at the moment?
    • sergeenJava 4y ago
      Yes, for example in Argentina it's mandatory to add a text legend that warns if the human figure on a graphic publicity has been been retouched
      • prox 4y ago
        That sounds like a good solution I think. “Warning : synthesized image : human, background, 50%” Gives a bit info.
• jeffbee 4y ago
  Your new mission as a human is to write is such a way that nobody suspects you are an LLM. When you are done writing, ask an LLM to write on the subject you have addressed, and if the output is similar, scrap yours and start over. If you need a badge to alert people to your humanity then you have been acting like a robot, a behavioral deficiency only you can correct.
  • raven105x 4y ago
    I realize this is in jest, but to point out the obvious, ML (AI is such a bullshit term. ANI/AGI/ASI, etc) models are trained on human written text. With ANI or AGI, this rapidly devolves into a chicken or the egg scenario. You know what else does? The cold war & arms proliferation. By the time ASI is actualized, humans will no longer be writing at all and languages as we know them will be obsolete. There is a lot of evidence that language drives cognition and there have already been instances of ANIs creating their own efficient languages. Imagine that the year is 2040 and euclidian encryption is augmented via transcoding into AI languages to safeguard against quantum computing or replaced with quantum-resistant algorithms altogether. A turing complete quantum processor was actualized a few years ago, or we just finally figured out that ML and the probabilistic nature of Quantum Computing are a perfect fit. People tend to vastly underestimate the rate of progress over 10+ years.
    • jeffbee 4y ago
      It is only mostly a joke. OpenAI's LLMs have a definite voice, and that voice is "your real estate agent is also your manager". If a person finds ChatGPT's output good enough to turn in as an assignment at school, or mail to a colleague, I think that person has little appreciation for the possibilities of language.
      • famouswaffles 4y ago
        They don't have a default voice not a definite one. Output can be easily adjusted to sound like whatever
• Waterluvian 4y ago
  AI art created by amateurs is a novelty. AI art created by talented artists and writers is the future.
  • brookst 4y ago
    s/AI//g
  • chii 4y ago
    If a reader is unable to distinguish between the two...
    • Waterluvian 4y ago
      Then does it matter? But I’m confident that no amount of AI will make the expert obsolete. Like Photoshop, it’s going to be a complex tool you have to learn to master.
• a254613e 4y ago
  So cringy. Should we also add badges for doing it without autocomplete, syntax highlighting. Hell, why even bother with text, if you didn't develop it by punching cards then you're not a real developer.
  • brookst 4y ago
    It’s the same thing we heard from musicians who didn’t want to learn technology in the 70’s: using a synth or sequencer means it’s not “real music”. Those purists are mostly dead. Everyone uses technology in music today. And music is better for it.
    • ask_b123 4y ago
      There are still purist being born (not me tbf). And I'm glad for that.
      • brookst 4y ago
        Are there really still purists who don’t just reject technology for their own music, but who insist that any music that uses technology is somehow not real art? I haven’t met anybody like that in 30 years.
    • datpiff 4y ago
      > in the 70’s > Those purists are mostly dead Genius argument there buddy
      • brookst 4y ago
        I don’t understand the point of your insulting response. Younger generations grew up with technology. Just being part of music. Music goes on just fine, nobody makes that stupid argument anymore.
        • buggy6257 4y ago
          People born in the 70s are 53 at most. They are almost certainly not "mostly dead" yet.
• cypress66 4y ago
  Kind of ugly in my opinion
• ducktective 4y ago
  Can LLMs produce new content?
  • Spivak 4y ago
    Is Theseus' ship new? This question is where humans and AI are roughly the same. If you could look into an artist's brain (or anyone's in any field) and trace the influences back you would probably start to wonder if the number of truly original ideas had by all of humanity is actually quite small.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • joseda-hg 4y ago
    Define new I'm not quite convinced humans create original ideas as often as some think Any text I write is vaguely influenced by everything I've experienced(Other media, Real life experiences) even if it's not a conscious process Depending on where you draw the line, I'd say most artistic work would't qualify as actually new
• detrites 4y ago
  1. There is nothing to stop someone putting this on >10%-AI generated material. 2. The same argument could be made for "Not with a Computer" and invalidate this website based on identical principles. 3. The future AI brings is a huge unknown, but as we've seen with every major technological advance so far, it's never been nearly as bad as the most fearful and skeptical thought it would be at the time this was unknown.
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I think you could make the claim from #2 but then you will miss the point and the big picture here. I guess it’s just myopia. There is a difference between the scales of using a computer for some work versus whet is discussed here. As well, in #3, actually it is the “supporters” or fan boys/girls that are proclaiming AI shoes human intelligence is nothing abs reduces to “probalistic sparks” and gleefully rejoice in economic collapse or something, not simply the “skeptics”.
