It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)
> It's clickbait. She gave an interview where she said she used AI to help get her brain going, and the headline made it sound like she had AI write the book.
It's not clickbait.
> Często wprost rzucam maszynie pomysł do analizy z prośbą: kochana, jak mogłybyśmy to pięknie rozwinąć?
> I often directly throw an idea at it for an analysis asking: darling, how could we expand this beautifully?
It's exactly like using AI for song creation where you direct it where it's going. It's no different than asking AI to generate an image and you redrawing it so it doesn't have AI traces.
AI should not be used to replace a core part of what makes us human: creation of art. There is no such thing as AI art. On all fronts, we must fight this and brook no compromise.
Compounded upon this is that artists were ripped off to train AI, which is now being used to destroy artists' livelihoods.
I'm willing to bet they didn't mean to carry kids that don't fit in two SUVs. Probably meant that logistically, they need two SUVs available. If you aren't American—or are, but don't have kids—you might not be aware that even two kids past 10yo and a sedan is a pretty bad experience. And I'm saying this as someone who loves his sedan, hates large cars, passionately hates SUVs, and definitely never wanted one.
I have three kids under 10. None of them can legally ride in the front of my sedan. So they had to be in the back. Three of them in one bench seat. Physically possible, and we did it for a while, but it's just non-stop screaming and fights, and with very little space for all their after-school stuff. I threw out my back trying to make their sports and music stuff fit with my baby's stroller and diaper bag etc.
And this is the kicker if you aren't American: everything you do in life has to be done with a car, which means even at two kids, you might be transporting loads of gear every day.
I always thought, like my experience growing up, my kids should learn a musical instrument and play a sport. So if a kid picks cello and the sport is tennis, your entire trunk is filled now. And that's not even with a stroller for your third kid that is not self-ambulatory yet. Forget about a tire inflator, jumper cables, or any other standard stuff you should be carrying in your car at all times.
So with three kids (extremely common in the US), a sedan is practically unworkable. (Again, I'm saying this as someone who would only drive sedans my whole life if I could. I hate big cars and think they're a needless risk and expense for most people and wish we could heavily restrict their ownership.)
Now what if one parent is in charge of the morning stuff then works late, but the other parent is in charge of afternoon stuff because they get off work early.
Now you need an SUV for each parent just to manage three kids with a completely normal set of childhood activities.
I drive a ID.Buzz now, the LWB so it seats seven. Life is immeasurably easier. Perfect timing, too, with the gas price situation, and I keep the car at 80% charge every day, a few hours of charging off one 120V plug while I sleep, everything's gucci.
*edit* One thing I forgot to mention is that carpools to kid events are common here. So extra space to be able to drive one of your kid's friend to the after-game hangout is a of high value. Increases community, etc.
I am not American, and I have had two kids (now adults) and had a hatchback for many of those years. No problem fitting everything in. Split folding seats help a lot.
The biggest car I have had is probably a Citreon Xsara Picasso (small by American standards, I think), and that only for about three years. It was nice to have the space but not essential.
I can imagine needing two cars, and some people I know do, but more than two in all (say one big, one small, and not small by American standards) is rare.
I posit the ideal is three (often used, room for them notwithstanding):
-sedan for commutes
-suv for bench seats/cargo and typical awd/4x4 secondary
-truck for towing toys, bed hauling the things your wife made a deal for at a garage sale, going to the dump, firewood, bla bla bla, going for rides and looking cool when the weather’s nice
Two cars are always available if one breaks down, or bad weather, whatever. Can trade space and hassle for money if you’re willing to deal with repairs if the used rigs are old.
I strongly dislike SUVs but due to transporting the kids around and their friends, my wife and I have switched vehicles during the week: she drives my sedan, I drive her SUV.
Being able to transport my oldest's friends around has resulted in improved relationships for both the kids, and the parents.
"Last minute sleepover after the game? No problem, I'll take your son and his gear in my car. We'll also pick up a pizza on the way back too. Drop off his toothbrush and pajamas at your convenience, after your other children are fed and bathed."
That's a briefer version of the exchange I had with a family last week, and their response was an audible sigh of relief, many thank yous, and an invite to dinner this weekend.
The Sienna is a great rig but doesn’t look cool, which is rule 1 /s
As long we’re talking driving on roads, the AWD Sienna is basically an SUV. It is not, however, something that speaks to guys who want a specific look or fantasy from their rig.
Is anyone even selling those in the US these days? Obviously there's a (dwindling) supply of used ones, but I can understand wanting to put your kid in a new car for safety reasons.
I've thought about building a nice treehouse retreat on my property. It'd be a sweet way to avoid increasing property taxes but still have a guest room, or a library. But I live where there are bark scorpions, meaning at night they're crawling all up and down those trees. Would have to be hella sealed.
Maybe a sheet metal "band" around the trunk, several feet off the ground, would be enough to stop the scorpion from being able to make it to the treehouse. If the surface is smooth, the scorpion's tarsal shouldn't be able to find purchase.
Like a 12 to 18-inch wide band of smooth stainless steel or aluminum wrapped around the trunk.
Scrape x-inch bark off > apply metal mesh > 100% silicone sealant > butyl tape > wrapped aluminum > lock in with stainless steel hose clamps. Could even get a design lasered into the metal which might be cool.
Check your local permitting - there are often many “structures” that don’t trigger audits or permits but are still usable - outdoor kitchens, tents, etc. a treehouse may just be one option.
People running WHOIS against kylesmith.com might discover that it's owned by someone named Kyle Smith.
I'll actually offer my take: domain names under the US TLD are a shared, public good, and no one should be allowed to anonymously own a shared, public good.
This is really cool, but scrolling through the list I find it hilarious that the seventh largest city in the USA has no locality domain but small towns in my home state that I've never even heard of have one.
> Lawfare is the use of legal systems and institutions to affect foreign or domestic affairs, as a more peaceful and rational alternative, or as a less benign adjunct, to warfare.
The parent is musing on the impossibility of Google being held accountable, as the government largely assents to this plan and will ostensibly use it for social control during times of protracted warfare (eg. right now).
There is, but at least in the US neither party cares. They want to get rid of anonymity online, one to throw anyone who googles "trans" in jail, and the other because their biggest donors are tech companies that want to denonymize everyone.
Our antitrust laws have been toothless for decades, and both parties love billionaires controlling the rest of us with an iron fist.
GrapheneOS is looking more and more worth the headache that my limited free time generally does not like. I don't need Google to know my smut fanfiction is written by my IRL.
Felt same way about GrapheneOS but a few friends set it up so i gave it a try. It is easy to install and use. As evidence, I gave my 70 year old father one and he loves it.
When my friend was telling me about GrapheneOS I was thinking back to the old days of android custom roms, all the bugs and bullshit, the time I couldn't dial out to 911 because my custom ROM crashes when I did, or other issues. So I gave it a pass.
However he's been on it now for months and every time he shows me something on it I get a little more jealous. Everything seems to be working fine, including e.g. bank apps, and he has interesting features like some kind of app zoning thing limiting permissions on a zone to zone basis.
The only problem is it's only available on massive phones without headphone jacks and SD card slots, so I'm sticking with Xperia for now.
She used AI the way I as a writer use my friends online: to say things, see what they say back, and get it to make my brain create new connections.
As a writer, I think a lot about the ethics of using AI in the creation of art. As of right now, here's some opinions/ethics I've formed:
1. there's no such thing as AI art, just AI pictures, AI books, etc.
2. AI can be used in the creation of art, but what matters is that the final contributor to the creation is human.
This one is a little fuzzy and I'm still working on how to formalize it, but the broad strokes of my intent here is that AI pictures where you draw a blue line at the end and say "I did the final work, so it's art" counts as art if the point was the blue line rather than as loophole-finding.
