To me, the biggest problem with "proof of human origin" is that "human-created" vs "AI-created" is a false binary. Most art and code I create involves many rounds of interaction between me and models. I suspect most interesting things made this decade will be like this

To me, the biggest problem with "proof of human origin" is that "human-created" vs "AI-created" is a false binary. Most art and code I create involves many rounds of interaction between me and models. I suspect most interesting things made this decade will be like this

https://x.com/trentmc0/status/1794333215290982702

I can't believe I'm about to say this to you of all people.... But I think what people actually want is proof of work 😛.

And by that I mean it feels better to reward humans who have put some amount of time into the content than to reward folks who ran a command in under a second, posted the result and moved on.

Musician and artist from the smallest largest city. https://audius.co/monist

I slightly disagree, advancement demands change, the ability to craft a  prompt and create a unique piece of art, writing, code or whatever you need is a skill worth rewarding. What should not be rewarded is low effort actions and creations, Human generated or AI assisted... That's my take

I am a poet, crypto enthusiast, web3 influencer and airdrop hunter, I love meeting people and trying out new opportunities. Kevinmfer #10

Respectfully offering my take: AI has no taste. It offers what is most common. Human taste is the grand arbiter, and developing that taste requires an enormous amount of training. That alone is proof of work. AI is infinite concept artists curated by their lead taste-maker. That’s how I see it.