Hacker News Reader

Comment by bgwalter | Hacker News Reader

“Human and AI creativity may not be so different”

I guess they need more funding and grants. A human does not need to ingest the entire Internet in order to plagiarize what was read. A human does not need a prompt in order to take action. Two humans can have a conversation that does not collapse immediately.

These people apparently need coaching on the most basic activities. How to solve this in the future? Perhaps women should refuse to procreate with "AI" researchers, who prefer machines anyway.

View on HN

Humans spend years training 24/7 before they can do anything useful. People train even during their sleep, in their dreams. And on top of that, we transmit culture to other people, which accelerate their training.

And that's with the huge "pre-training" data stored in our genetic code (comprising billions of years and evolution), alongside epigenetic inheritance.

Do you have any grasp of how much stuff your brain ingested to enable you to post this?

No, clearly.

Whatever it was. It was only a fraction of what LLMs ingest.

16 hours a day of non-stop audio, video, and other sensory perception, plus dreams while you sleep. That's a lot of data. We might read fewer books, but we still get a very large training dataset.

Humans ingest an order of magnitude more information before becoming anywhere near as intelligent as an LLM.

“Hidden ingredients” ==> none of them understand how and why any of this works (or not). They could be easily defeated by Harry Potter, because he understands magic!

Don't worry, they're all just stochastic parrots[1]

[1]https://ai.vixra.org/pdf/2506.0065v1.pdf

From the paper: "Level ∞: Pattern matching with a soul (humans)"

What am I even reading ahah

Edit: Okay after reading it a bit, this paper is actually pretty funny

Can we prove we are not?

https://www.debevoise.com/insights/publications/2025/06/anth...

> This led the court to conclude that the “[a]uthors’ complaint is no different than it would be if they complained that training schoolchildren to write well would result in an explosion of competing works.”

Your "ideas" are just regurgitations of things you read off the internet; you have no coherent theory of "creativity" beyond some ineffable reference to the sanctity of the human soul.

So true, its well known that "ideas" came around at the same time as the advent of the modern internet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com