HN

Comments (174)

• Menu

  geraneum
  I don’t know why some are offended so much by this. There’s an endless stream of AI generated stuff on the internet already. You can also generate your own stuff and don’t need every single outlet to mass produce and publish LLM output. It’s ok that some remain human centric.
• Menu

  ryanbrunner
  Our workplace are heavy users of AI for nearly everything, but we still hold to the rule that if the audience of text is a human, it should be written by a human.AI generated text is still exhausting to read.
• kolinko
  I kind of respect that. Ok using AI for researching and whatnot, and for their core thing which is writing and illustrations using human work.
• Menu

  samwiseg
  Bravo. I’ve never read anything by AI that’s worth reading. I would only subscribe to a magazine or publication that makes a similar pledge.
• Menu

  adamddev1
  In the creative arts and writing space, many the arguments against generative AI keep circling around the issue of jobs being replaced.I think the far bigger and more important issue is that through generative AI hallucinations and lies become more and more part of our written media.Albertatech told a humorous, light-hearted story[1] about how this affected her personally, but the results could be far more devastating:[1]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/a0k8J0-KluY
• Menu

  legitster
  I think one thing to keep in mind as to why all of the other media empires are so quick to roll over and embrace AI - all of these companies are survivors of the massive media purge of the late 2000s, when blogs and cheap online news just completely gutted the traditional news and publishing world.Outside of a few standouts, the companies that survived did not do so by embracing quality journalism and independent reporting.Now the bloggers and upstart publishers that killed traditional media are the incumbents.
• Menu

  TDelta2258
  The article explicitly says "no text that is generated by AI" but is a bit more ambiguous on whether AI can be used as an aide to writing. There's this section:>This doesn’t mean nobody doing work here can ever use any of the softwares that are broadly lumped together as AI. Much as we respect the Luddites around here, we’re not against technological innovation. Nothing in our rules prohibits writers from using a new tool to help them research something, or prevents an artist from using a tool to, say, add a texture or change a color, or make some kind of small element.As someone trying to pickup writing fiction after years of doing technical writing, I use LLMs for fast feedback to see if my words are having the intended effect (i.e., are they inducing emotions? am I describing things in interesting ways? or is it a slog to read? etc...). Since Current Affairs is a commentary magazine and not just straight facts reporting, I could imagine authors wanting similar feedback. Would this kind of usage be permitted? Seems... yes? But I'm not completely sure.
• Trusteando
  The only way I see creators can continue earning money is by a new market in which the products they create can not be paid in money but in a new coin. I propose that the coin stays strictly internal and not convertible, that fiat enters only from the outside, and that exit is communal, not automatic. The viable solution is a federated network of small, closed credit loops. Inside each loop, creators use a non convertible token for work and tools. Cash enters through dues or grants, and cash out exit grants are decided by community vote based on need.Small loops keep social trust high. When loops need to trade, they establish simple bilateral treaties with each other. This preserves value, protects human labor, and keeps decisions in local hands.
• Menu

  hisfraudulency
  I'm kinda ambivalent on the Druckenmiller WSJ case. He's admittedly a poor writer, and probably wouldn't have published anything had it not been for AI.Obviously the WSJ staff shouldn't be using it in the final output, but if it's a prominent guest's opinion filtered through ChatGPT, I'm mostly fine with it.
• shmolyneaux
  Whether you're pro-AI or anti-AI, everyone benefits from non-AI-written content. The anti-AI crowd benefits from avoiding content they dislike and the pro-AI crowd gets more quality training data.I would way rather read handwritten articles. I think everyone should celebrate the human craft of writing. I really hope this doesn't slowly become the "no-VFX" posturing from the film industry, however.
• cobbzilla
  I don’t think I’ve ever read a single issue of Current Affairs.This was so well-written and convincing that I just subscribed. I believe they are doing this the right way, and more power to them!
• garbanz0
  I think we will be stuck relitigating this issue every time AI disrupts an industry, producing a ton of newsworthy proclamations from each organization or project about their AI policy. But they all boil down to the same debate which is getting quite old.
• Menu

  tintor
  "Made without AI" is the new "Artisanal" for digital artifacts.
• Menu

  georgemcbay
  Good.AI is great for some things. It is not currently great (or even remotely passable) at writing interesting magazine articles.
• lbrito
  Excellent.
• Menu

