3 ms·

I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs, and that's exactly what freaks people out about it. Else they wouldn't

I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs, and that's exactly what freaks people out about it. Else they wouldn't be so obsessed with trying to find and define what makes it different. The Thesis of Everything is a Remix is that there is no difference in how any culture is produced. Different models will have a different flavor to their output in the same way as different people contribute their own experiences to a work.

qsera 7mo ago
> demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Is there "demonstrably" a lot of difference between Shakespeare and an HN comment? The point is exactly that there is no such difference. And that it enables slop to be sold as art. And that exactly is the danger. But another point is we had the even before LLMs. And LLMs just make it more explicit and makes it possible at scale.
- timschmidt 7mo ago
  Conrad Gessner had the very same complaint in the 16th century, noting the overabundance of printed books, fretting about shoddy, trivial, or error-filled works ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/26560192 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26560192 )
  - qsera 7mo ago
    So....what is your point?
    - timschmidt 7mo ago
      Generations have grown and died in the time since your concern was first expressed. The world continues. Culture adapts.
      - qsera 7mo ago
        Did I say it will be the end of the world?
datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
> I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples. In any case, as I think this conversation is trending towards theories of artistic expression, “AI content” will never be truly relatable until it can feel pleasure, pain, and other human urges. The first thing I often think about when I critically assess a piece of art, like music, is what the artist must have been feeling when they created it, and what prompted them to feel that way. I often wonder if AI influencers have ever critically assessed art, or if they actually don’t understand it because of a lack of empathy or something. And relatability, for me, is the ultimate value of artistic expression.
- timschmidt 7mo ago
  > Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples. What do you consider a counterexample? Because I've been involved in local politics lately, and can say from experience that any foundation model is capable of more rational and detailed thought, and more creative expression, than most of the beloved members of my community. If you're comparing AI to the pinnacle of human achievement, as another commenter pointed to Shakespeare, then I think the argument is already won in favor of AI.
  - qsera 7mo ago
    >as another commenter pointed to Shakespeare Lol wut? I was not saying that LLMs cannot produce something like pinnacle of human achievement. I was saying we cannot quantify the difference between Shakespeare and something commonplace, because it requires the ability to feel. I think you are being very dishonest here..
    - timschmidt 7mo ago
      [dead]
  - datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
    The claim was precise: > I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Counterexamples range from em-dashes, “Not-this, but-that”, people complaining about AI music on Spotify (including me) that sounds vaguely like a genre but is missing all of the instrumentation and motifs common to that genre. The rest of your comment I don’t even know how to respond to, to be honest.

qsera 7mo ago

> demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Is there "demonstrably" a lot of difference between Shakespeare and an HN comment? The point is exactly that there is no such difference. And that it enables slop to be sold as art. And that exactly is the danger. But another point is we had the even before LLMs. And LLMs just make it more explicit and makes it possible at scale.

timschmidt 7mo ago
Conrad Gessner had the very same complaint in the 16th century, noting the overabundance of printed books, fretting about shoddy, trivial, or error-filled works ( https://www.jstor.org/stable/26560192 https://www.jstor.org/stable/26560192 )
- qsera 7mo ago
  So....what is your point?
  - timschmidt 7mo ago
    Generations have grown and died in the time since your concern was first expressed. The world continues. Culture adapts.
    - qsera 7mo ago
      Did I say it will be the end of the world?

datsci_est_2015 7mo ago

> I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples. In any case, as I think this conversation is trending towards theories of artistic expression, “AI content” will never be truly relatable until it can feel pleasure, pain, and other human urges. The first thing I often think about when I critically assess a piece of art, like music, is what the artist must have been feeling when they created it, and what prompted them to feel that way. I often wonder if AI influencers have ever critically assessed art, or if they actually don’t understand it because of a lack of empathy or something. And relatability, for me, is the ultimate value of artistic expression.

timschmidt 7mo ago
> Bold claim, as the internet is awash with counterexamples. What do you consider a counterexample? Because I've been involved in local politics lately, and can say from experience that any foundation model is capable of more rational and detailed thought, and more creative expression, than most of the beloved members of my community. If you're comparing AI to the pinnacle of human achievement, as another commenter pointed to Shakespeare, then I think the argument is already won in favor of AI.
- qsera 7mo ago
  >as another commenter pointed to Shakespeare Lol wut? I was not saying that LLMs cannot produce something like pinnacle of human achievement. I was saying we cannot quantify the difference between Shakespeare and something commonplace, because it requires the ability to feel. I think you are being very dishonest here..
  - timschmidt 7mo ago
    [dead]
- datsci_est_2015 7mo ago
  The claim was precise: > I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs Counterexamples range from em-dashes, “Not-this, but-that”, people complaining about AI music on Spotify (including me) that sounds vaguely like a genre but is missing all of the instrumentation and motifs common to that genre. The rest of your comment I don’t even know how to respond to, to be honest.