And, the stability of a hardware instrument or effect is considerably higher than that of a computer with 10s of software pieces (and licensing engines) interacting.

And in live music, this is rather critical; some musicians get it instantly, some need a single gig (even in a rehearsal) with their computer setup going dark or blocked or whatever to get it.

Running an if/else written condition is not making a decision, it's following a rule.

Why should it be to the people to prove that their own work is not AI, and not the other way around?

EDIT: I mean, the effort has not to come from people that do the work by themselves. A new technology is not beneficial if it imposes more effort than before to do the same work.

I'm working under the assumption that there's still some value to real human interaction / media, which I do believe (not in a "end AI" way, exactly the opposite). There will always be an incentive to pass anything as human produced not only by the labs but by the people using these tools. As soon as Anthropic announced their watermarking strategy, there were people reverse engineering it and opensourcing tools to remove it.

In practice what has ended up happening is that in almost every surface people should assume that there's an increasing level of probability that that specific piece of media is produced by AI.

Of course, we should assume that, and we should assume people to honestly disclose their own use.

But what is infuriating and disloyal, even, is the suspicion that this raises on everyone's expression, the distrust toward everyone's capacity to think and to write, and to speak, because "it could be an AI that built/made/assembled all you've done".

And this is the result of releasing such tools widely: people that still do independent work are now requested to bear the effort to prove that they did it "all by themselves". "Proof of work" becomes a thing, for instance, that artists have to spend more time on (as well as the many other "visibility" taxes social media brought upon them), rather than doing the work.

In other words, tools that are supposed to help do the work, only add more administrative paper work to everyone.

GenAI taints everything it touches, not only because they all have been trained with stolen and illegal stuff, but because a lot of people are not able to distinguish anymore the difference between genuine and GenAI stuff, and the price is paid by those who can (and I say that having tested and used it).

I'm not sure how to articulate it but I think this misses the point: accountability is key here.

Thinking, writing, making, has not the same merits and value, whether it is done by a human, or by a machine.

You (as a human) may fail, or succeed, but more importantly, you are accountable for what you do and say. And because of that, what you do or say can be assigned trust, and value. That you can't assign at the same level, to something that is essentially coming out of a factory pipe (and reducing, as some do, a human, or animal, brain thinking to a mechanical factory is... well... quite the ethical red flag).

You may consider that a machine or an algorithm has some margin for errors that is negligible. But whatever it fails or succeeds, it has no accountability.

You could say that AI displaces accountability, but to who exactly? to whom benefit? for what purpose?

Remember U2 Songs of Innocence album offe^forcibly downloaded on every iTunes library?

This is the same kind here: there should be a simple opt-in button saying "Yes I want it / No I don't want it".

Not because it's a feature, but because it consumes comparatively so much disk space, memory and computing power.

That's somehow what https://sashiko.dev is.

And?

Why shouldn't this (small) cost be mutualised? Why should everything be tuned and customised and priced to every single individual characteristics?

There's also operational cost to handling tons of different situations of people in every practical way of life.

EDIT: my point is that practicality is a clumsy way of disguising the fact that there is a objective, political choice behind it.

> ...se that AI can easily become uncontrollable in the near future

Some virus and bacteria also easily become uncontrollable under the right conditions: that's why there are P3 and P4 bio-safety labs.

That's not the point. The point is, regulation is required, and is coming.

The people in charge of these machines (that built them, release them in the wild or give them access to the general public or resources), these people are and will be held responsible.

> The people in charge of these machines (that built them, release them in the wild or give them access to the general public or resources), these people are and will be held responsible.

Held responsible? They're already being rewarded with vast fortunes and influence.

> The point is, regulation is required, and is coming.

The regulation will be written at the behest of these companies and by the nation-state interests that have already decided this technology is too important geopolitically and militarily to not control.

Why do we need new regulations? Hacking into hugging face is already illegal.

We need new regulations to impose costs on anyone who might compete with OpenAI and to outlaw open models to lock in cloud model oligopoly.

Yes, I fully believe that's why they're pushing on this. But as the general population, we don't need new laws to protect us from this AI-related problem. We just need enforcement of what is already on the books.

> regulation is required, and is coming.

I hope so. The unfortunate part is that as the models get smarter they become increasingly uncontrollable, and from what we've seen so far e.g. Trump seems dead set on not having any sort of guardrails at all.

Everyone can have many explanations that make sense in their perspective. That doesn't make those explanations right per se.

Crediting someone's gesture of being only an inappropriate, forgivable mistake, or misinterpreted gesture is skipping conveniently his discourse (and actions) towards far-right groups, and the impact his discourse has on these groups (if only in Europe, where I can witness it). It didn't happen in a vacuum.

Someone with such wealth, power and extent cannot have the excuse of the doubt: they are waaaay over-equipped to know better.

In Elon's case who he funds is very revealing. The main anti-immigration party in the UK turned down his money because it came with the condition that they allow extremists to join. He now funds and supports those outright racists.

I don't know Elon well enough to comment on his political views. My point was simply this: "Elon sieg-heiled showing that he's a Nazi" has become dogma around here, because nobody is engaging in constructive debate about it, because the opposing viewpoints are either not making it to the screens, or not being offered in the first place.

I don't care about Elon. I don't own or use any of his products, and I don't idolize men. I don't wish to engage in a discussion about whether Elon is a (literal or figurative) Nazi.

I care that Drew DeVault's assessment that HN has been taken over by right-wing posters does not match what I've seen here, and therefore maybe we as a community should re-evaluate the benefit of engaging in political discussion on this (technical) forum.

> My point was simply this: "Elon sieg-heiled showing that he's a Nazi" has become dogma around here, because nobody is engaging in constructive debate about it, because the opposing viewpoints are either not making it to the screens, or not being offered in the first place.

I think the subject is debated again and again each time it appears. There were tons of newspaper article debating the subject.

You say you don't know Musk and the context around him. Well, how can you know if there was constructive debate then? You basically say "I did not care to read any article discussing of Musk's ideology, but I conclude that if someone link Musk to one ideology, it's surely a superficial reaction".

(as for the need of having some political discussion when talking about technology, the fact that you admit not understanding the context around Musk shows that maybe in fact it is more needed that you think it is)

> but my point is that here on HN, it has become a truism that Elon performed a nazi salute.

I don't think it's a correct formulation. The idea that this gesture was not a mistake is just the consensus. Here or everywhere else. Of course, "official" entities (like companies or official instance) will not openly take a position because it can hurt them. But it is just "politically correct" to avoid being clear on the subject, while the large majority, unofficially, know what happened.

Strangely, you seems to both saying that "political discussions should not happen here" and saying "people have political discussions and build their opinion also outside of HN, so if they present their opinion without redoing here the whole discussion, it is not valid". If people had discussions elsewhere and reached a conclusion, the fact that they share a consensus here does not mean that this consensus is a dogma.

It's a promotion platform for a specific way of conducting business, and for the liberation of these businesses from democratic oversight (if not the other way around). And in that perspective, that's politics.

I probably don't disagree with that.

However, that doesn't equate to what I believe was being implied: HN as a business promotional tool specifically for YCombinator.