I think the question is: What level of detail would Michelaelangelo have needed to give the anonymous painter, in this story, for us to still give the creative credit to Michelangelo? If he micro-managed every brushstroke and color, then clearly it was his vision. What if he just said, I want this finger reaching out here and that finger there? Or just, hey paint Adam and throw in God, make it fit this ceiling, maybe tone down that blue a little?
When we say who "made" a movie, outside the movie business, it's usually the director we're talking about, not the producers. They had input, sure, but they didn't control every individual choice.
To keep the sweater analogy rolling, proof of effort is a real thing when you get a gift for someone. If you tell your secretary go buy a sweater for my wife, that's a lot less meaningful than if you go out shopping for it yourself, right?
Presumably, another pope could’ve commissioned the Sistine Chapel’s ceiling just as well as Julius II did, but we assume not many artists of the time could have done what Michelangelo did. So we laud and aggrandize those without whom we believe something could not have happened, especially when, like in his case, they did nearly all the work with their own hands.
Directing a movie is—except in very rare cases—the art of delegation in service of a core vision. And we believe only Stanley Kubrick could (or would) have maniacally orchestrated a space odyssey with effects that still hold up half a century later. Or what have you, I’m not a film buff by any means.
There aren't many examples in the modern world of a piece of work as large and magnificent as the Sistine Chapel which was done by one guy. A movie or a AAA game requires hundreds of people, and arguably the results would be noticeably different if any one of a few dozen of them were replaced by someone else. Changing screenwriters could be as big a change as directors, so in that sense without the delegation of the producers, the thing couldn't or wouldn't have been made as it is.
But the more you micromanage the design decisions of a thing, the more you're the person without whom it couldn't be done, right? I've been on enough commercial sets to see directors juggling every decision and detail with the crew; the crew is their toolbox, or their brushes, the actors are their palette. I think if someone uses an AI like that, it's at least them without whom it couldn't be done. Perhaps "proof of effort" is just a not-nice way to express who had creative control. Once you delegate the design decisions themselves, you enter a category where you're not really essential.
It’s a human connection. Most of us have spent time working on something we appreciate that others don’t value. We recognize and appreciate that. Digging into and noticing the details gives us an appreciation for the effort of the creator. Did they add a delightfully unexpected bit of polish?
People appreciate “wasted” effort.
I don’t care that an AI did a good job. Maybe the first time it was impressive. The Nth time? Meh. And ideas are the easy part. We could have 1,000 “look! I made my windows look like ham” apps and no one would care. But 1 hand crafted really good “look I put a disco ball in the desktop, see how it lights up the windows from behind!” App Would be amazing.
The story of how a person got there is nice, but without results it's useless to me.
> to me
> created: 1 day ago
> karma: -1
Which is why joy is gone for most. Maybe you don't care about the process, but most people do.
Doing the hard work and seeing the result really meant something. Seeing the result from the click of a few keystrokes is so meaningless.
- An interesting sweater
- A sweater from a friend who thought you'd like it
- A handmade sweater from your grandma
- A worn-out sweater that belonged to one of your favorite artists
Little of what you’d feel comes from the sweater itself, or how much effort it took to make it.
The value largely comes from the person behind it. What it says about them, how they connect to you or the wider culture.
These kinds of projects used to be that same kind of window into another like minded hacker’s taste and sense of humor.
I think the magical stuff is still out there, it’s just getting drowned out by these low-effort AI-generated attention grabs.
It’s not “using a tool” when you farm out 99.999% of decisions to coin flips besides a random initial seed set by a few sentence prompt.
It’s like asking some guy “make me a project that does X” and then claiming you curated it and the other guy was just a tool.
The main thing is the presentation. Unrepresentative AI generated image at the top, AI generated readme, AI prose in every file I opened. It’s hard to tell which decisions were actually yours.
It’s the same sort of feel to me as a novel with an interesting original plot, but written in generic AI prose.
I want to hear your voice, not the AI’s.
I don't think that making software should be gatekept. I suppose it's a bit melancholy that software has to be appreciated differently now.