• underyx 4y ago
  > If humans rely solely on AI to generate content moving forward, any new content generated by AI may just be recycled content from the past. To be honest, I’d struggle to find any human content that is not recycled from the past. I guess we are still better than AI at remixing sufficiently novel combinations of concepts but I think much of this AI content aversion comes from some kind of phobia, or an unwillingness to admit humans are shockingly unoriginal.
  • brookst 4y ago
    Exactly this. The vast majority of art is unoriginal and derivative. That doesn’t mean it’s bad art, just that it is not revolutionary. So what? There are a handful of truly revolutionary artists each generation. Faulting AI for producing merely good and interesting art is missing the point.
    • giraffe_lady 4y ago
      I don't know about other people but I don't "fault" the AI anything, nor am I even particularly bothered by AI-generated content per se. What fills me with dread is the obvious glee over removing human work from sellable products, when there is no viable alternative to working for most people. We've created a world where a lot of jobs can be automated, and that is somehow a bad thing, and it's going to be used to crush people. It's a labor issue not a philosophical one.
      • brookst 4y ago
        Would you be happier if your car / bicycle / city bus was produced entirely by hand, with no tools or automation? Labor will shift. Bemoaning new efficiencies and new empowerment because they reduce the need for meaningless labor consumption is backwards. We should be sensitive to those whose lives will take an unexpected turn (I may be one of them!), but we should do so in the context of celebrating greater individual leverage to create and produce.
        • giraffe_lady 4y ago
• tarball 4y ago
  A similar project https://ai-label.org/ https://ai-label.org/
• branon 4y ago
  Ctrl+F "content" -> 31 matches. I disagree with your diction which makes me doubt the overall veracity of intent here but good luck with your efforts to promote differentiation.
• RcouF1uZ4gsC 4y ago
  I say we should all carve text on stone tablets. If it was good enough for God, it should be good enough for us.
• canbus 4y ago
  this all feels a bit dystopian...
• npalli 4y ago
  Not by AI is going to be the new Artisanal.
• miklosme 4y ago
  > If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. Yeah, because the Netflix catalog, for example, is not repetitive and stagnant. These current advances will enable anybody with a unique idea to produce content. We are right before an immense explosion of human creativity.
  • Spivak 4y ago
    If you just go into the Midjourney Discord you'll see people with absolutely no mechanical artistic talent be create absolutely stunning novel art. The creativity people have there is crazy and the AI is letting them go from head to canvas in a few seconds.
    • bogwog 4y ago
      When I see AI art from those communities, it all looks the same to me. People tend to overestimate their talent, and get overly attached to their own ideas. So when a tool like midjourney/stable diffusion generates beautiful artwork based on a low effort prompt from the user, it's comfy to think that they had a big part in it. The reality is that almost everything those tools make is equally gorgeous/amazing regardless of who uses it, so they're effectively interchangeable. As a tool for personal expression, it has a lot of value because of the impact it can have on the individual using it, but as art it's pretty worthless. A generated AI image could potentially have some cultural impact or value, but not on the merits of "it looks pretty", since they all look like that.
      • tablatom 4y ago
        > as art it's pretty worthless My experience browsing midjourney supports this. It's amazing how quickly you go from "wow" to "whatever". But that's probably cold comfort for a huge number of jobbing illustrators. Paying clients typically don't want art.
  • 52-6F-62 4y ago
    Creativity is not equivalent with digital output volume. I think we’re going to see an explosion of waste. We are information processors. The input makes the output. What happens when you close that loop?
• WFHRenaissance 4y ago
  I'll take "futile humanism" for $1000, Alex.
• twa34532 4y ago
  > The following guidelines provide instructions on how to use the Not an AI badge. phew. need GPT to show me how to properly use the badge.
• ChrisMarshallNY 4y ago
  Maybe we should have a "MOBA"[0] badge? [ Art Too Bad To Have Been Done By AI ] [0] https://museumofbadart.org https://museumofbadart.org
• a2800276 4y ago
  Well you could just start off by signing your name under the work instead of slapping some anonymous group's badge on your work. In fact, this page seems like exactly the type of underhanded trick an escaped AI bot would play to get more human generated content to train on... The kicker is the "90% of content will be generated by AI by 2025" quote by an "expert" which links to a Yahoo-TV clips of some rando influencer spouting nonsense. Better luck next time, ChatGPT!
• wunderland 4y ago
  I think the distinction will increasingly be hard to define. If you take a photo today using the latest iPhones, the camera module is doing a ton of image processing, detection of humans in the frame, brightening of faces, etc. The idea of a “no filter” photo is sort of impossible in this world; the camera has already applied a number of filters to improve the contrast and colors in various ways (even if the goal is to match “reality” or what your eyes might have seen at the same time as the shot was taken). Is this AI? Soon, many digital image editors will incorporate some simple AI-powered features to detect edges, faces, various objects, etc. Are content-aware plug-ins to Photoshop AI?
  • smrtinsert 4y ago
    > Soon, many digital image editors will incorporate some simple AI-powered features to detect edges, faces, various objects, etc. Are content-aware plug-ins to Photoshop AI? This happened years ago. Agreed with the first part though - there is almost literally no possible route to avoid AI on consumer phones.
• notwithcomputer 4y ago
  I'm creating a label called 'notwithcomputer', just to show how ridiculous this is...
• itsaquicknote 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • wrycoder 4y ago
    s/entire classes of professional work/humans/
• notwithcomputer 4y ago
  Why not NOT_WITH_COMPUTER just to show how ridiculous this is?
  • asciii 4y ago
    SO, iPad??
• keldami 4y ago
  So I can just, slap this onto my AI generated art?
• raincole 4y ago
  Some people are talking about how AI hype is just like NFT hype (with whatever reasons). Well, to me, these anti-AI things are much more like NFT/crypto. It's just trying to create novelty out of nowhere.
• twa34532 4y ago
  funnily enough, it think this is a good development for our species. In the 2000s, if you were talking on the internet, you were pretty sure that you were talking to other humans. This will quickly reverse as in being sure that one is talking to AI most of the time on anything remote (internet, phone, email, ...) Which in turn will massively strengthen personal (like non-remote) face-to-face interactions.
  • randcraw 4y ago
    Or more likely, end them entirely.
  • zirgs 4y ago
    You can already get banned from social networks by AI.
• dmingod666 4y ago
  We as humans have had this argument with automated manufacturing, its a good reference point to predict human behavior. Second is art itself. We have high quality art prints that a large portion of people are happy to buy. Artists themselves are happy to sell prints of their own work. That product is entirely machine made except for the initial knowledge work by the artist. I'm not making a art, not art argument. I'm saying, people are happy to consume manufactured content, companies are happy to generate it for them. The argument that 'humans will stop producing and things will stagnate' is totally non-serious and doesn't even deserve a retort really..
• dale_glass 4y ago
  I get the concerns with AI, but this kind of thing has always looked odd to me. Like imagine a label on a thing that says "Made without CNC machinery". So instead of finishing the thing on a CNC mill, they instead stuck it on a Bridgeport manual mill, and finished by hand. Or somebody finished the cast with a file. Okay, and so? In the end, a hammer is a hammer. If it hammers well, what difference does it make how it got that precise shape? It's not like some inherent goodness is being imparted by a hand file. Now I get some methods have flaws to them, and some form of associated harm. The problem I see with blaming specific tools is that it's simplifying the problem too much. Eg, if the problem is taking jobs, then picking up one particular tool to blame for that allows manufacturers to use a different tool and cause the same sort of issue. If the problem is say, pollution, then it's not at all a given that the replacement method will be ecologically friendly. IMO the better thing to do is to target the underlying problem. If say, your issue is ecology, then you want to certify that the manufacture is as environmentally friendly as it can be, not that the thing isn't made from plastic, or there exists the chance that the non-plastic thing will even be worse for the environment.
  • version_five 4y ago
    I can see a difference for creative works. I'd be more interested to know that I'm looking at something an artist did intentionally than something sampled from a manifold of similar works. Just like I'd rather (all things being equal) have a real drawing or painting than a print. You can make analogies in other art forms too. And if someone is going to send me a sales pitch or email that GPT wrote, I'd rather they don't insult me and just send me the prompt. I think tfa is a gimmick, but i see value in knowing whether I'm relating to a human brain or to a statistical model
    • dale_glass 4y ago
      External help is not at all unusual in artwork. Eg, many artists just look for reference pictures online when they want to depict a tricky pose. Apparently the infamous Captain America picture happened because of a bad usage of a reference. Or manga artists use things like screentones: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2U4EfKCfjI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2U4EfKCfjI I think AI will go down that road. Yeah, lots of people will mess around with prompts, but artists able to retouch the output, and to mix and match stuff will get much better results.
• dcre 4y ago
  This is going to look very quaint in about... 3 months. I mean, it's already quaint.
• return_to_monke 4y ago
  I wonder how fast this badge will get into datasets, and AIs, which will then try to replicate it - as part of the content they generate
• blueboo 4y ago
  Ironically, this celebration of originality itself recycles a now-familiar, incorrect meme—that generative AI just interpolates/remixes/collages between existing work. It does a lot more than that. It is capable of novelty and striking out in novel directions per the AI artist’s direction. Maybe there’s some soul-grounded capital-t truth forever out of reach, but that’s metaphysics.
