4 ms·

So if I hire an artist and am a motivated individual, have an idea for a painting, have background knowledge about paintings and have taste in paintings and can

So if I hire an artist and am a motivated individual, have an idea for a painting, have background knowledge about paintings and have taste in paintings and can offer a critique of the painting as the artist paints it, then somehow I created the painting? Absurd logic. The AI built the website.

sampullman 2mo ago
I think in that case it's fair to say you created the painting with the artist, even if the artist should get majority credit. I don't like the analogy though, to me it feels more like you're a project manager directing a team of genius but single minded interns.
- tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
  I've never encountered a project manager who has said: I built this thing, after a project has wrapped up. I have encountered ones who've said I managed this project.
  - sampullman 2mo ago
    I've heard some variant of "we built this thing", which I think is valid. I'm not sure how I feel about anthropomorphizing a coding agent at this point though, which is what you're implying.
rob 2mo ago
I just read through a couple of your posts that weren't dead or buried, and it seems like you're pretty anti-AI. You should really start to have an open mind towards it. It's going to be the future (if it isn't already), and as you continue to get older, you're going to really wish you spent your time right now learning and embracing the technology instead of being so against it. A lot of the skills and things that you're holding on to right now might not be relevant by then, but you'll be at a disadvantage from not keeping up with the industry and need to play catch-up.
- tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
  I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up, but since you think this is what I should do rob, I better listen!
  - lukan 2mo ago
    If you don't get reliable results, but others do, then maybe you should indeed. But your choice.
  - rapind 2mo ago
    > I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up Lol, yeah I'd wager AI tooling skills are less relevant than knowing your way around a shell. It doesn't help that all of the AI tooling has event more churn than js libraries and package management systems! I think there's probably some value in understanding how LLMs work, but beyond that it's the same boring skills that matter the most... Critical thinking, design chops, attention to detail, perseverance, etc.
mixologic 2mo ago
Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction. Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.
- tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
  The director receives accreditation for directing the film, not creating it.
  - onraglanroad 2mo ago
    Doesn't the director generally receive more credit than the producer? How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
    - tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
      What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it. If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
      - deleted 2mo ago
        [deleted]
      - swores 2mo ago
        There's a bit more nuance to it though, I think, because traditionally there has been more of a firm line between humans and tools. For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film. Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator. And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.
nubg 2mo ago
no, because there is another human involved. llms are not human.
alienbaby 2mo ago
You know how many pieces of art Damien Hurst creates himself Vs his studio assistants creating them under his direction? For example, of his 1500 spot paintings, he only actually made 5 of them. It's not uncommon at all for artists to work this way.
- tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
  He still didn't create the paintings, he offered instructions / feedback to the artists that created them. Whether or not he is credited with authoring them is an entirely separate issue.
williamcotton 2mo ago
There have been plenty of workshops where artists hire assistant painters while maintaining authorship over the works themselves, from Rembrandt to Warhol to Hirst.
- tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
  Sure - and a factual statement would be, these artists hired assistant artists to help them create their paintings. Just like it would be factual to say that the person directed a LLM to build an app for them.
  - williamcotton 2mo ago
    Sure. So does this diminish the role of Rembrandt? Or is this some semantic black hole you’re drawing us into?

sampullman 2mo ago

I think in that case it's fair to say you created the painting with the artist, even if the artist should get majority credit. I don't like the analogy though, to me it feels more like you're a project manager directing a team of genius but single minded interns.

tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
I've never encountered a project manager who has said: I built this thing, after a project has wrapped up. I have encountered ones who've said I managed this project.
- sampullman 2mo ago
  I've heard some variant of "we built this thing", which I think is valid. I'm not sure how I feel about anthropomorphizing a coding agent at this point though, which is what you're implying.

rob 2mo ago

I just read through a couple of your posts that weren't dead or buried, and it seems like you're pretty anti-AI. You should really start to have an open mind towards it. It's going to be the future (if it isn't already), and as you continue to get older, you're going to really wish you spent your time right now learning and embracing the technology instead of being so against it. A lot of the skills and things that you're holding on to right now might not be relevant by then, but you'll be at a disadvantage from not keeping up with the industry and need to play catch-up.

tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up, but since you think this is what I should do rob, I better listen!
- lukan 2mo ago
  If you don't get reliable results, but others do, then maybe you should indeed. But your choice.
- rapind 2mo ago
  > I'm not sure that typing messages to a chat bot requires much catching up Lol, yeah I'd wager AI tooling skills are less relevant than knowing your way around a shell. It doesn't help that all of the AI tooling has event more churn than js libraries and package management systems! I think there's probably some value in understanding how LLMs work, but beyond that it's the same boring skills that matter the most... Critical thinking, design chops, attention to detail, perseverance, etc.

mixologic 2mo ago

Nothing absurd about that. What do you think an "Executive producer" is? A "Director" ? Does Peter Jackson get credit for creating the Lord of the Rings Trilogy films? Christopher Nolan for his films? But did he make them ? No, it was the collective effort of thousands of individuals all working under their direction. Just like if somebody creates software today, and the end result is generated by the collective effort of thousands of agents, the "Director" still gets credit.

tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
The director receives accreditation for directing the film, not creating it.
- onraglanroad 2mo ago
  Doesn't the director generally receive more credit than the producer? How many films do you remember the producer above the director?
  - tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
    What does it matter who receives more credit? The producer produces the film and the director directs it. If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it. If there were multiple people involved in the creation of a film I helped to create, I cannot factually say I created it. Just like if someone builds something using code generated by AI, they can't factually say they created it.
    - deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    - swores 2mo ago
      There's a bit more nuance to it though, I think, because traditionally there has been more of a firm line between humans and tools. For example, most people would agree with this line you wrote: "If I pick my phone and record a video, I'm now the producer and director of the film and the sole creator of it." A pedant could say "woah hang on, that's ignoring the fact that actually the iPhone is the one recording the images that make up the film, how can the human get all the credit", yet nobody would actually make that argument when discussing who created the film. Generative AI is pretty much the first time (maybe there are some niche contradictions to this claim?) we consider a tool to be contributing enough creativity to the process that we don't all agree "only one person was operating this tool, so that person is the sole creator" - but some people DO still hold that line, and do consider the human who wrote the prompt to be the creator. And I don't think there's any objective technical metric we can use to say who's right, it comes down to our collective judgement deciding where the line is.

nubg 2mo ago

no, because there is another human involved. llms are not human.

alienbaby 2mo ago

You know how many pieces of art Damien Hurst creates himself Vs his studio assistants creating them under his direction? For example, of his 1500 spot paintings, he only actually made 5 of them. It's not uncommon at all for artists to work this way.

tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
He still didn't create the paintings, he offered instructions / feedback to the artists that created them. Whether or not he is credited with authoring them is an entirely separate issue.

williamcotton 2mo ago

There have been plenty of workshops where artists hire assistant painters while maintaining authorship over the works themselves, from Rembrandt to Warhol to Hirst.

tinfoilhatter 2mo ago
Sure - and a factual statement would be, these artists hired assistant artists to help them create their paintings. Just like it would be factual to say that the person directed a LLM to build an app for them.
- williamcotton 2mo ago
  Sure. So does this diminish the role of Rembrandt? Or is this some semantic black hole you’re drawing us into?