[latexr]

Imagine the blogpost was on AI generated classical music. Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit. You, being classically trained, can understand more than most why the results are bad.

Then someone comes along and says “I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all sound kinda the same to me” and “I honestly can’t tell a good piece of music from a bad one. I don’t know what makes a piece of music “good”. These AI generated ones seemed pretty good to me, on the same caliber as those Mozart or Beethoven things”.

That’s what you’re doing, and that’s why you’re being downvoted. It’s fine that you can’t tell, but it’s supremely obvious to everyone else.

[zahlman]

I think takes like GP's are perfectly reasonable to express and it aggravates me that HN seems not to like that. The competition for the AI work here is explicitly not aiming at a niche audience. If that human work is nevertheless higher quality, readily distinguishable by the general audience of people who like music videos (?), then that audience really ought to be able to articulate why and how.

Like:

> Everyone, including the authors, agrees the result is shit.

> I honestly can't really tell how these are worse than the human produced ones. They all [seem] kinda the same to me

There is not actually a contradiction here.

[beepbooptheory]

If you really really like the $100 AI video, no one can take that away from you, but its just weird to be so principled about this in the negative: like no one actually wants to say they're good, its just some people don't want to admit they're worse than anything else.

Acting like some Roman legionary, saying "This slop is good enough for the piggies. not that I, classically trained, could discriminate between the slops either way" is certainly not contradictory, but if it needs to be the kind of discourse defended on here, then please, go right ahead!