3 ms·

My workplace did a sweepstakes for the world cup and there were bonus prizes for decorating your desk. All three winners had simply uploaded photos of their des

My workplace did a sweepstakes for the world cup and there were bonus prizes for decorating your desk. All three winners had simply uploaded photos of their desks to an AI image generator and had it add flags etc to decorate and submitted that. One person used AI to make it look like he was wearing the jersey of his assigned team. The person running the contest wrote up something about how impressed she was with the creative use of AI. The whole thing makes me sad - wouldn't the idea of this sort of thing be to scrounge up flags of obscure countries or make them out of paper and do a bit of arts and crafts to decorate your desk for the month? Instead people were just throwing 50 words into an AI system a few times and getting out a photo to submit.

c0rruptbytes 3mo ago
i think over time, the bar will rise, you’d have to imagine how low quality the submissions prior to AI would’ve been since most people aren’t that good at decorating nor have the time i think as the novelty wears off on the average person, it’ll probably be seen akin to stick figure drawings in the future
- morkalork 3mo ago
  So it will be gauche for a while then when today's kids grow up, there will inevitably be AI-slop-nostalgia-core aesthetic the same way people now have a place in their hearts for shitty photoshops and ms-paint drawings?
_kulang 3mo ago
For whatever reason, the photo is point. People are only doing it for the photo and only doing the photo for the competition. I agree that we lost something, I just also think a majority of people don’t know what’s missing: they just put effort to make the photo, rather than to make the desk
- RugnirViking 3mo ago
  I learned this lesson as a child, entering a painting competition handily to someone whose work was (in my opinion) not very good, but they had a much nicer camera, lighting, and a pleasant background. Though its often much, much more effort to have judges who are also experts in the relevant field and give them the time to inspect in person the things to be judged. I don't think competitions will ever escape this "studying for the test" aspect fully. Its less actively harmful at least than the worst behaviors ive heard of (sabotage etc) for a more programming related example, the sheer number of hackathons ive entered over the years where the winners had a relevant idea related to something in the news recently, and did basically nothing but a nonfunctional ui mockup of a crud app and won over teams that tried to make actually functional/fun things.
  - Atheros 2mo ago
    They hacked the hackathon. You didn't.
    - RugnirViking 2mo ago
      I agree. When I say I learned "the lesson", there are two possible takeaways a person can take. If you want to win, it really helps to play the game to win (i.e. use these strategies). If you want to focus on your own pride and making something delightful that makes the world better, you have to explicitly choose that, and reject the idea in your mind that you will be rewarded for it. You might be rewarded anyway, but you can't expect it else you will often end up disappointed when you compare yourself to others.
- boogieknite 2mo ago
  something about this comment evokes the wisdom of everything ive read (not THAT much and im not artistic AT ALL) on the nature of art. i want to cross stitch this comment and hang it in my office
internet2000 3mo ago
Were the bonus prizes good? Anything worth putting a ton of effort into?
- annzabelle 3mo ago
  A $20 coffee gift card. Not really worth putting effort into, but if I'd been in charge of the contest I simply wouldn't have awarded the prize, let alone decided to award 3 of them (initially it was only supposed to be one prize) for AI generated content.
  - internet2000 3mo ago
    The woman in charge was probably happy she got that much engagement in the first place. Low effort, low reward, but look, we're having fun in the office. I wouldn't read too much into it or be sad about it.
    - satvikpendem 3mo ago
      Yeah she has different metrics entirely, maybe part of her job is to show engagement and hopefully show herself off to her bosses so of course she doesn't care whether it's AI or not.
RugnirViking 3mo ago
Theres a strange element of shamelessness to it, though I also think theres (sometimes) another of adoption/novelty. To you or I, steeped in the internet and hacker news culture, its pretty clear that sharing AI work as your own is a transgression; an inherently rude act. Its even impolite to share ai output in general, unless the discussion calls for it. I think some people I see out in the world doing it are still encountering this stuff and thinking through the consequences and ideas and experimenting for themselves and having moments of joy and wanting to share. I've seen this with "poems" people I know have gotten it to make, shared with me with genuine happiness on their faces. But after a bit more time spent using it, and working with the culture, right-thinking and socially aware people really ought to develop a sense that what was superficially impressive is the same each time. The first poem is the same as the hundredth, the pictures all look the same. And they start to think about the lack of effort, the fact that anyone can "make" them, and that everyone has the same ideas, and they quieten down. The only people left using it are the next generation of clueless/naive, and those who are shameless - trying to use it to grift the remaining clueless. Unfortunately the inherent speed of the technology makes these shameless few able to be VERY loud across the internet. I have yet to meet one in person
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  Mindset is: 1. Can I benefit from it? A Yes -> Do it B No -> Don't do it Variable: What is the risk of getting caught and is it worth risking? Many or most people operate on this programming, AI or no AI.
  - RugnirViking 3mo ago
    > most people I'm aware that social trust in some places is lower than others (and that im lucky enough to live in a place with high social trust), but I really don't think this is true. Though ruthless optimisers do exist, my experience suggests the idea that most people do this is laughable. I'd guess 1% or thereabouts. I think most people are kinda bumbling along on autopilot trying to make people happy and avoid others getting too mad at them without expending too much effort(not the same as minimizing effort) + without deviating too much from their routine. Meditate a while, if you will, on the results of this poll: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0njd4e2evo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0njd4e2evo I met a few of the ruthless optimiser types back when I was in the startup world. They aren't too bad if you can keep them at arms length, predictable in their own way. But if they get some power over you or you have to spend a lot of time with them it can quickly become miserable.
satvikpendem 3mo ago
It's the same with the tokenmaxxing phenomenon with the leaderboards, of course people will game any system, and I'm also impressed by how well people can do so, sometimes it's honestly shocking.