  LogicFailsMe
  I'm more concerned with the bizarre choices made by AI recommenders to deliver me human content that is worse than entertaining slop like the LGTM song or anything by Skyebrows on youtube. Unpopular flex I'm sure, but don't enrage me, I just report it as abuse/harassment. Engage me and tame my ADHD-addled hindbrain.
• Menu

  joshcsimmons
  Who cares?
• tehjoker
  Thank god. I hugely disdain anyone feeding me AI content as communication.
• tonymet
  Every industry will be divided along these lines. But there isn’t an independent auditor or regulator like UL or OU (kosher food) to help instill trust with consumers. So enforcement is impossible.AI used to be obvious, but the quality has improved — in 6 months it will be impossible to detect.Eventually you will have to control the entire supply chain, like Dune. You will have to have an entire org policed with anti-AI software, attestation and spot checks to attest that AI was never used in the workflow.The auditors will have to spot-check every employee randomly the way USADA / IADA (anti doping agencies) do – on-call within 2 hours notice for an anti-AI attestation review.1 drop of AI taints the entire institution.(I’m not anti AI, I’m explaining the implications. And I think the principle is good for their journal, though I don’t think they’ve thought through how to manage it yet. )
• gortok
  In what is undoubtedly a fantasy world worth working towards, I envision this happening across various industries, where tiny businesses rise up against the continuing worsening of quality and rising prices, and seek to produce quality goods and services that may be more expensive than their competition, but are worth the cost.We are witnessing the natural outcome of pursuing higher profits at the expense of everything else; at some point it becomes “as crappy as the market will bear”, and we all lose out. For some of us it may manifest as having to get our car serviced every few thousand miles because the parts are of poor quality (but cheap!). For some of us it may manifest as no longer desiring sweets because they’re now poorly made with substandard ingredients created in a lab somewhere.It can also manifest in ways that are a threat to public safety; like rollercoaster rides that weren’t properly designed or tested because schools now pursue profits above learning; or because manufacturers somehow rely on regulators to do their job for them.However it manifests, it’s hard to point to higher prices and lower quality goods and services and say this is the best that capitalism has to offer. If this is it, if this is the capitalist system working as intended, it’s no wonder movements like the Democratic Socialists of America are taking hold.
• chrisjj
  > Nothing in our rules ... artist from using a toolSo "AI" tool OK?> to, say, add a texture or change a color, or make some kind of small element.So "AI" OK for elements of some value of "smaller"?This ban sounds somewhat ... flexible.
• ashleyn
  >So our rule is simple: No AI generated articles or illustrations in the magazine!This is, I think, as close to ideal as an AI policy for media can possibly be. For certain things - visual art, music, storywriting, game design, and public communications - I think consumers will continue to value the human element and demand it. The optimistic take is that this will line up with the capitalist incentive as well, no matter how much AI reduces the cost of production to nearly zero. People just won't want to engage with slop.>Nothing in our rules prohibits writers from using a new tool to help them research something, or prevents an artist from using a tool to, say, add a texture or change a color, or make some kind of small element. But we need, first, to ensure that technologies are a tool used by workers to help them, rather than a tool used to replace workers. And, second, we need to make sure that readers aren’t being fed things that look like people’s genuine thoughts and creative expression but are in fact the product of disembodied mathematical formulas.This is another W as far as their AI policy goes. While skeptical of "slop" and other kinds of lazily-generated, low-quality output, I also remain highly critical of anti-AI absolutism. Generally these are the types of arguments you see bandied about on places like Bluesky which lean hard on the environmental impact/third-worldist perspectives, argue for AI-driven skills loss, make tenuous and contrived connections of AI with their hot-button cultural issue, or only seem to view AI through the lens of their own job security. None of these issues are inherent to AI or are insurmountable, and hardliners make an incorrect assumption that the technology can simply be banned or boycotted away. Many of them are feverishly waiting for "the bubble pop", which is barked with the same optimism as evangelical predictions of the Rapture. Some of these people are so obsessive about being anti-AI that they wield whatever diminutive influence they may have to ban your IP address from their website if their server ever catches Claude doing a web search on it.
• Menu

