←back to thread

648 points bradgessler | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.732s | source
Show context
curl-up ◴[] No.44009301[source]
> The fun has been sucked out of the process of creation because nothing I make organically can compete with what AI already produces—or soon will.

So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity.

My mixer can mix dough better than I can, but I still enjoy kneading it by hand. The incredibly good artisanal bakery down the street did not reduce my enjoyment of baking, even though I cannot compete with them in quality by any measure. Modern slip casting can make superior pottery by many different quality measures, but potters enjoy throwing it on a wheel and producing unique pieces.

But if your idea of fun is tied to the "no one else can do this but me", then you've been doing it wrong before AI existed.

replies(14): >>44009329 #>>44009344 #>>44009382 #>>44009383 #>>44009447 #>>44009580 #>>44009601 #>>44009759 #>>44009774 #>>44009818 #>>44009920 #>>44009945 #>>44009977 #>>44010301 #
1. kelseyfrog ◴[] No.44009818[source]
> So the fun, all along, was not in the process of creation itself, but in the fact that the creator could somehow feel superior to others not being able to create? I find this to be a very unhealthy relationship to creativity.

People realize this at various points in their life, and some not at all.

In terms the author might accept, the metaphor of the stoic archer comes to mind. Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome. In this cast, the action is writing while the target is having better thoughts.

Much of our life is governed by the success at which we hit our targets, but why do that to oneself? We have a choice in how we approach the world, and setting our intentions toward action and away from targets is a subtle yet profound shift.

A clearer example might be someone who wants to make a friend. Let's imagine they're at a party and they go in with the intention of making a friend, they're setting themselves up for failure. They have relatively little control over that outcome. However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically.

Choosing one's goals - primarily grounded in action - is an under-appreciated perspective.

replies(3): >>44011241 #>>44012456 #>>44012978 #
2. sifar ◴[] No.44011241[source]
>> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome.

The primary reason is not that it relieves us of the disappointment, but that worrying about the outcome increases our anxiety and impacts our action which hampers the outcome.

3. BrenBarn ◴[] No.44012456[source]
> Focusing on the action, not the target is what relieves one of the disappointment of outcome.

This is true, but the tough part is it's not the whole story.

First, obviously along some dimensions of life, targets matter. If we need to grow food to eat, the pleasant feeling of working in the garden isn't going to be sufficient; if we need to strengthen a dike to prevent the town from being inundated, the sensation of swinging a hammer isn't going to cut it.

> However, if they go in with the intention of showing up authentically - something people tend to appreciate, and something they have full control over - the changes of them succeeding increase dramatically.

That is true, but it's also possible for a person to feel like they are being authentic (and even to be correct about that), yet still seem off-putting to others, perhaps for reasons they aren't aware of. Even if they're not focused on the "target" of making a friend, there are intermediate targets like "interact with other people in a way that they (not just I) enjoy", and if those targets aren't met, eventually a reckoning must come.

So the second point is that evaluating the "action" is an internal perspective that can become out of sync with reality even in cases where the result isn't so critical. We may not want to be focused on "end goals" but we need some amount of focus on external calibrators of some sort, to keep us from descending into solipcism.

Then the third thing is that (maybe because of the first two), people have a tendency to extend their results-oriented mindset more and more, and even if an individual resists this, they have to deal with the fact that everyone around them may be doing it. So even if you take the view that writing is a human activity that should be valued for the gusto and AI writing is missing the point, if everyone around you stops writing and starts using AI instead, a lot of important stuff in the penumbra of the activity can be weakened. Like it becomes harder to put together a writing club/workshop etc., maybe even to buy books. And in particular it can become harder to straddle the line between target and action in terms of employment and generally meeting your material needs. There are plenty of people who have artistic skill and have a job where they get to use it to some extent (e.g., graphic design), and even though it may have some distasteful commercial aspects, they can still get some of that "action satisfaction" from their job. But if AI eats all the graphic design jobs, now you have to spend all your work hours doing something that gives you none of that satisfaction, and cram all the satisfying artistic action into your free time.

The same is true for technical tasks. A lot of the dismay over the use of AI for programming arises because people used to be able to get paid for doing things that also gave them a sense of satisfaction for engaging in a sort of problem-solving task that they enjoyed as an action. Now it's harder to do that, but everyone still has to eat, so they have to give up some of the satisfaction they used to get because they can't get paid for it anymore.

I agree that, for an individual, shifting the mindset to action can be helpful. But we as individuals live in the world, and the more an individual's mindset becomes out of step with that of his society, the harder it becomes to live in accordance with that mindset. So I think we also need to apply pressure to create a societal mindset that values and supports the kinds of individual mindsets we want people to have.

4. ankit219 ◴[] No.44012978[source]
This is a very millennial style of thinking (myself included). It feels like people can't just have a hobby, they have to be great at it. The sense of greatness, the sense of accomplishment is not merely doing a thing, but getting to an outcome which is measurable and/or which we can tell others or put on social media. I thought it was only me, but turns out this is all around me. I started gardening, spending 15 mins a day, I talk to a friend around it. They tell me about this gardening insta page, tips, and community. The community has people doing things at a better pace / rate than me. Putting in more effort than me. I suddenly feel that rush to have some competition. Then it becomes boring because the fun was the fifteen minutes i spent in there, not the part where it occupied rest of my day. Side projects, writing, painting, I somehow see people doing this all the time. Picking the wrong goals, or expecting a dopamine hit from wrong places.

Choosing the right goals is the great way to put that in perspective. I don't know what happened with hobbies, but it's not there anymore. (so much that i dont tell people i do xyz things on the side)