I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.
You can claim the use of AI is unethical, or the work as derivative, but AI being used as a tool in no way precludes something from being art. It is thought provoking and challenging, it seems like textbook art to me, and it’s clearly struck a chord here. There is no “minimum effort” required for something to be art.
I personally found the contrast with the original “They’re made out of meat” to be really interesting. I don’t care that AI was used during its creation at all.
It seems to me that since the advent of image generators, art has been firmly defined by artists to mean that it was made by a human. But there might be a spectrum of human involvement where the less a human is involved the less it's art.
What happens too often during these discussions is that someone who writes "make me a cool image" gets conflated with someone used ai to fixup a small rock in their natural landscape drawing. (two extreme ends)
One problem though, is that we don't really know how much the supposed human author was involved in the piece. Now that it's becoming hard to judge, people against ai art can proudly change their opinion on on a piece once they learn that it was made by ai. I've come to think this is somewhat respectable, like you see a video of some extraordinary event (before ai) and then you learn that it was fake, just for views or something.
But on top of all this, there are different ways to "consume" art. Artists may think more about who the artist is as a person and what they felt when they made the piece, while non-artists may just enjoy the piece for what it is, detached from the artist. These two perspectives clash a lot.
This whole thing is a ripoff of [they're made of meat](https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...) as stated at the top. It would've taken about ten minutes without LLMs and ten seconds with an LLM. Is ten minutes an acceptable level of effort but ten seconds isn't?
When writing was invented people complained that written words weren't actually art the same way. "If they're not going to take the time to memorize it, then it's not worth my time to listen to it."
No offense but I couldn't give less of a damn what some guy on the internet thinks. If it makes me feel good in artsy-ways, then it is art, and I don't care how it was made.
When you are hearing music, you are hearing the end Result of hundreds of intentional decisions made over a long time of deliberation, same can be said for Art. I simply do not hear or see that with AI Music or Art, even If I don't know it is AI generated.
A big part of listening to Music for me is relatability. I want to understand the tools and sounds used. And then I can make something similar with the tools I have.
None of that exists in AI. Music can only inspire others if it is the result of inspiration and real decisions that can be understood.
...there is no way that this is what you believe. This is such a pseudo-complex definition of art that I cant even fathom the levels of twisted cope that are fueling it.
I simply don't believe you are arguing in good faith when you say this is your thought process for all music.
"I simply do not hear or see that with AI Music or Art, even If I don't know it is AI generated."
This is just a bold faced lie. You are claiming you can tell its AI generated even if you dont know its AI generated. What.
The SAT, by design, covers the entire difficulty range. Parts are easy, parts are hard, such that about half of students get less than half of it right, and 0.1% of students ace it. It's not merely pass-fail, they're trying to give a pretty granular rank to each student.
Thus, if the test is worth taking for a student (because they want to go to college), it's probably worth cheating on. Students outside the top 0.1% can appear better than their peers to improve their odds of getting into better universities, and students in the top 0.1% tend to be there due to intense extrinsic pressure, which may drive them to cheat to increase their certainty of acing it.
For a competent student, it's not hard to get an acceptable grade. For every student, it's difficult to achieve an exceptional grade.
It is not hard for many students to get a pretty good score (1350). But a score like this will not help you get into a top school, and might actually hurt you. Even having a very good score (1530) does not necessarily help you much, especially if you are from what is perceived to be a high-resource (wealthy) area. If you have a perfect score (1600), that would help you get into any school.
Admittedly, it wouldn't help that much if you are Asian and from a wealthy area, but if you cheated then you could spend time that you would have spent studying for the SAT instead doing something else that you could put on your application.
The slop sickens me. If deep down there still is a part of you that enjoys problem solving and creativity, then you should always do it yourself. The technology still isn't even that great.
I wanted to write a simple midi chord controller for my phone to make music, emphasis on simple. AI can't do it and couldn't even help me on small code fragments, because it doesn't look at the problem through the lens of my artistic creativity.
Vibe coding creates weak men because you reject the deeper meaning behind what you are creating. Vibe coding creates weak men because they can't code.
A single example being 14 cad a month, with the implication being that you have lots of monthly subscriptions for "small apps" sends shivers down my spine. I know YC has lots of wealthy people, but come on!
