[fennecbutt]

I think that's exactly why AI is suited for 99% of stuff we do.

I have pointed out on here before that instances of truly unique human ideas not grounded in nature or previous ideas from others is almost nil, there are not many examples that someone can give me. All human ideas and work is derivative.

Elves? Humans with pointy ears. Werewolves? Humans mixed with wolves. Car tyre? Cart wheel...stone wheel/roller. Etc.

[jna_sh]

I feel like prior to GenAI, you’d have had to reckon with the true originality of your idea in some form as you did the research. Creatives having to confront their own unoriginality is such a thing it itself is reflected in countless pieces of media.

So it’s interesting to me that the creator here didn’t encounter the tens of physically published versions, or the hundreds of them shipped to digital app stores, or all the codebases on GitHub, in the course of making this. I’m sure they would have done naturally prior to GenAI. Is that good or bad? I don’t know! But it’s interesting to me.

[NitpickLawyer]

> the creator here didn’t encounter the tens of physically published versions

The simplest counterargument: since there are already tens of similar games out there, why didn't the previous authors, supposedly grass-fed genuine checkmark blood-through-their-veins humans didn't notice the other 9-8-7-6-5... games, and still released their own version? Maybe because it was still that they wanted the game out there? Maybe because originality really isn't that common? Maybe because each individual had their own idea and spin to it? Maybe because they wanted the game out as they made it?

Same for this author. How they made the game is irrelevant, and nitpicking the "originality" or anything else is silly. Something like this wasn't possible 3 years ago. Now it's possible. Deal with it, and stop trying to find ways to diminish it. It's a huge accomplishment any way you cut it.

[jna_sh]

My thoughts are less about the merits of creating something that already exists than they are about _knowing_ you are doing that. Which I think my post made very clear :)

[NitpickLawyer]

> I’m sure they would have done naturally prior to GenAI.

I gave a simple counterargument to this. Since there are "countless" prior games, many of them released before genAI, your argument is pointless.

[jna_sh]

Do you think the only reaction to knowing you’re not the first to do something is not to do it? Do you think I said that?

To spell it out in case it is still non-obvious: knowing this allows iteration. It allows remixing. It allows you to inspect what has come before and what it did well and where it succeeded and where it fell short and thus what you could _add_. It is an enabler of creativity! Thus I think it is interesting that GenAI may make it harder to have this experience.

[mycocola]

> why didn't the previous authors, supposedly grass-fed genuine checkmark blood-through-their-veins humans didn't notice the other 9-8-7-6-5... games, and still released their own version?

a) To make it better

b) To learn, in service of a) or another project

[customguy]

They said they think they would have encountered those other games without GenAI, not that they or any of those other authors shouldn't have released the game.

[accomplshplihs]

How is the theft of all human knowledge and the destruction of any way of having a meaningful existence a huge accomplishment?

[dijksterhuis]

i had a boss. before he was my boss, he was a friend. he took me under his wing, musically speaking. he showed me new music. told me what gear he was interested in. we went to some gigs.

he used to say “the best artists have the biggest record collections”.

they’ve done their research. they developed taste. they’ve been in that battle with the unoriginality demon. they’re still in that battle with the unoriginality demon. they’re always searching for new. for unexplored. for different.

they’ve also figured out what “good artists copy, great artists steal” means.

we take small bits. small ideas. small riffs. we turn them into our own. then we repeat that N times to create “a song”. we borrow. we revere. we obsess. turning lots of little differences into a completely new work. yes it’s all derivative. but derivative originality takes a lot of fuckin’ effort to get right. to be tasteful.

this thing isn’t artistic stealing, it’s the most low-effort stealing possible. creativity, originality and more importantly taste appear nowhere here.

so, is it bad? depends on your perspective on creative endeavours being worthwhile and whether you have taste or not i guess.

edit - personally i don’t think you can polish a turd. even if you rewrite it, the memory lingers.

[spacechild1]

Amen!

[bxk76]

Just because AI can give you a recipe for an sandwich doesnt mean everyone who sells or buys or experiments making sandwiches are going to stop.

[Ouman]

The question is not whether the ingredients are original. They almost never are. The question is whether the synthesis is any good

[xpct]

It seems to me that most media genres discover the most interesting parts relatively early, then most subsequent work is deeply derivative. I feel that way about video games, digital music, movies.

I'd wager it's because ideas are simpler to explore orthogonally, giving an overview of what's possible.

[ai_fry_ur_brain]

I think this is false. New ideas are born every minute, and llms arent going to help people with those for the most part, they'll end up steering you back towards the gradient if you do.

[0xEF]

Can you give us an example of a new idea that is not derivative of something that already exists? Should only take about a minute.

Snark aside (and apologies), there's absolutely nothing wrong with the "no new ideas" take and nobody should think there is. Humans tend to work collectively, try as we might to do or appear otherwise, and often come to the same conclusions through reasoning and logic. No one-person truly invented the light bulb, etc, when really all inventive thought is branches of derivative thought as we build our collective knowledgebase. A better question would be how many novel ideas are the logical conclusion of branches of derivative thought and how many are tangential brought about by the injection of our irrationally.

[QuantumNomad_]

> a new idea that is not derivative of something that already exists? Should only take about a minute.

A child is born every 4.4 seconds. But it took me and my girlfriend over 9 months to birth one!

Even if an original idea did show up every minute globally, does not mean that it takes only a minute to come up with the idea.

[trick-or-treat]

> it took me and my girlfriend over 9 months to birth one!

By my math you should should have at least 2 in that time, unless one of you wasn't pulling their weight.

[catlikesshrimp]

I don't get your point, so I am going somewhere else: twins and triplets

[trick-or-treat]

So I guess it was a dig on OP not just giving himself equal, but top billing somehow, over his girlfriend on creating a child.

Wow those 6 seconds you contributed were what made the difference, big guy. Not the 9 months of gestation, by any means. let's hear it for OP and his splooge everyone, and so on. You get the picture.

I'm not sure what's going on exactly with Gen Z males, it's an interesting phenomenon. I wouldn't expect that kind of dialog from GenX or Boomers even.