3 ms·

This is the classic expression of the fallacy that the value of something is based on the cost to create it from the seller, not the benefit it brings to the bu

This is the classic expression of the fallacy that the value of something is based on the cost to create it from the seller, not the benefit it brings to the buyer.

njtransit 2y ago
Additionally, there are lots of examples where cheaper production has produced an inferior product yet the difference in price causes the inferior product to usurp in superior product. Building materials exhibit this effect frequently: plaster vs. drywall, asphalt vs. slate, balloon framing vs structural masonry, etc. In media, TikTok exemplifies this effect. People watch fewer movies (expensive, high quality) and watch more short-form content (cheap, low quality).
- hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
  Saying movies are inherently a superior product to TikTok shorts is incredibly untrue. I would rather watch 90 minutes of the dumbest TikTok crap imaginable than sit through Madame Web again.
  - njtransit 2y ago
    The quality floor of all mediums will always be 0.
- bdndndndbve 2y ago
  Cheaper movies in terms of cost are often better than expensive movies because they have a humanity that shows through. Let me know when an AI can make a Jon Carpenter movie
  - frm88 2y ago
    This. Christopher Nolan, but yes. AI can never capture the subtlety of the (failings) of the human mind/memory and the implications. It would have to learn it somehow and I don't see a method with which that can be taught.
    - jfactorial 2y ago
      How are people so certain that there is something humanity does which is unmodelable? There is an ancient hubris in this: the belief that there is something in humanity beyond physics, that we possess a soul or something else which defies mathematical/scientific comprehension. I would like to believe in our specialness like this too, but I don't understand how someone can confidently proclaim that "AI can never capture" something humans do. Whatever it is we think AI can never learn about us, is it unlearnable by humans too (i.e. inborn, instinctive)? Or is it learnable by humans, but inexplicable, unlearnable by a machine observing the behavior en masse?
duxup 2y ago
I would if that changes for more personal communication? If someone didn’t write something, I’m not sure I have much interest in talking to them about it.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  Do you value that they wrote it, or that it's their opinion? Hypothetically, if there was a system to take one's thoughts on a topic and generate text that accurately represents them, would you be interested in reading it if someone sent you their thoughts?
  - duxup 2y ago
    I think it depends on the volume of words / content and time I have to spend parsing it. With AI it seems like the volume could easily skyrocket, and the person who subjects me to it may not even have read it. This isn't just limited to AI though. As an example, I hate email generally, it feels like the land where people dump out words without trying to carefully say anything. It almost always requires lots of clarification later on. It's the land of careless communication. I often wish there was an honest flag on emails that indicated "effort put into this email" so I could put the requisite effort into reading it ;). I don't want to spend a lot of time on something of the person creating it didn't spend much time on. On the other hand if someone did put a lot of effort into the content, I want to give them an appropriate amount of attention. With AI it seems like the sheer volume of content could be even larger because of how little time it costs the sender. Thus eating up even more of the receiver's time.
coldtea 2y ago
Art is the domain where "the cost to create it from the seller" matters. Now, for those OK with slop, they can have it, but that's called content. Hollywood and SV (and most consumers) conflate the two all the time.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago
  > Art is the domain where "the cost to create it from the seller" matters. Is it? Or does it boil down to: "This has been done and rehashed multiple times before, it's no longer interesting"? There is tons of recognized art out there that, in literal time spent, could be done in minutes. What is important is what people gain from the art, not the time put into the art.
bdndndndbve 2y ago
I don't think that's true at all. Duchamp's "Fountain" is an example of something that is profoundly impactful, didn't "cost" him anything, yet an AI could never reproduce it.

This is the classic expression of the fallacy that the value of something is based on the cost to create it from the seller, not the benefit it brings to the buyer.

njtransit 2y ago

Additionally, there are lots of examples where cheaper production has produced an inferior product yet the difference in price causes the inferior product to usurp in superior product. Building materials exhibit this effect frequently: plaster vs. drywall, asphalt vs. slate, balloon framing vs structural masonry, etc. In media, TikTok exemplifies this effect. People watch fewer movies (expensive, high quality) and watch more short-form content (cheap, low quality).

hnthrowaway6543 2y ago
Saying movies are inherently a superior product to TikTok shorts is incredibly untrue. I would rather watch 90 minutes of the dumbest TikTok crap imaginable than sit through Madame Web again.
- njtransit 2y ago
  The quality floor of all mediums will always be 0.
bdndndndbve 2y ago
Cheaper movies in terms of cost are often better than expensive movies because they have a humanity that shows through. Let me know when an AI can make a Jon Carpenter movie
- frm88 2y ago
  This. Christopher Nolan, but yes. AI can never capture the subtlety of the (failings) of the human mind/memory and the implications. It would have to learn it somehow and I don't see a method with which that can be taught.
  - jfactorial 2y ago
    How are people so certain that there is something humanity does which is unmodelable? There is an ancient hubris in this: the belief that there is something in humanity beyond physics, that we possess a soul or something else which defies mathematical/scientific comprehension. I would like to believe in our specialness like this too, but I don't understand how someone can confidently proclaim that "AI can never capture" something humans do. Whatever it is we think AI can never learn about us, is it unlearnable by humans too (i.e. inborn, instinctive)? Or is it learnable by humans, but inexplicable, unlearnable by a machine observing the behavior en masse?

duxup 2y ago

I would if that changes for more personal communication? If someone didn’t write something, I’m not sure I have much interest in talking to them about it.

xboxnolifes 2y ago
Do you value that they wrote it, or that it's their opinion? Hypothetically, if there was a system to take one's thoughts on a topic and generate text that accurately represents them, would you be interested in reading it if someone sent you their thoughts?
- duxup 2y ago
  I think it depends on the volume of words / content and time I have to spend parsing it. With AI it seems like the volume could easily skyrocket, and the person who subjects me to it may not even have read it. This isn't just limited to AI though. As an example, I hate email generally, it feels like the land where people dump out words without trying to carefully say anything. It almost always requires lots of clarification later on. It's the land of careless communication. I often wish there was an honest flag on emails that indicated "effort put into this email" so I could put the requisite effort into reading it ;). I don't want to spend a lot of time on something of the person creating it didn't spend much time on. On the other hand if someone did put a lot of effort into the content, I want to give them an appropriate amount of attention. With AI it seems like the sheer volume of content could be even larger because of how little time it costs the sender. Thus eating up even more of the receiver's time.

coldtea 2y ago

Art is the domain where "the cost to create it from the seller" matters. Now, for those OK with slop, they can have it, but that's called content. Hollywood and SV (and most consumers) conflate the two all the time.

xboxnolifes 2y ago
> Art is the domain where "the cost to create it from the seller" matters. Is it? Or does it boil down to: "This has been done and rehashed multiple times before, it's no longer interesting"? There is tons of recognized art out there that, in literal time spent, could be done in minutes. What is important is what people gain from the art, not the time put into the art.

bdndndndbve 2y ago

I don't think that's true at all. Duchamp's "Fountain" is an example of something that is profoundly impactful, didn't "cost" him anything, yet an AI could never reproduce it.