[qsera]

>it really is a new and exciting world...

The point is that from now on, there will be nothing really new, nothing really original, nothing really exciting. Just endless stream of re-hashed old stuff that is just okayish..

Like an AI spotify playlist, it will keep you in chains (aka engaged) without actually making you like really happy or good. It would be like living in a virtual world, but without having anything nice about living in such a world..

We have given up everything nice that human beings used to make and give to each other and to make it worse, we have also multiplied everything bad, that human being used to give each other..

[bogdan]

> there will be nothing really new

How is this the conclusion? Isn't this post about AI solving something new? What am I missing?

[paganel]

Each solvable problem contains its solution intrinsically, so to speak, it’s only a matter of time and consuming of resources to get to it. There’s nothing creative about it, which is I think what OP was alluding to (the creative part). I’m talking mostly mathematics.

There’s also a discussion to be made about maths not being intrinsically creative if AI automatons can “solve” parts of it, which pains me to write down because I had really thought that that wasn’t the case, I genuinely thought that deep down there was still something ethereal about maths, but I’ll leave that discussion for some other time.

[qsera]

Because economy. Look at marvel movies, do you think the latest one is really new? Or just a rehash of what they found working commercially? Look at all the AI generated blog posts that is flooding the internet..

LLMs might produce something new once in a long while due to blind luck, but if it can generate something that pushes the right buttons (aka not really creative) to majority of population, then that is what we will keep getting...

I don't think I have to elaborate on the "multiplying the bad" part as it is pretty well acknowledged..

[timschmidt]

That's literally all culture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJPERZDfyWc

[qsera]

The difference is whether an entity that can "feel" is in the loop and how much they have contributed to it even if it is a remix.

[timschmidt]

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]

> 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.

[qsera]

> 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.

[prox]

I heard this saying recently “The problem with comfort is that it makes you comfortable.”

[charcircuit]

AI can both explore new things and exploit existing things. Nothing forces it to only rehash old stuff.

>without actually making you like really happy or good.

What are you basing this off of. I've shared several AI songs with people in real life due to how much I've enjoyed them. I doing see why an AI playlist couldn't be good or make people happy. It just needs to find what you like in music. Again coming back to explore vs exploit.

[qsera]

>What are you basing this off of.

Jokes. LLMs are not able to make me laugh all day by generating infinite stream of hilarious original jokes..

Does it work for you?

[charcircuit]

I've found several posts on moltbook funny. I don't really like regular jokes in general and I don't find human ones particularly funny either. I don't think we are at the point of being able to be reliable funny, but it definitely seems possible from my perspective.

[qsera]

Care to link some?

[charcircuit]

I think they would be hard to find due to how many posts exists along with how things aren't as funny the second time around.

[qsera]

funny things are funny the n-th time around. Or may be it was just not funny and just something new for you..

[egeozcan]

On what do you base your prediction?

Is it because the AI is trained with existing data? But, we are also trained with existing data. Do you think that there's something that makes human brain special (other than the hundreds of thousands years of evolution but that's what AI is all trying to emulate)?

This may sound hostile (sorry for my lower than average writing skills), but trust me, I'm really trying to understand.

[Daz912]

>We have given up everything nice that human beings used to make and give to each other and to make it worse, we have also multiplied everything bad, that human being used to give each other..

Source?