For example, if you're writing a novel that is about AI and you use AI to generate the stuff the AI says, this could be valid art if the point is to interrogate the use of AI in writing as opposed to just to be lazy and avoid having to write some of your book.
But what's important to me is that we explicitly exclude "I made this painting and then asked AI to make it prettier because I am not technically proficient and want it to look dope," which is why I require the final touch to be by a human.
3. AI is distinct from other art-creation tools (like paints, brushes, CNC machines, 3D printers in that it does not permit reproducibility).
I'm still working on how to formalize this, but y'all get the idea, right? AI is kind of a black box that spits out stuff. We can't explain how exactly, and it's stochastic. But the application of paint is also stochastic because of chaos.
No one has flawless control over the flow/spread of paint. Capillary action will have some "randomness" to it. But that randomness is minute, possibly irrelevant to the result. E.g., the Mona Lisa wouldn't be affected if the paint that Leonardo applied had, at a microscopic level, adhered/penetrated the canvas differently.
Overall, the "core" of the work needs to be human-driven. Tools don't affect this, but AI is a special tool that gets higher scrutiny than other tools because it purports to replace the human. It's referred to as "intelligence." Even if it isn't actually intelligent, it is intended to be, and is interpreted and used to replace.
If it's not used to replace, then it's (probably) okay. Still working on my general framework.
But I think about it a lot because I recognize the benefits of AI in art creation. Writing is often lonely, and I do find immense value in just throwing shit at a wall, seeing what comes back, and riffing on that. I don't drop AI stuff into my works.
But I will often be like "oh that's a really cool idea" and then expand/mutate that. Like, "where might a mother and daughter go to bond?" and AI gives me back "spa" with statements like it's dimly lit, relaxing, etc.
If I then write 5,000 words about a trip to the spa, I don't see that as AI writing my work. I see it as comparable to asking my buddy at the bar who isn't attempting to be artistic when talking to me about this kind of thing. Might not (probably doesn't) know I'm even thinking about writing when I ask.
Anyway, that gets to the issue of whether the use of AI makes the end result art or not. That doesn't address ethical issues about using it.
Personally, I feel like the environmental issue is a non-starter. I don't play video games. I don't really use much single-use plastic. My electrical usage is minimal excluding AC. Not only do I think my AI use still leaves me below average electricity user for someone in my country, but I think if I were an average person, my AI usage consumes less power than my peers playing video games or running a pool pump at their house or something.
I think I read that the sum total of all AI usage in the US increases our electrical consumption by some minuscule amount per person. Less than 1%? Seems like a useless line of argument.
Better to talk about how artists' works (and other people's works) were "stolen" (sometimes literally, sometimes just in spirit because a EULA permitted this but users wouldn't have liked it). That seems wrong, and it's the hardest issue for me to deal with personally. I try to minimize AI usage for this reason.
And still better is to talk about how AI seems to be bound for replacing humans-in-art. One of the great joys of being human is that we can create art. And AI is facilitating people abandoning artistic creation in favor of querying AI.
"I wanna read a She-Ra fanfic about XYZ, Gemini write one." How about you write it yourself and experience the frustrating, vinegar-strokes joy of the creative act? Don't throw away an important part of being human for expedience's sake!
I have much less concern about art for non-artistic, non-artisanal purposes; write that one-off bash script with AI! Artisanal-purposes seems more iffy. Like writing a small app to help with a task and then putting it up on Apple Store to share with others. On one hand, it helps. On the other hand, it does hurt the artisanal nature of code creation (part art, but with non-artistic utility).
Jiminy crickets this is probably my longest comment on HN ever. Would love to see some responses because I am trying my best. I think Ai is great for many tasks. But fuck AI in art. I will never knowingly read an AI book. I will never knowingly view AI art-as-art.
(Edited to add more paragraph breaks. Yes, I'm a writer. No, I won't do four rounds of drafts of a HN comment.)
reply