Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's interesting to imagine what the interaction model for this will be -- is there a sense in which this auto-generation will be like collaborating, and so it just changes what we think of to constitute the process of creation?

And maybe that's not as bad as it seems right this moment. Once upon a time great painters actually made their own paints. These days we wouldn't think about that skill as in the necessary catalogue of an artist, and in a bunch of ways -- most ways -- we're the better for it. Perhaps something similar will unfold here.




You know, something interesting is happening to me here.

I've never been upset about Stable Diffusion, because as you say, once upon a time, you had to physically paint an image to be visually creative. Never posted a comment about SD with "I cannot stand the idea of this. I know it's coming, I know I can't stop it, but it will be a catastrophic loss." Now, at the suggestion that it might happen for writing, all the sudden it seems wrong! Someone else noticed this in the other thread about Copilot: HN is not upset about Stable Diffusion, but seems to frequently be upset about Copilot! I think you may be right actually -- calm down, it's just a tool.

I guess I want to revise my prior comment. I don't just want to talk to a machine. Just like I don't just want to see Stable Diffused images. The human part is essential, it's the heart of the thing. My intuition is that you're supposed to augment the human part, not replace it.


I totally get your (original) point -- I'm an (amatuer) fiction writer trying to make myself feel better, a bit. But everything evolves. Think of how Magnus Carlson trains for and plays chess, vs how it was historically done. No point trying to resist the forces loose in the world, be one of the first to embrace them. I'm curious what this means right this moment for an artist upon the advent of SD and the like.


The difference is that images are expected to support the message. They're art, figures, illustrations. If I send someone a generated image, I still picked the image. It's still my message. If I send someone generated words, I did not pick the words. It's no longer my message. I'm tasking a machine with choosing my thoughts. It's no longer augmentation.


Or maybe HN is right about the tool where we have the most knowledge, and artists are right about the tool that does things they understand.


I was thinking HN is afraid of tools that cheapen it's own work. Whilst artists are afraid of tools that cheapen their work.


Yes, that's the obvious cynical interpretation. But our beliefs aligning with our self interest doesn't automatically make us wrong, especially in areas where we have expert knowledge. It could just be that our interest aligns with the general interest.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: