As a person who likes hand made items I'm for this. I will pay a premium for someone who hand makes an item. Bonus if it's someone older who provides old school craftsmanship.
This is a horrible take if for no other reason that digital intelligence is one of humanity's greatest achievements. It took thousands of years of advancements across chemistry, physics, material science to reach the point in the tech tree we are today.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.
There is nothing wrong with walking or riding horses to get to where you need to go but I wouldn't celebrate that. It's a nice hobby bit not efficient. The same will probably happen to most of "human made code". It's fun but doesn't make much sense economically.
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.
In many cases, there are clear disadvantages to using AI, be it the effect on human psyche, the considerable resource consumption, the style of the output, or the fact that the resulting work was not authored by a person, which is a very subjective preference, but one that many people have nevertheless.
I agree that AI is a great technological achievement, but it’s not as if great technological achievements don’t come with any downsides. Celebrating them is reasonable, but also situational.
Horrible? You could have argued that celebrating both things is fine. But you didn't. The implication is simply the opposite: That I should be ashamed if I enjoy or am proud to have made something by hand.
Technology is not a universal good. That's a simplistic idea.
We have taken thousands of years to develop all sorts of horrible shit with more downsides than upsides - things that only exist because they are inevitable, not because they are purely beneficial to the spirit or even the practical wellbeing of humanity.
Take a example. You could be a hunter gatherer, you could grow all your own crops from scratch, you could forsake all modern medicine and rely on superstition - would you be considered a wise person? You figured out things a lot of people didn't, you took the harder road - but most people would say this approach is just dumb.
What's wise isn't forsaking technology, it's using technology to improve things, and developing new technology as well. What's wise is using AI as a power user and seeing how you can contribute to the intelligence age.
Celebrating a foregone past where human intelligence was more valuable is hopeless and naive at best.
That's not an example, it's an analogy. I don't see the value in shifting the conversation to identifying all the differences in an (extremely removed) analogy. It's rhetorically low-quality.
Different people value different things. Some people run even though they could have taken a Waymo. Some people are into paperclipmaxxing. I avoid AI to the extent that it's easy and practical, but I don't do it to call myself wise. I just don't like it. Am I being inefficient? Possibly. There are some things I do where I'm not optimizing for KPI though.
Do you think it would be a good thing if all music (for example) was made with AI and not by humans? What a lot of people in tech right now don’t seem to get is that art is about how it transforms the artist, not just the final product.
What are the rules? Is it okay to use autocomplete? Are spell checkers accepted? What if I used an AI chatbot to figure out something instead of a traditional search engine?
None of these amount to AI making something. Before AI, it’s been humans who put the words on the paper, who put the strokes on the canvas, who put the notes on the sheet. Spell-checking and auto-completion have existed before AI and do not fundamentally change the process.
Since this project singles out AI (likely generative AI using machine learning), it seems evident to me that it rules out any involvement which does fundamentally change the process, i.e. what people otherwise do when creating.
(Yes, one could argue that e.g. word processing or printing have also fundamentally changed the process, and that is absolutely true, but each of those has changed the process differently than machine learning has, and clearly this website considers the changes made by AI undesirable in some ways, not the changes made by word processing or printing.)
This is dishonest (and very common). You may certainly argue that genAI content should count as human-made, but it's pointless to just gesture at pre-genAI tools like autocomplete and insist that other people do the work of comparing/contrasting.
It's OK to use the term "human made" to mean "not the output of genAI". There's no "gotcha" to be scored here.
I'm not entirely sure what "100% human-made" even means. Also, what is the difference between 90% and 100%? Is any website (of the modern era) 100% human made?
When I use AI to produce a work, it’s human-made, just the same as when I use a computer to synthesize digital works using human-developed automation tools like word processors. All built on top of operating systems that manipulate bytes of all natural human-made data.
From the name I was expecting to be humans doing things to force work. Like my child pouring milk on the table. Now I get to do work cleaning. It's human-made work. It's pretty easy to make work for others.
This was my earliest use-case for LLMs and it remains to this day as the most compelling value proposition of all the fancy new LLMs.
I have always tried to abide by DRY in my programming career with the huge exception of writing unit tests. I made the mistake, early in my career when Test-Driven Development was all the rage, of making unit tests reflect the inheritance structure of the actual code. It just made sense. Needless to say, it quickly descended into the most bizarre manifestation of inheritance hell as tests randomly failed with no correlation to the changes done in the core code.
Hence, I resolved to make unit tests the huge exception to DRY. The more straightforward your tests are, the better. Endeavor that each test method up to a test class should read understandably on its own.
This, of course, made tests quite a mechanical chore to write. Which makes it the perfect use case for these large, verbose, and humorless daemons. Bonus that they are also very good at vibing out the set-up needed for a test so I can focus on specifying the test cases I want rather than setting up mock after stub after fake.
The output is also very easy to review and verify. I see no moral quandary in this kind of usage.
This is a really good idea. I have zero interest in seeing something that someone couldn't be bothered to actually make themselves. And while we can't control the fact that people choose to outsource their creativity and thinking to a machine, we can choose to celebrate and highlight those who do not. I hope we see more of this as genAI becomes more and more of a blight on the quality of work out there.
I don't mean to piss on your parade but llm generation is human output just like a car welded by robots is a human product. This contrived dualism between llm generated things and human generated things makes the llm into an independent agent (it is not, it is a statistical approximator) and denies the human origin of automated creations. do we say numbers calculated by hand are less authentic than by boolean logic? do we say books printed by press are less human in origin than medieval calligraphy? Ai is a tool. Its output is the result of human intention / attention.
I don't understand what "human-made" means. Are they going to write assembly code themselves or are they taking a big pile of sand to create some transistors?
I understand some of the concerns about AI but they are either a problem of our economic system or of people not caring about what they are doing. Economic problems are probably the most important because robotics and AI have the potential to break our current capitalist system.
As a person who likes hand made items I'm for this. I will pay a premium for someone who hand makes an item. Bonus if it's someone older who provides old school craftsmanship.
This is a horrible take if for no other reason that digital intelligence is one of humanity's greatest achievements. It took thousands of years of advancements across chemistry, physics, material science to reach the point in the tech tree we are today.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.
Ok, but there's also nothing wrong with celebrating not using AI.
There is nothing wrong with walking or riding horses to get to where you need to go but I wouldn't celebrate that. It's a nice hobby bit not efficient. The same will probably happen to most of "human made code". It's fun but doesn't make much sense economically.
We must only celebrate that which is economically efficient.
This is horrifying.
Pesticides represent a great achievement. People still pay more for organic though.
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with using AI and it's something we should be celebrating.
In many cases, there are clear disadvantages to using AI, be it the effect on human psyche, the considerable resource consumption, the style of the output, or the fact that the resulting work was not authored by a person, which is a very subjective preference, but one that many people have nevertheless.
I agree that AI is a great technological achievement, but it’s not as if great technological achievements don’t come with any downsides. Celebrating them is reasonable, but also situational.
Horrible? You could have argued that celebrating both things is fine. But you didn't. The implication is simply the opposite: That I should be ashamed if I enjoy or am proud to have made something by hand.
Technology is not a universal good. That's a simplistic idea. We have taken thousands of years to develop all sorts of horrible shit with more downsides than upsides - things that only exist because they are inevitable, not because they are purely beneficial to the spirit or even the practical wellbeing of humanity.
Take a example. You could be a hunter gatherer, you could grow all your own crops from scratch, you could forsake all modern medicine and rely on superstition - would you be considered a wise person? You figured out things a lot of people didn't, you took the harder road - but most people would say this approach is just dumb.
What's wise isn't forsaking technology, it's using technology to improve things, and developing new technology as well. What's wise is using AI as a power user and seeing how you can contribute to the intelligence age.
Celebrating a foregone past where human intelligence was more valuable is hopeless and naive at best.
That's not an example, it's an analogy. I don't see the value in shifting the conversation to identifying all the differences in an (extremely removed) analogy. It's rhetorically low-quality.
Different people value different things. Some people run even though they could have taken a Waymo. Some people are into paperclipmaxxing. I avoid AI to the extent that it's easy and practical, but I don't do it to call myself wise. I just don't like it. Am I being inefficient? Possibly. There are some things I do where I'm not optimizing for KPI though.
Do you think it would be a good thing if all music (for example) was made with AI and not by humans? What a lot of people in tech right now don’t seem to get is that art is about how it transforms the artist, not just the final product.
What a steaming pile of sanctimonious bullshit.
The only thing you're celebrating is how far you've managed to ram your head up your ass.
What are the rules? Is it okay to use autocomplete? Are spell checkers accepted? What if I used an AI chatbot to figure out something instead of a traditional search engine?
None of these amount to AI making something. Before AI, it’s been humans who put the words on the paper, who put the strokes on the canvas, who put the notes on the sheet. Spell-checking and auto-completion have existed before AI and do not fundamentally change the process.
Since this project singles out AI (likely generative AI using machine learning), it seems evident to me that it rules out any involvement which does fundamentally change the process, i.e. what people otherwise do when creating.
(Yes, one could argue that e.g. word processing or printing have also fundamentally changed the process, and that is absolutely true, but each of those has changed the process differently than machine learning has, and clearly this website considers the changes made by AI undesirable in some ways, not the changes made by word processing or printing.)
Is it ok if I used a compiler and didn't write the assembly code by hand?
It's hard to tell if you're mocking the parent's fallacy or contributing to it.
Nope. You also can't use a CPU made by big ASML machines. If you decide to go with a mechanical computer I am not sure if a lathe is ok.
This is dishonest (and very common). You may certainly argue that genAI content should count as human-made, but it's pointless to just gesture at pre-genAI tools like autocomplete and insist that other people do the work of comparing/contrasting.
It's OK to use the term "human made" to mean "not the output of genAI". There's no "gotcha" to be scored here.
Ok, what about a more direct take.
Hello games made a game called No Man's Sky which has VERY heavy use of procedural generation. Same as Minecraft.
If someone were to make the same games using genAi, would it be less impressive, even if the output was 'better'?
What is dishonest about asking for clarification of submission criteria that are utterly unclear?
> Help us to signify and share projects done by humans (not AI).
Here is nothing about GenAI specifically.
Who else could be asked if not the ones that set up this collection?
I dunno what version of the site you saw, but it probably hasn't changed in the last 17 minutes since your post.
I'm not entirely sure what "100% human-made" even means. Also, what is the difference between 90% and 100%? Is any website (of the modern era) 100% human made?
When I use AI to produce a work, it’s human-made, just the same as when I use a computer to synthesize digital works using human-developed automation tools like word processors. All built on top of operating systems that manipulate bytes of all natural human-made data.
From the name I was expecting to be humans doing things to force work. Like my child pouring milk on the table. Now I get to do work cleaning. It's human-made work. It's pretty easy to make work for others.
"Work" as in artwork or "Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!"
Its ironic that the 2 apps being showcased are a sobriety tracking app and a brewery brand.
I have began to use AI to flesh out unittests and honestly am kind of digging that part. All the actual code is still me though.
This was my earliest use-case for LLMs and it remains to this day as the most compelling value proposition of all the fancy new LLMs.
I have always tried to abide by DRY in my programming career with the huge exception of writing unit tests. I made the mistake, early in my career when Test-Driven Development was all the rage, of making unit tests reflect the inheritance structure of the actual code. It just made sense. Needless to say, it quickly descended into the most bizarre manifestation of inheritance hell as tests randomly failed with no correlation to the changes done in the core code.
Hence, I resolved to make unit tests the huge exception to DRY. The more straightforward your tests are, the better. Endeavor that each test method up to a test class should read understandably on its own.
This, of course, made tests quite a mechanical chore to write. Which makes it the perfect use case for these large, verbose, and humorless daemons. Bonus that they are also very good at vibing out the set-up needed for a test so I can focus on specifying the test cases I want rather than setting up mock after stub after fake.
The output is also very easy to review and verify. I see no moral quandary in this kind of usage.
This is a really good idea. I have zero interest in seeing something that someone couldn't be bothered to actually make themselves. And while we can't control the fact that people choose to outsource their creativity and thinking to a machine, we can choose to celebrate and highlight those who do not. I hope we see more of this as genAI becomes more and more of a blight on the quality of work out there.
I don't mean to piss on your parade but llm generation is human output just like a car welded by robots is a human product. This contrived dualism between llm generated things and human generated things makes the llm into an independent agent (it is not, it is a statistical approximator) and denies the human origin of automated creations. do we say numbers calculated by hand are less authentic than by boolean logic? do we say books printed by press are less human in origin than medieval calligraphy? Ai is a tool. Its output is the result of human intention / attention.
I don't understand what "human-made" means. Are they going to write assembly code themselves or are they taking a big pile of sand to create some transistors?
I understand some of the concerns about AI but they are either a problem of our economic system or of people not caring about what they are doing. Economic problems are probably the most important because robotics and AI have the potential to break our current capitalist system.
Reminds of Books By People https://booksbypeople.org (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45713367)