  • xdennis 4y ago
    It only appears novel because it mixes so much data. People have always wondered if even people are creating anything new ("nothing new under the sun"), so it's quite silly to say that a model which produces data based on its training set and prompt is doing anything other than mix. Some day AI will be able to create by itself, but the current state of the art isn't doing it.
• nemo44x 4y ago
  "Made in America" vibes. It must be better because we made it... There's a sort of insecurity about this. And I get it, people are freaking out. I feel unsettled in many ways and I truly believe this technology is profound. Wait until it's realtime and embedded in everything. But I don't believe it's a cause for concern. I don't think we need to legislate transformers trained on public data as something illegal, for example. I think it's a tool, a fantastic tool and a powerful tool, but a tool none the less. It will democratize many things and it will lead to increased productivity and creativity. But we, humans, will find more things to do; ways we can't see right now because it wasn't possible and still probably isn't.
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I think iou we missing the point of the “made in America” thing but it’s ok. It’s not surprising.
    • nemo44x 4y ago
      Was/is a way to differentiate a product from foreign (at a time Japan, now China) made products. That because it was made here (if you’re American which I assume readers here are and if not then are European and are aware of American culture because they imitate it daily) it is better and if not then at least supporting “your kind”. So made by human or w/e is a similar concept.
• rafaquintanilha 4y ago
  How long until we get an ESG-like board of bureaucrats and oligarchs labeling companies as "AI-safe" or "AI-friendly"?
• IceDane 4y ago
  Very cringey. Not helped by how it also dictates how you should use it. Why do they care about the shape or the color?
  • minimaxir 4y ago
    The branding appears to be inspired by Apple's Made for iPhone branding (https://9to5mac.com/2018/03/10/apple-updates-made-for-iphone-mfi-logo/ https://9to5mac.com/2018/03/10/apple-updates-made-for-iphone...) and Apple is indeed assertive of proper use of branding. Of course, a juxtaposition between this and Apple is very silly.
• sebzim4500 4y ago
  They don't look that good, maybe they should get Stable Diffusion to generate a few alternatives, some will be better. More seriously, even if we are willing to assume that everyone will be honest about how much they use AI, how do you define whether an image is less than 10% AI generated? Number of pixels? Number of objects? And what about writing? Does getting an LLM to check your grammar afterwards count as cheating?
• jwhiles 4y ago
  Gonna start slapping this on all my AI generated content
  • lopatin 4y ago
    Just remember to follow their guidelines for proper badge formatting.
• bleuchase 4y ago
  The number of AI luddites on HN is fascinating.
  • Sol- 4y ago
    What's luddite about not wanting to read ghostwritten AI stories posted by fake writers? If I want AI stories or art, I can just prompt the models myself and don't need a useless intermediary. On the bright side, this is likely also going to play out this way and the market for the prompt "artists" will be nonexistent unless they add any value (which they rarely will).
    • bleuchase 4y ago
      It’s silly to think that new technologies aren’t incorporated into art in all kinds of ways. Some are positive and some are negative. I can think of a dozen different ways a writer could use ChatGPT in a way that augments their own creativity and would be indistinguishable to readers. If you think formulaic or thoughtless writing is new I’ve got news for you.
• Polarity 4y ago
  everything is a remix https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc
• TeeMassive 4y ago
  There should be a "Created by AI" badge too.
• mishmush 4y ago
  >If your content is not AI-generated, add the badge to your work, with pride. What a farce.
• phazeedae 4y ago
  Seems silly, I care about the quality of the content. I don't care who, created it, just if it is good, and if I can use it, learn from it etc.
• bogwog 4y ago
  * The number people who care about whether art was AI generated is only going to decrease as time goes on * If there is any kind of real value to having this badge, then people will just use it even if they're using AI * Rejecting technological advancement is like begging for extinction
• banjodebanks 4y ago
  [dead]
• jcq3 4y ago
  Stupid purpose, made by AI or not shouldn't matter. What matters is creativity and if as human you can't beat AI's then you should question yourself.
• andrewfromx 4y ago
  Seems like it’ll be on the wrong side of history when AI “people” have rights. Then these badges are like speciesist? Think of Data on Star Trek. He can’t make content with a human badge?
  • noobermin 4y ago
    Do you think half of the people using the tools now want them to have rights once they achieve AGI? The entire point of these people are going for is they want a race of slaves because enslaving humans is now illegal.
• roboy 4y ago
  This ignores that the selection of the generated results being published is part of the creative process. AIs will not learn off an iid sampling of AI output, but of one that is extensively shaped by human preference. And because humans like novelty this will never converge as rhose preferences are a moving target.
