Please, stop with the AI generated images | Hacker News Reader

Please, stop with the AI generated images

racc.blog

4 pointsspeckx12 comments

What is the difference between between using an AI generated inage and using a random stock photo? The purpose of both is just to give articles a less text heavy appearance - not to make ppl admire it

Also the energy argument - if you are truly sincere about it, then you would argue people should not use AI for 99% of the trivial queries we ask it.

AI gen images are arbitrary atop an already arbitrary source that relied on an initial specific.

There's nothing random about either. Their purposes are divergent, separation of the user from the initial contact with the specific.

> It’s as artificial and soulless as corporate style.

Even if this is true (it's not, corporate style has much less soul because it has to comply with the clean corporate image), so what? Who cares that it's soulless? Corporate image is used all the time, why can't AI be too?

> You want a drawing of something? Learn how to draw. Sure, it will consume some time, money, and goodwill, but I promise you, it will be a billion times more valuable than something fabricated.

I don't really think you understand: a) how lazy people are b) how worthless the time to do a task is if there is a machine that can do good-enough work for a fraction of the time and cost

> Don’t get me started on searching for an image of something via a search engine. It’s filled to the brim with AI images if you don’t turn the filter on, and even if you do, it’s imperfect and still shows some.

Seems like a different issue?

> GPT-4 consumed tens of millions of water.

You're gonna make me explicitly write that water can't be consumed? You should have put this article through chatgippity.

> the amount of water used will soar persistently

You did get one thing right here, the water is used, not consumed...

> In the fourth generation, to generate a 100-word email, it consumed about 500ml of water (17 oz). So writing a 400-word email or re-doing a 100-word one will consume as much water as an average human needs per day ≈ 2000ml (½ gallon)

Even if this is true, the common link is that both "usages" of water will eventually be returned. There is no permanent consumption here of water.

> Even if there was some crazy optimisation reducing the use down to 50% it’s still approximated to be 300 people's daily water amount needed for some dumb AI video.

One man's trash is another man's treasure.

This article is very much man yelling at clouds. It really is true that even an atheist has a religion, and this person's religion seems to be a hatred against AI. Which is fine, but recognize that you don't have any actual reasons, what you have is just an unhappiness with the general climate of the world.

Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity?

This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity.

The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity.

> Are engineers this terrified of originality that celebrating generic imagery would become a battle cry of mediocrity?

I think it's OP who is more terrified of the originality of letting anyone create with AI.

> This is unusual, a drive to embrace uniformity, and perhaps this is what internet pluralization is about. Those lacking visual imagination would come together celebrate mediocrity of imagery as a battle-cry, rally around software that roboticizes creativity.

It's almost comical how opposite my read of this was. Forcing people to "learn how to draw" is embracing uniformity rather than letting them create with whatever tool is available to them.

> The tone of these replies seems to reveal a rage that's about defending the right to eviscerate creativity.

Is creating tools to make it easier to create really the evisceration of creativity or the creation of new venues to create? In my mind it's the latter.

Learning to draw is fundamentally linked to creativity. These are direct connections to thoughts, which are action-syntax. (btw lack of uniformity is on display even in these very young sketchers)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187118712...

While the use of words to be creative is lessening as an indication of direct access to the imagination. As prompts for creativity, the sciences increasingly tell us this is fundamentally impairing.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

It doesn't matter. When I need to insert a screw I don't stick to a screwdriver because it gives me more exercise, I use a drill, because I can and I have access to one, and that's all there is to it. Any time you find yourself justifying people use a less powerful tool for a job you are probably in the wrong...

Not a valid analogy. Screwdriving is semantic episodic memory, drawing is working memory interacting with senses and emotions.

Tool use isnt reducible the way youre describing and it’s probably how engineers conflate basic tool use with complex tool and precision idiosyncratic dexterity. They have no relation.

while you are making up connections in your mind I made revisions for designs for a business using nano banana 10x in the same hour the logo designer i contacted told me he would only be available in december. i don't get what you are fighting for? a slower, less resourceful people?

Wax fruit vs. creative design? We make neural-syntax animation pre-viz for a blockbuster series on streaming, and never have to touch slop. Hand drawn storyboards, Rhino, Maya and 3dMax, to blender to unreal and never veer automation. We can never let LLMs touch it because what we're making has never been done prior, the spaces are referential. And it never can reference space. What I've seen demo'd (and I've inspected closed models using our library of isovist level architech) is worthless compared to wetware.

is this ai generated? i literally don't know most of the words in this post...

Generated? It’s just beyond your stage of creativity. Nothing we get near is generated.

The irony, work that exceeds Ai would appear to people trapped by it to be generated.

What does that say about the state of thinking in engineers and business?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com