4 ms·

> If you can prompt your way to a nobel-class novel, that is almost even mors impressive I wouldn't call outsourcing your creativity "impressive".

bawolff 5mo ago
Lots of people have written good books, nobody has managed to make AI do anything near that level. Being the first to do something is always impressive.
- szmarczak 5mo ago
  > Being the first to do something is always impressive. The companies are making the AI creative (whatever the definition), not her. Don't give her credit for something she had no impact on. She's using AI for world building and working on top of it. Ask a few people whose job is world building (e.g. games) and no one will tell you that using AI is to be proud of.
  - bawolff 5mo ago
    The fact is she didn't actually use AI, so this is hypothetical. > The companies are making the AI creative None have managed to at the level we are talking about. There is also some skill involved in the use of AI. If she somehow made AI operate on a level far beyond the status quo, that would be an achievement. She didn't so its moot, but if she did it would be an accomplishment.
    - szmarczak 5mo ago
      > The fact is she didn't actually use AI She actually did. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48210766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48210766 She also said: > jak fantastycznie powiększa on horyzonty i pogłębia myślenie kreatywne > how incredibly it widens horizons and deepens creative thinking AI doesn't have the ability to improve one's creative thinking. In order to improve, you have to practice - there's nothing more to it and it applies to all professions. Also, I wonder how did she come to the conclusion that it does so. She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's. Furthermore, she publicly stated she bought the highest plan without specifying the model. > None have managed to at the level we are talking about. You seem to be implying somebody accused her of relying purely on AI, which no one actually did. Many good Polish writers (as stated in the Lubimy Czytać article) said that for them it's unimaginable to use AI for writing, in any form.
      - tptacek 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        szmarczak 5mo ago
        That's not religion. Let me reiterate: > She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's. Also what would she otherwise buy the AI for? Cooking recipes? I'm on the free plan and hardly hit any limits. She didn't ask it "what profession could person X be in an Y novel". She asked it to develop (rozwinąć) a story. It's not that hard to understand that developing a story is actually her job. Small details (profession, name, colours) are ok (my opinion). Developing parts of the story is not. You may wonder where the line is - many reputable Polish writers are in consensus - no AI. AI should have no place in creative works. You are free to think otherwise. However I don't think those writers are wrong, especially if they're talking on a subject that is their profession, I'm no writer.
        tptacek 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        happytoexplain 5mo ago
        Try to stop calling people you disagree with a "religion". It's within reason to believe that AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process and it's within reason to believe that AI should not be anywhere in the creative process as a principled opinion. Also, the framing of "winning the cultural debate" is telling. Typically this refers to what will happen, not what should happen. I.e. it's basically just saying, "I think what will happen is what I want to happen", not an actual argument for why you want it. It's a red flag that you are arguing from a tribalistic position (or "religious", you could say).
        tptacek 5mo ago
        Whoah, hold up: I am arguing with someone who does not believe it's within reason to think AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process. That's why I'm choosing the words I am.

bawolff 5mo ago

Lots of people have written good books, nobody has managed to make AI do anything near that level. Being the first to do something is always impressive.

szmarczak 5mo ago
> Being the first to do something is always impressive. The companies are making the AI creative (whatever the definition), not her. Don't give her credit for something she had no impact on. She's using AI for world building and working on top of it. Ask a few people whose job is world building (e.g. games) and no one will tell you that using AI is to be proud of.
- bawolff 5mo ago
  The fact is she didn't actually use AI, so this is hypothetical. > The companies are making the AI creative None have managed to at the level we are talking about. There is also some skill involved in the use of AI. If she somehow made AI operate on a level far beyond the status quo, that would be an achievement. She didn't so its moot, but if she did it would be an accomplishment.
  - szmarczak 5mo ago
    > The fact is she didn't actually use AI She actually did. See my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48210766 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48210766 She also said: > jak fantastycznie powiększa on horyzonty i pogłębia myślenie kreatywne > how incredibly it widens horizons and deepens creative thinking AI doesn't have the ability to improve one's creative thinking. In order to improve, you have to practice - there's nothing more to it and it applies to all professions. Also, I wonder how did she come to the conclusion that it does so. She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's. Furthermore, she publicly stated she bought the highest plan without specifying the model. > None have managed to at the level we are talking about. You seem to be implying somebody accused her of relying purely on AI, which no one actually did. Many good Polish writers (as stated in the Lubimy Czytać article) said that for them it's unimaginable to use AI for writing, in any form.
    - tptacek 5mo ago
      [flagged]
      - szmarczak 5mo ago
        That's not religion. Let me reiterate: > She uses the AI for a job that should be hers, not the AI's. Also what would she otherwise buy the AI for? Cooking recipes? I'm on the free plan and hardly hit any limits. She didn't ask it "what profession could person X be in an Y novel". She asked it to develop (rozwinąć) a story. It's not that hard to understand that developing a story is actually her job. Small details (profession, name, colours) are ok (my opinion). Developing parts of the story is not. You may wonder where the line is - many reputable Polish writers are in consensus - no AI. AI should have no place in creative works. You are free to think otherwise. However I don't think those writers are wrong, especially if they're talking on a subject that is their profession, I'm no writer.
        tptacek 5mo ago
        [flagged]
        happytoexplain 5mo ago
        Try to stop calling people you disagree with a "religion". It's within reason to believe that AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process and it's within reason to believe that AI should not be anywhere in the creative process as a principled opinion. Also, the framing of "winning the cultural debate" is telling. Typically this refers to what will happen, not what should happen. I.e. it's basically just saying, "I think what will happen is what I want to happen", not an actual argument for why you want it. It's a red flag that you are arguing from a tribalistic position (or "religious", you could say).
        tptacek 5mo ago
        Whoah, hold up: I am arguing with someone who does not believe it's within reason to think AI can have a technically useful place in the creative process. That's why I'm choosing the words I am.