  virtualbluesky
  Now 'not using AI' is being framed as the plucky resistance movement - not a great sign for said movement.
• j2kun
  > I’ll admit, I used to be excited by generative AI. I made goofy little images in DALL-E. I liked the dumb novelty songs. I thought it could be a cool tool for creative professionals to play around with. I forgot for a moment that we live under capitalism, where every new technology will be used by the ruling class to fuck over workers.I think this is key. If AI wasn't force-fed into every industry in a rapacious grasp for more profits, our society might have been able to grow into a healthier equilibrium where AI is a useful tool for creative professionals.Even the insiders I talk to at big AI labs express the opinion, "nobody likes where we're going, but the pressures are too strong."
• zzzeek
  good for them, looks like a very smart move based on who I'd perceive the customers of this publication to be.if OTOH Fox News came out with this announcement, nobody would care except some of their viewers/readers would be annoyed by it.point is it's hard to ever identify if a magazine would be doing this purely out of principle since it's also good marketing.
• anon
  undefined
• eboy
  [dead]
• Menu

  thrownaway561
  [flagged]
• threethirtytwo
  [flagged]
• Menu

  rafaquintanilha
  [flagged]
• Menu

  zcw100
  [flagged]
• Menu

  karahime
  [flagged]
• Menu

  meerita
  > Two neighbors stop in front of a construction site and look through the fence. Inside, five workers are using two enormous machines to finish digging a massive hole. One neighbor shakes his head. “Fifty people could have dug that with shovels. Everyone would have had a job.” The other looks at him and says, “Why stop at fifty? A thousand people could have dug it with their bare hands.”Good luck trying to figure out whether something was written by AI or a human. This mass hysteria around AI will soon be forgotten. Nobody will care whether something was written by an LLM or a human. People will just move on to other topics.Downvoting me or others will not change this fact.
• Menu

  clarkmoody
  > all of the AI models that are being used to replace artists were trained through the mass theft of those very same artists’ workThis seems to be the underlying moral justification for creatives' opposition of AI. Job destruction is the obvious self-interested justification.My question (probably not original) is this: which biological neural network was not trained on copyrighted material from other artists? Which guitarist never listened to classic rock bands? Which painter never looked at Monet? Nearly all successful artists publicly recognize the influence of prior art on their development and style (and the rest are lying).A quick hypothetical:Let's say instead of hoovering up billions of images from data dumps, the AI researchers took a still camera to all the art galleries on the planet and snapped photos of art, then trained the neural network on those photos. Is this still "theft" of the artists' work? What about if an embodied AI in a robot chassis did the same, then painted new art with oil & canvas? Is this still theft?Perhaps this example fails because it's not enough data? But is it a difference in degree or a difference in kind?
• Menu

  andsoitis
  > No text that is AI-generated may be published in our magazine.What about other artifacts that you produce, such as images (that are not illustrations), videos, sound effects for your podcast, or the code that runs your website?
• Menu

  atonse
  I find this to be incredibly short-sighted. However, it does say it was a part of a union contract, so that explains some of it (the part where it seems to come entirely from a fear of job security).Even if you want to keep AI out of the content-writing part, or the image generation part of your product, there are still areas where a newsroom can do much more ambitious work with the same people:- AI can do research to assist in fact checking of articles- AI can help suggest story ideas based on patterns it found in your own articles over time (an editor would still curate them)- AI can help the newsroom pore over more first-hand sources/raw sources. Think of how many times you've had to process a stack of hard to OCR PDFs that come out of a FOIA, for example, or poring over government datasets when trying to make sense of something. Or a person's historical tweets, etc.So it's clear that whoever won in this debate (hopefully there was at least a proper debate) wasn't interested in talking about all these additional areas where AI can help the existing people do more _without risking their jobs_.