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

To me, it’s not about work amount, nor efficiency. But rather about value. Value comes from scarcity. It’s scarce because it’s difficult to attain.

Even though tricky to prove value as explained, in a future where all info is compiled & analyzed, live; valuable and scarce input will stand out.

Paving the way for a network based on value categorization of knowledge/information. 

This wouldn’t only be useful as a tool against spam content, but in theory it should fuel innovation, dramatically. As great knowledge leads to great ideas, now in an open & compounding effect.

Truly efficient human innovation.