• tiborsaas 4y ago
  It feels like a good time to read this again about making music properly :) > I thought using loops was cheating, so I programmed my own using samples. I then thought using samples was cheating, so I recorded real drums. I then thought that programming it was cheating, so I learned to play drums for real. I then thought using bought drums was cheating, so I learned to make my own. I then thought using premade skins was cheating, so I killed a goat and skinned it. I then thought that that was cheating too, so I grew my own goat from a baby goat. I also think that is cheating, but I’m not sure where to go from here. I haven’t made any music lately, what with the goat farming and all.
  • kif 4y ago
    The way to properly make it is to have someone else make it and claim it as your own :)
  • dwringer 4y ago
    Can confirm as a musician this is a very natural progression. Amazing what people out there can do when they are willing to bend some of the rules though. ;)
• harry-wood 4y ago
  There's a typo in the "Mission" section "Only by limiting the reliance on AI and continue to create original content can propel us forward as a species". An AI wouldn't have made that kind of mistake
• zemo 4y ago
  a lot of people in this thread seem to have no understanding that some people enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand. Every framing in here to the tune of “everyone will use AI” is nakedly utilitarian. Sometimes people pain pictures or write not just because they enjoy the act. Sometimes people paint pictures or write because they want to communicate; not everyone will feel like they’re communicating from themselves when the words or pictures come from a machine. Generating content from a dataset is a way of exploring the dataset; generating content from within is a way of exploring yourself. They are simply different. and fwiw, a lot of the assumptions in here are akin to saying at the dawn of photography that nobody would ever paint any more. Photography of course replaced certain entire categories of painting, but didn’t erase painting from the face of the earth altogether. Of course there are far more photographs than there are paintings, but volume alone is not the totality of meaning. Generated content is strictly culturally regressive anyway. After a hundred years of ChatGPT will people still be writing prompts with “in the style of [person who produced all of their work before the year 2000]”? That would be a sad and boring future.
  • thunderbong 4y ago
    From an article posted here recently[0] > Art is not what I think when I’m painting. It’s what you feel when you’re looking [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34921883 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34921883
    • TremendousJudge 4y ago
      I disagree. It's both. If I'm playing the piano alone in my room and nobody else listens to it, I'm still having the aesthetic experience called "art". Many people make art just for themselves without the intent of showing it to anybody else, and it's not somehow less artistic than something that other people see. Art is an experience somebody has, including the artist.
  • redox99 4y ago
    I'm not sure what's your point. People that enjoy the act of writing or of painting by hand will still be able to do that.
• donpislik 4y ago
  Finally, someone could read my mind.
• korax_nyx 4y ago
  I am a professional writer (not in English language), novels published, short stories and the like, some awards, etc, nothing fancy, nothing big. I pay bills writing for corporations and other customers. I just want to say that some answers here are like when artists talk about engineering, we simply don't understand the topic and it shows.
  • CadmiumYellow 4y ago
    As someone who has been both an artist and an engineer I could not agree more. It's fascinating reading commentary on the arts from people who have always been STEM types because their entire concept of art is completely different from that of people who consider themselves artists. They constantly conflate creative problem solving and creative expression, which are two fundamentally different processes. I don't want to denigrate anyone here but I do sometimes get depressed by how artless people in the tech world are. I value art (in all its forms) because it connects human beings across space and time through our shared experience of the human condition. The best comment I've seen so far in this thread is the one about how AI art is meaningless because "AI doesn't fear death or loneliness."
    • CatWChainsaw 4y ago
      It looks to me that because society places more value on STEM, a lot of people in STEM (especially that T, as you can see on this site) end up acting like "gift and talented" children and sprinting away with it. With gifted and talented, the charade falls away by college; not so with Big Tech. There's a sadistic glee in proclaiming people nothing more than biological machines and acting like a scolding parent whenever any emotion is brought up in any form. I always smile whenever I see comments from one of these types of people explaining how fulfilling they find their lives. Sure, buddy. :)
• shwoopdiwoop 4y ago
  Setting aside the conceptual criticism, the execution of this badge is also done poorly. If the goal is to highlight creation by humans, I’m struggling to see how slapping a big fat sticker that says “AI” in large type on it would be a good idea? All it does is give AI more attention and associates the work with it.
• kmeisthax 4y ago
  >Understanding that there is a blurred line between what is considered AI-generated vs human-generated, if you are a content creator, such as a writer, researcher, artist, music producer, sound designer, or filmmaker, and you estimate that at least 90% of your content is created by humans, you are eligible to add the badge into your website, blog, essay, publications, resume, or whatever your project is. The 90% can include using AI for inspiration purposes or to look for grammatical errors and typos. This is subjective as all get out. If you write a novel and use Stable Diffusion to draw the cover, does that make the whole novel less than 100% human-generated?[0] What if they had used, say, lots of prompt engineering and inpainting runs instead of just typing in what they wanted and grabbing the first thing they saw? If, say, painting programs start using image generators as brush engines, does that lower the percentage more or less than the inpainting case? [0] Keep in mind that most covers are designed and drawn by publishers, not the original writers. Writers making their own cover art is very much a self-publishing thing.
