Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I view it as a lost war. The war against human meaning.

If "human meaning" goes, all else goes with it;

Social media, search, education, ambition, creation, innovation...

And along with that goes Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, Apple, Meta, Amazon...

There's nothing that exists outside that "bubble" of human meaning,

Technology must preserve it, or technology dies.

Unless you are confirming what many have already said.. that digital technology has become death cult?



Human meaning won't go out the door.

It's just we will no longer be able to differentiate it from machine generated content.

Machine generated content will become more superior and more prolific such that it will cheapen human meaning.

You'll find people will begin clinging onto the last vestiges of human created things like real painted art or vintage sculptures like they do vinyl records and non-digital books: An exercise in irrationality in attempt to reverse a war already lost.

Perhaps that is what will save human meaning in the end. Self delusion. We will deliberately ignore superior and better content and tell ourselves that human works are and always will be the best. That's a little of what's happening in this thread already.


Human art and appreciation thereof is already by and large an exercise in irrationality, so I don't see why this is necessarily a qualitative change. If people want to imbue "human made" with a special meaning, that's really no different than thousands of other ways we pretend things into being every day.


Indeed. It's entirely arbitrary.

I think, in using terms like "rational" the grandparent is confusing AI with science and presuming some kind of objectivity. One cannot make any sensible claim about what is "more superior" (the "more" is redundant by the way) since quality of art and meaning is not arranged on any cardinal scale. Humans get to define what is better, and that's the final judgement. And should they choose to define AI as "meaningless", then it's meaningless.

Now as to whether it will be "more prolific", that's a another matter. Cockroaches are already far more prolific than humans.


I think they are arguing that by already established criteria, AI art can easily exceed human art in quality. So we can of course rejig our criteria, but in doing so we cannot help but acknowledge that the original ones no longer cut it.


Yeah. The difference is at one point in time we didn't pretend, now we do. And therefore the lie we tell ourselves is more obvious. Many people will see through the lie.




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

Search: