| |
| ▲ | timschmidt 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 an hour ago | parent [-] | | > 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. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt an hour ago | parent [-] | | > em-dashes, “Not-this, but-that” I've literally seen humans accusing other humans of being AI here on hackernews for these. Q.E.D. | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 an hour ago | parent [-] | | You’re really going to make the claim that there are no counterexamples of human and AI output being indistinguishable on the internet? At least make the counterclaim that “those are from old models, not the newest ones”, that’s more intellectually invigorating than the comment you just provided. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > claim that there are no counterexamples of human and AI output being indistinguishable on the internet? Is that a claim I've made? I don't see it anywhere. I think a lot of people think that because they can get the AI to generate something silly or obviously incorrect, that invalidates other output which is on-par with top-level humans. It does not. Every human holds silly misconceptions as well. Brain farts. Fat fingers. Great lists of cognitive biases and logical fallacies. We all make mistakes. It seems to me that symbolic thinking necessitates the use of somewhat lossy abstractions in place of the real thing, primarily limited by the information which can be usefully stored in the brain compared to the informational complexity of the systems being symbolized. Which neatly explains one cognitive pathology that humans and LLMs share. I think there are most certainly others. And I think all the humans I know and all the LLMs I've interacted with exist on a multidimensional continuum of intelligence with significant overlap. I hereby rebuff your crude and libelous mischaracterization of my assertion. How's that? :) | | |
| ▲ | datsci_est_2015 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Is that a claim I've made? Yes, you literally just said QED. | | |
| ▲ | timschmidt 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Are we reading the same thread? You said AI works were easily distinguishable via em-dashes and "not this, but that" I said I have witnessed humans using that metric accuse other humans here on hackernews. Q.E.D. You've asserted that they are easily distinguished. Practitioners in the field fail to distinguish using the same criteria. Is that not dispositive? Seems like it to me. I claimed much earlier in the thread "I think there's demonstrably very little difference at all between human and AI outputs" which is consistent with "I think all the humans I know and all the LLMs I've interacted with exist on a multidimensional continuum of intelligence with significant overlap." Two ways of saying the same thing. Both of them suggesting that sometimes you may be able to tell it's the output of an AI or Human, sometimes not. Sometimes the things coming out of the AI or the Human might be smart in a way we recognize, sometimes not. And recognizing that humans already exist on quite a broad scale of intelligences in many axes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | qsera an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >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.. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | qsera 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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. | | |
|
|