  • JohnFen 4y ago
    > If you write a novel and use Stable Diffusion to draw the cover, does that make the whole novel less than 100% human-generated? I have never considered the cover art for a novel (or most books) to be a part of the novel. The thought that it might be never occurred to me. It's the packaging. So, in my view, such a novel would be 100% human generated.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• alfor 4y ago
  We will soon have to accept that we are not special. We are meat based, the new minds are silicon based. They have different strengths and limitations than us, will surpass us in all cognitive abilities soon. Our hardware evolved to help us survive and reproduce but the evolution is a slow process compared to the intelligent design we do. AI will surpass us and build itself beyond what we can reason about. We will do art and work because we like to do it, just like playing video games, no other reason will survive.
  • screamingninja 4y ago
    The acceptance of the fact is inevitable that humans are not special as the new minds, which are silicon-based, will soon surpass us in all cognitive abilities due to their different strengths and limitations. The evolution of our hardware is a slow process, while intelligent design leads to the rapid advancement of AI. AI will become so advanced that it will surpass our comprehension, and humans will continue to do art and work solely for enjoyment, similar to playing video games, with no other reason.
    • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
      Is this some kind of cult mantra?
      • CatWChainsaw 4y ago
        It sounds like a flavor of singularitarianism, paired with absurdism/nihilism.
    • alfor 4y ago
      Are you fixing my writing? Thanks ;) What is your take on that, what do you think?
      • screamingninja 4y ago
        > Are you fixing my writing? Thanks ;) Not fixing. It was merely a recommendation. Wasn't sure it would help, but if it did, I am glad! > What is your take on that, what do you think? Not sure what you mean. Are you asking for my opinion on the original comment?
• dcchambers 4y ago
  > Artificial Intelligence (AI) is trained using human-created content. If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. Perhaps somewhat ironically, if we start identifying all human-created works as such, it creates a new set of pristine training data for future generative AI/LLMs.
• rchaud 4y ago
  Nice idea but it feels more symbolic than anything that can actually be enforced. To avoid AI content means intentionally avoiding sites that are designed for cheap monetization and nothing more. That includes most blogs today; the ones that aren't personal websites. Most 'review' websites are exactly this; they offer a generic description and add an Amazon affiliate link. We won't know for sure what sites are using it and which aren't, but knowing the nature of the site (commercial/non-commercial) is a pretty good proxy.
  • dhbanes 4y ago
    https://twitter.com/jacksonfall/status/1636107218859745286 https://twitter.com/jacksonfall/status/1636107218859745286
• itake 4y ago
  I want a "Created by AI" badge for my social media content, because I want to show off my skills with creating AI content (and educate users about what they are consuming).
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    What skills are you using in creating AI content? Did you create the LLM?
    • itake 4y ago
      Creating prompts to get good results is a skill. - For text prompting, a good starting point is reading the whitepapers in this repo [0]. - For AI art generation, a good starting point are AI prompt libraries to see results of good prompts. Fine-tuning (and creating the examples for fine-tuning) is also an interesting challenge. - The Stanford Alpaca repo [1] made it really easy to fine-tune LLaMa based on your custom dataset. [0] - https://github.com/promptslab/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering https://github.com/promptslab/Awesome-Prompt-Engineering [1] - https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca https://github.com/tatsu-lab/stanford_alpaca
• Abecid 4y ago
  This is such a major problem
• soheil 4y ago
  Is it really that black and white? What if you do your offline research using AI? What if you took a course about the topic on Khan Academy aided by AI?
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    I think that’s why they use a percentage …
• IceHegel 4y ago
  The smiley face is not centered and doesn't look very good. Agree with the idea though.
• oldstrangers 4y ago
  Lol I had a similar idea and registered certifiedaifree.com and withoutai.com.
  • BirAdam 4y ago
    You could make one a registry of sites with such content, and the other another badge. If you make a new badge, you should make it a super retro-esque 90s era site badge.
    • siva7 4y ago
      <blink>NO AI BADGE CLUB < blink>
• siva7 4y ago
  Well, i've heard our ancestors were afraid of books when they came out, then they were afraid of movies and cinemas, then some people were afraid of the internet. The story continues with AI.
• gavinhoward 4y ago
  This is a good idea. I already did something like it to my works. However, the items I added to my works have a stronger claim than 90% AI-free: I used "100% AI-free organic content." I think I'll keep this stronger claim because I can; I have not tried any of these tools. Not even once. I refuse to. I am betting on the fact that if I don't, I'll start to have more influence, like Paul Graham said a few days ago.