The security advantage I see in mtotp is that you never reveal the password to the system you are authenticating with, but that there is also no electronic device that can be compromised
I've lost the joy in programming, the only thing I'm good at, I now make horrible music, but at least I don't exist as the means to an end that I don't control.
No Offense taken, but what's the point in using AI for anything unless you don't want to do it? I want live my life not consume information, is that really so bad?
Step 1 in this situatoon is to try and see if this is a known mathematically unsolved problem, and if it is, giving up.
Isn't this just trying to find a hamiltonian cycle, isn't this NP hard? That's when I would give up, especially because you put so many constraints in it to make it human walkable.
Edit: Of course you don't have to give up, but it's good to know what you get yourself into
Why would you give up just because something is NP hard if there are good algorithms to approximate a solution, and an approximate but good solution is useful?
Yeah, there are many problems which are np-hard in theory, but then realistic cases give you way more constraints that make them solvable. So many hard graph problems become way simpler when applied to real maps, because you know that if you start getting away from something, your minimum remaining distance grows. But on an abstract graph there's no real mapping to our dimensions.
There's no "information you wanted" in the plain np-hard version of traveling salesman for example. There's only cost. My point was that things get easier if you have the extra information and aren't solving the plain version anymore.
I remember asking myself this question years ago, and came to 162 bits. I was just a kid back then so the logic is probably wrong but I do wonder how simple the encoding could be under those constraints...
Edit: Here are the Notes
0 Empty
10 Pawn
1100 Knight
1101 Rook
1110 Bishop
1111 Queen
32 + 32 + 472
2 times 6 bits: position of the kings
30 bits: color mask
120 + 2*6 + 30 = 162 bits
We can store the rest using the methods from the blog post and add 18 bits for promotion, giving 180 bits.
I'm sure this isn't the most efficient way, and I think I had other methods and considered things like the bishops being able to occupy 32 squares, though special casing doesn't make sense because of promotions.
Technically if you got 8 bishops/queens/knights/rooks
You would occupy another 16 bits, giving 196 bits
I think the upper limit can be reduced at the cost of increasing the lower limit
EDIT2: I think I made the assumption at the time that to promote one piece you needed to capture at least one enemy pawn, giving the space for the two bits, which means the upper bound is actually 180 bits
Would love to see other people try in the comment section
Each pawn that wants to be promoted either takes:
(a) another 'special' piece (knight/rook/bishop/queen), in which case it has already bought enough bit budget to later be promoted; or
(b) another pawn, in which case this temporarily saves 1 bit (as the other pawn becomes a space), but then later we need 2 extra bits for the promotion, so we pay 1 bit extra per pawn in total
In the case of (b) there are now fewer pawns that can be promoted, and so worst case, we have to pay a budget of 1 bit per each of 8 promoted pawns.
So I think maximum required bits is only 162 + 8 = 170?
So for each 4 pawn cluster, 1 pawn takes another pawn, and the net result is +1 bit once the captor promotes. The remaining 2 pawns in the cluster each need 2 extra bits when promoted => 2 x 2 = 4 bits. So 5 bits per 4-pawn cluster, of which there are 4.
So maximum representation would be 162 + (5 * 4) = 182 bits?
Yep, that increase the total in 3*3-4=5 bits, and you can repeat it 4 times, so the maximum is at least 162+4*5=182.
I'm trying to prove that is the worst case, but there are just too many cases. I guess I'll try to use a program o brute force it or just forget about it.
Actually, given this, we believe that 4 pawns must have been captured to reach 182 bits. So at least 4 pieces no longer need colors. If we store the color mask at the end, I think we can make it variable length, and truncate when no further pieces need colors assigned.
So then we need maximum 182 - 4 = 178 bits
EDIT: Equivalently, we could suffix each non-empty piece in the sequence with an associated color bit
I thought the same but realized you can retrospectively 'insert' the king positions into the position sequence, shifting the remaining sequence one square along for each king, so no more bits required though the data structure is unwieldy!
I'm suprised no one talks about this. AI Art isn't Art. AI Poetry isn't Art. And I'm tired of it. I know hacker news isn't the best place to complain about that but still... I'm not gonna read something somebody didn't put in the effort to write on their own. Especially not Poetry.
reply