5 ms·

After reading over your response and the other commenter who replied to me (czl), I think to a certain extent we're talking about different things. You both see

After reading over your response and the other commenter who replied to me (czl), I think to a certain extent we're talking about different things. You both seem to be saying that using a chatbot to write a manuscript shouldn't automatically disqualify your work from being published, which I don't really have any qualms about. What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. It bothers me that a gifted writer could spend hours painstakingly deliberating over the best way to convey an idea only to have the credit for the prose given to OpenAI. This is basically the sentiment that the author of this article was expressing: "That hurts, because — like many people — I find writing a paper to be a somewhat painful process. I read books on how to write — both to be comforted by how much these books stress that writing is generally slow and difficult, and to find ways to improve. My current strategy involves willing myself to write and creating several outlines before the first draft, which is followed by writing and a lot of revising." People generally don't enjoy working hard on something and having the credit stolen by another entity (regardless of whether or not that entity is a machine). I don't have a problem with people using Github Copilot to write code for example, but if I personally write my code by hand it's infuriating if someone gives the credit to Github's AI.

czl 3y ago
> What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. I try to impress you with my ability to look and create photo like images. It takes me a few days to do each one. Camera takes a few seconds to do the same thing. Should I be offended when you tell me I must have used a camera to make mine? How much "credit" should my skill get? What value is my skill in the age of cameras?
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  Wow, at first I thought this was just a misunderstanding, but you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.
  - czl 3y ago
    > you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. You misunderstand me. > So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. > I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Despite using machines for transport and moving stuff many of us use treadmills and lift weights ditto many still play chess despite machines mastering that game. Why might that be? > Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? Are we the end state of evolution?
    - throwitaway1123 3y ago
      > There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. I (and many others) value art not only for its economic, historical, and scientific value, but because I admire the ability of exceptional human beings. I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel. If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it. You don't have to value the same things I do, that's just my opinion. > many still play chess despite machines mastering that game This is a perfect example. Magnus Carlsen suspected that his opponent Hans Niemann cheated by using AI to assist him in a chess tournament. This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess. If the provenance of work didn't matter, people wouldn't care whether or not Niemann was using AI. Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent). > When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms. Despite all my talk about the value of communication — I'm not actually interested in pedantic quibbling over English semantics. If it really bothers you, feel free to mentally replace all instances of the word "machine" with "non-biological machine" in my writing. > Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics. I'm one of those millions of weird humans who will probably tune in to the Super Bowl today, despite the fact that machines with wheels could probably outclass the human competitors.
- zettabomb 3y ago
  It's worth noting that when photography was new it was viewed much like generative AI is today - as not "real art", "cheating", or somehow otherwise less valuable than traditional art forms. Today, after such impactful photos as Afghan Girl (Steve McCurry), Raising the Flag over Iwo Jima (Joe Rosenthal), or Monolith (Ansel Adams), I don't think anyone could successfully argue that photography a lesser art form. I don't know what that means for generative AI but it sure seems to be a similar situation. The old guard feels threatened and tries to invalidate the new techniques, but when those people are gone will it be gradually accepted alongside everything else?
  - viraptor 3y ago
    While this may change in the future, there's an aspect that many aren't really aware of - the good AI generated content takes time and skill. If you hang out in some stable diffusion communities, you'll see people iterating and tweaking elements for days to get things just right. There seems to be that impression that you can create art-level results easily. In practice, if someone has a specific idea, getting the right things in multiple steps out of current models is an art skill on its own.

czl 3y ago

> What bothers me is the idea that a talented digital artist could spend days crafting a photorealistic painting only to have someone rob them of the credit they're due by attributing the work to Midjourney. I try to impress you with my ability to look and create photo like images. It takes me a few days to do each one. Camera takes a few seconds to do the same thing. Should I be offended when you tell me I must have used a camera to make mine? How much "credit" should my skill get? What value is my skill in the age of cameras?

throwitaway1123 3y ago
Wow, at first I thought this was just a misunderstanding, but you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.
- czl 3y ago
  > you're legitimately arguing that there's no value in anything a human being creates that a machine can mimic. You misunderstand me. > So do you think we should just shut down museums, put the Mona Lisa in a shredder, and just discontinue art as a whole since it all apparently has no value? There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. > I'm not going to argue against misanthropy, but I am curious about the implications of what you're saying. When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > Also, what happens when AI and robotics can do everything that a human being can? Despite using machines for transport and moving stuff many of us use treadmills and lift weights ditto many still play chess despite machines mastering that game. Why might that be? > Are we an obsolete species with no value when that time comes? Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? Are we the end state of evolution?
  - throwitaway1123 3y ago
    > There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. I (and many others) value art not only for its economic, historical, and scientific value, but because I admire the ability of exceptional human beings. I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel. If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it. You don't have to value the same things I do, that's just my opinion. > many still play chess despite machines mastering that game This is a perfect example. Magnus Carlsen suspected that his opponent Hans Niemann cheated by using AI to assist him in a chess tournament. This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess. If the provenance of work didn't matter, people wouldn't care whether or not Niemann was using AI. Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent). > When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms. Despite all my talk about the value of communication — I'm not actually interested in pedantic quibbling over English semantics. If it really bothers you, feel free to mentally replace all instances of the word "machine" with "non-biological machine" in my writing. > Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics. I'm one of those millions of weird humans who will probably tune in to the Super Bowl today, despite the fact that machines with wheels could probably outclass the human competitors.
zettabomb 3y ago
It's worth noting that when photography was new it was viewed much like generative AI is today - as not "real art", "cheating", or somehow otherwise less valuable than traditional art forms. Today, after such impactful photos as Afghan Girl (Steve McCurry), Raising the Flag over Iwo Jima (Joe Rosenthal), or Monolith (Ansel Adams), I don't think anyone could successfully argue that photography a lesser art form. I don't know what that means for generative AI but it sure seems to be a similar situation. The old guard feels threatened and tries to invalidate the new techniques, but when those people are gone will it be gradually accepted alongside everything else?
- viraptor 3y ago
  While this may change in the future, there's an aspect that many aren't really aware of - the good AI generated content takes time and skill. If you hang out in some stable diffusion communities, you'll see people iterating and tweaking elements for days to get things just right. There seems to be that impression that you can create art-level results easily. In practice, if someone has a specific idea, getting the right things in multiple steps out of current models is an art skill on its own.