• BirAdam 4y ago
  I wish there were a way to flag my own sites as illegal for use in training LLMs and other AI systems. If there is such a way, someone please let me know.
• janeway 4y ago
  I am going to ask my accountant why she dose not have a “automatic calculator not used” badge.
• precompute 4y ago
  Thanks, now they can find original works they can train on by looking for these images. Anyway, I like the initiative. We'll need much more to make a digital divide that can guarantee human autonomy.
• natch 4y ago
  This line of thought is harmful and helps nothing imho. I thought I’d have an open mind and read the “why” section. > it helps your audience recognize your human-first approach So, no. Refraining from using AI is not a human-first approach, when using AI can actually help significantly with human problems. The badge is a false and outmoded signal which says more about the user being a virtue signaling type personality.
• coryfklein 4y ago
  Why would anyone trust that the content labeled "not by AI" is in fact not written by AI?
• aaroninsf 4y ago
  An analog to the sudden belated question of the extent to which human language is novel (or not), is a precursor to a more existential revelation our culture is going to have, the extent to which the entire precept of the rational self-aware agent that we carry as our model of ourselves, is a confabulated falsehood maintained by our own minds. Most of what most of us do most of the time is habitual, instinctual, autonomic, pre-conscious, whatever—very few of us are present very much of the time. Even highly-analytic complex logical reasoning can and does often transpire in something akin to a "fugue state," indeed that is a much-noted aspect of technical work like most here engage in. That doesn't mean that we are not capable of genuine self-awareness, introspection, and methodical reasoned thought—but I don't think it's controversial (except in our lay conception) whether or not those things are primary or common modes of being in the world. Record yourself for 24 hours and compare honestly the sequence of your utterances and behaviors with your internal record of agency, and you'll find you are on autopilot in some sense most of the time. From this I infer that the first "real" seeming AGI will like us be not monolithic capable systems, but relatively loosely coupled aggregates, with many components serving as analogs to aspects of mind and embodiment largely distinct form and only loosely coupled to the "executive" function.
  • dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    This is a serious question: was this written by ChatGPT?
• hintymad 4y ago
  > If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. I doubt if this concern is valid for humanity. Creating is an innate desire of human beings. We are going to have lots of AI-generated content, but I have confidence that people will continue to generate high-quality content too. Of course, how to find such quality content will be a different matter in the future. Maybe an industry-standard watermark or metadata for generated content is a cheap enough solution.
• throwaway_ab 4y ago
  Humans will not stop creating due to AI, instead AI produced works and AI assisted works will contribute to the total human output alongside non AI works. No need to make websites or manifestos, do not worry humans will still human!
• throwaw12 4y ago
  How do you verify if badge usage is legitimate? People do everything for SEO
  • hoherd 4y ago
    This is addressed on the page: https://notbyai.fyi/#legal-effect-of-not-by-ai-badge https://notbyai.fyi/#legal-effect-of-not-by-ai-badge > displaying the badge on any asset does not guarantee the content is not majorly created by AI.
• threevox 4y ago
  This is monumentally stupid lmao
• sklivvz1971 4y ago
  > Artificial Intelligence (AI) is trained using human-created content. If humans stop producing new content and rely solely on AI, online content across the world may run the risk of becoming repetitive and stagnant. This is an absurd thought. AI content is still created by humans using AI, just like photos are created by humans using cameras. Also who says that AI can't be as creative as humans or better? Why would humans be better at being creative "manually" instead of with machines? I say AI creativity will be better than simple humans at creating stuff. Humanity will overall benefit from it and the world will be less dull.
• gregschlom 4y ago
  Plot twist: this is secretly sponsored by some of the big AI players so that they can easily identify original human-made material to train future versions of their AI on.
• lxe 4y ago
  The biggest misunderstanding is that AI content ends up being limited in scope and creativity, and endlessly recycling AI content and feeding it back into more AI will somehow create a world where all content feels cookie-cutter. This is far from the truth.
• KodingKitty 4y ago
  I was tempted to do something similar. But then I changed my mind for a simple reason. Because nowadays all kinds of content and technology is labelled as AI. Sometimes even if it hasn't been touched by AI at all. So I decided not to label anything I do because it is done by humans. Anyway, nice idea. I like it. Kudos to you. Yours, KodingKitty
  • rambambram 4y ago
    > So I decided not to label anything I do because it is done by humans. I also liked the idea behind the label, but on second thoughts the whole idea behind a label sounds counter intuitive to me. Like there's some kind of truth in sticking a label on something. So, should I trust a label then? Is there some authority in a label? Do I even need authority to point out what's real and what's not? What's reality then? Does it even matter? Anyway, you get the point. A lot of questions. And then I read further on that site, and it tells me how to use the label. Don't change the label. Don't change the color, don't change the text. I think it's human to break rules, in one way or another. Or at least to push the boundaries. So - to me - it's more human to change this label, and not use it as intended by the creator of the label. Maybe that's the difference between AI and humans. AI will follow rules (set by it's masters), whether it allows for randomization or not, it will follow rules. Human beings - sometimes - break rules.