c0rruptbytes 3mo ago

i think over time, the bar will rise, you’d have to imagine how low quality the submissions prior to AI would’ve been since most people aren’t that good at decorating nor have the time i think as the novelty wears off on the average person, it’ll probably be seen akin to stick figure drawings in the future

morkalork 3mo ago
So it will be gauche for a while then when today's kids grow up, there will inevitably be AI-slop-nostalgia-core aesthetic the same way people now have a place in their hearts for shitty photoshops and ms-paint drawings?

_kulang 3mo ago

For whatever reason, the photo is point. People are only doing it for the photo and only doing the photo for the competition. I agree that we lost something, I just also think a majority of people don’t know what’s missing: they just put effort to make the photo, rather than to make the desk

RugnirViking 3mo ago
I learned this lesson as a child, entering a painting competition handily to someone whose work was (in my opinion) not very good, but they had a much nicer camera, lighting, and a pleasant background. Though its often much, much more effort to have judges who are also experts in the relevant field and give them the time to inspect in person the things to be judged. I don't think competitions will ever escape this "studying for the test" aspect fully. Its less actively harmful at least than the worst behaviors ive heard of (sabotage etc) for a more programming related example, the sheer number of hackathons ive entered over the years where the winners had a relevant idea related to something in the news recently, and did basically nothing but a nonfunctional ui mockup of a crud app and won over teams that tried to make actually functional/fun things.
- Atheros 2mo ago
  They hacked the hackathon. You didn't.
  - RugnirViking 2mo ago
    I agree. When I say I learned "the lesson", there are two possible takeaways a person can take. If you want to win, it really helps to play the game to win (i.e. use these strategies). If you want to focus on your own pride and making something delightful that makes the world better, you have to explicitly choose that, and reject the idea in your mind that you will be rewarded for it. You might be rewarded anyway, but you can't expect it else you will often end up disappointed when you compare yourself to others.
boogieknite 2mo ago
something about this comment evokes the wisdom of everything ive read (not THAT much and im not artistic AT ALL) on the nature of art. i want to cross stitch this comment and hang it in my office

internet2000 3mo ago

Were the bonus prizes good? Anything worth putting a ton of effort into?

annzabelle 3mo ago
A $20 coffee gift card. Not really worth putting effort into, but if I'd been in charge of the contest I simply wouldn't have awarded the prize, let alone decided to award 3 of them (initially it was only supposed to be one prize) for AI generated content.
- internet2000 3mo ago
  The woman in charge was probably happy she got that much engagement in the first place. Low effort, low reward, but look, we're having fun in the office. I wouldn't read too much into it or be sad about it.
  - satvikpendem 3mo ago
    Yeah she has different metrics entirely, maybe part of her job is to show engagement and hopefully show herself off to her bosses so of course she doesn't care whether it's AI or not.

RugnirViking 3mo ago

Theres a strange element of shamelessness to it, though I also think theres (sometimes) another of adoption/novelty. To you or I, steeped in the internet and hacker news culture, its pretty clear that sharing AI work as your own is a transgression; an inherently rude act. Its even impolite to share ai output in general, unless the discussion calls for it. I think some people I see out in the world doing it are still encountering this stuff and thinking through the consequences and ideas and experimenting for themselves and having moments of joy and wanting to share. I've seen this with "poems" people I know have gotten it to make, shared with me with genuine happiness on their faces. But after a bit more time spent using it, and working with the culture, right-thinking and socially aware people really ought to develop a sense that what was superficially impressive is the same each time. The first poem is the same as the hundredth, the pictures all look the same. And they start to think about the lack of effort, the fact that anyone can "make" them, and that everyone has the same ideas, and they quieten down. The only people left using it are the next generation of clueless/naive, and those who are shameless - trying to use it to grift the remaining clueless. Unfortunately the inherent speed of the technology makes these shameless few able to be VERY loud across the internet. I have yet to meet one in person

carlosjobim 3mo ago
Mindset is: 1. Can I benefit from it? A Yes -> Do it B No -> Don't do it Variable: What is the risk of getting caught and is it worth risking? Many or most people operate on this programming, AI or no AI.
- RugnirViking 3mo ago
  > most people I'm aware that social trust in some places is lower than others (and that im lucky enough to live in a place with high social trust), but I really don't think this is true. Though ruthless optimisers do exist, my experience suggests the idea that most people do this is laughable. I'd guess 1% or thereabouts. I think most people are kinda bumbling along on autopilot trying to make people happy and avoid others getting too mad at them without expending too much effort(not the same as minimizing effort) + without deviating too much from their routine. Meditate a while, if you will, on the results of this poll: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0njd4e2evo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0njd4e2evo I met a few of the ruthless optimiser types back when I was in the startup world. They aren't too bad if you can keep them at arms length, predictable in their own way. But if they get some power over you or you have to spend a lot of time with them it can quickly become miserable.

satvikpendem 3mo ago

It's the same with the tokenmaxxing phenomenon with the leaderboards, of course people will game any system, and I'm also impressed by how well people can do so, sometimes it's honestly shocking.