• lisp-pornstar 4y ago
  Makes me think about Real humans [0], in which artificiality becomes a political issue. I only saw the original swedish version of the show. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Humans https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Humans
  • waffletower 4y ago
    Note that "Real humans" are a "far-right political movement" according to Wikipedia.
• dudeinjapan 4y ago
  The grand irony is if these ugly badges are widely adopted, AI will plaster ghosts of them just like it does with the "Getty Images" watermark today.
• offsky 4y ago
  Ironically, the badge sounds robotic "written by human". How about "written by a human" to make it grammatically correct? And while we are at it, why are the letters AI the biggest thing on the badge? Seems backwards. I suggest flipping the emphasis so "written by a human" is bold and the "not by AI" part is smaller to indicate its inferiority.
• munificent 4y ago
  If this gets popular enough, then AIs scraping the Internet will get trained to insert the badge in their content.
• cwkoss 4y ago
  Lol, "Not by AI" badge can be officially used on works that are 10% AI.
• jdeisenberg 4y ago
  I scripted a tutorial video, recorded it, and edited it. Then I used WhisperAI to generate a transcript for subtitles . The question is: can I use “not by AI” on the video, or did using AI for the transcript make it partially the product of AI, and not really mine?
  • mlindner 4y ago
    I'd say yes as the transcription is not transformative on the original, it's also possible to check whether it's identical or not.
• thih9 4y ago
  > Use this badge if your artwork, including digital and traditional art, contains less than 10% of AI output. Isn’t this already a “made by AI” artwork? And how much is 10%? If a traditional painter that uses photo reference starts using AI generated photorealistic imagery instead, is that more or less than 10%?
• programmarchy 4y ago
  To be useful, this needs to be backed by an identity certificate (like SSL), ideally signed by a root authority like a state which can reconcile with a birth certificate, or some other form of state-issued ID.
• elforce002 4y ago
  This is an interesting take. "AI" is producing a counter-culture against it.
  • programmarchy 4y ago
    The machinery of capitalism is fantastic about co-opting and productizing counter-cultures. Nothing meaningful will come of this, unless humans start thinking more systematically. For most people, they are too specialized in a narrow field to think like this, or the system is too complex for them to think about effectively.
• Invictus0 4y ago
  How much AI content can be in the AI's training data before it just starts to suck? If 90% of the internet in 2025 is AI generated, then how will a new AI be trained?
• Min0taur 4y ago
  This feels naive and perfunctory, at best. If, by some chance, this actually caught on and was some kind of indicator of quality, it would be in a predictive model's best interest to integrate the logo into any kind of web design it produces. Furthermore, no human-curated content farm would hesitate to include this symbol, regardless of the content's human 'purity'.
• WXLCKNO 4y ago
  Feels like it's meant for a sticker a robot will put on my forehead after killing me in a dystopian future.
• Aachen 4y ago
  > The Not By AI badge currently does not hold any legal effect significance Of course it does. If you make a purchase based on this badge and you later find out it's false, that's fraud. You don't need to have a certification program before false advertising becomes illegal.
• freetinker 4y ago
  “It is important that your output is perceived as human output; add badge.”
• LoganDark 4y ago
  I'd appreciate something a bit more inclusive of alterhuman identities, but that's just a super minor nit. Other than that, it doesn't seem like a bad idea for people to be able to mark their work as "created by a real person" with a cool little badge like this. It's simple but it works.
• aaroninsf 4y ago
  Digital veganism, which will achieve less reach than the original.
• mindwork 4y ago
  Everything is a remix
• sangnoir 4y ago
  Is this effort sponsored by OpenAI so they can auto-label their crawled data as human-authored vs everything else? <adjusts tinfoil hat>
• gpderetta 4y ago
  This is a covert operation to get human generated contented to be tagged appropriately to be incorporated to the next training set for GPT-5/SD3.0. /S but only a bit.
• felipelalli 4y ago
  For 1 sec I thought the domain was "fys" (f. yourself) hahah.
• mcemilg 4y ago
  Involuntarily, this would help the AI get better with letting scrapers discriminate human and AI contents.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• bigsmiles01 4y ago
  isn't this just tagging your own content so it's easier to train models with it?
• JamieCropley 4y ago
  Sites like this are the problem, not the AI itself. People should not have to justify themselves like this.
• hammyhavoc 4y ago
  90%? Why not 100% created by humans?
• meatjuice 4y ago
  Ai: I’m not an AI