One of its core dependencies is morphdom, which has been used successfully by a slew of frontend view libraries like Marko, including Phoenix LiveView.
Nope. They are pretty much all equivalent. Browsers render HTML. This is a quite-solved-problem. Is there a scenario that can't be handled by the tools we've had for years? The web just doesnt require another paradigm. There is way, way too much tooling for a not-that-complicated problem.
Also... if Marko 10 years old, where's the news part here?
I want, and I think you might agree, for you to be the best Praveen Kumar you can be. To produce meaningful, valuable work that represents your taste. Is your current perspective getting you there?
I think you might be wrong about why people are dismissive of AI art.
Creating effective prompts is a truly valuable skill. It's one that writers and leaders have had to learn for centuries. But it was different; we used to only prompt biological neural networks.
Generating quality AI art is a skill! But it's a writing skill and a critical thinking skill, not a visual art skill.
Previously those of us without skill but plenty of taste would prompt artists to produce what we couldn't.
I'm reading through your other posts and I think you might agree with me in principle and that you might argue that this doesn't apply to you.
As you say: "This isn't about replacing creativity. It's about finally being able to complete something that was trapped inside my head and the skills that I needed to have a polished outcome is partly non-existent."
I relate to this, and I think that's exactly how we should be using generative models. Augmentation that helps us achieve our goals more effectively than we could alone.
Previously we did this through things like apprenticeships, artist collectives, and other person-to-person collaboration. I don't think those things should go away. I do think we can get even better at producing art by including generative models in the collaboration process.
But I'm skeptical that you are truly achieving your goals.
"I don't outsource my work, not my creativity."
You did. You did outsource your work. To a tool.
Is this bad? I don't think so. It happens in all creative work.
Is it understandable to me that people would be dismissive? Absolutely.
Here's the challenge: to really get people's attention now we have to produce work that is at least as compelling as the very best art that can be generated by models. And really? We need our creations to exceed what current generative models can do.
We need to do this to be successful as artists. We also need to do this so that when the next batch of models are being trained – with or without our consent – they will produce higher quality work.
As I'm looking through the pages of Meditation at the End of the Universe I'm seeing some really nice imagery. I'm not seeing work that I'd deem impressive without using generative models. This is subjective! My opinion doesn't really matter! But I think this might be what other people are seeing as well.
Feeding a stack of art like this to a model in training is not likely to improve its abilities. There are layout and clarity issues. There are glaring color and typography issues. There is a feeling of heavy-handedness, of mismatch between concept and presentation, of gratuitousness. A lack of constraint or refinement.
This is not a bad work. It's an early work. And that's a really good thing.
But I need to say something very direct.
Your blog post is not good. It shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
This is why people are dismissive.
This blog post shows very clearly the thing that your artistic work hints at: you need more experience.
This isn't a bad thing. It's completely normal.
But a blog post like this? Counterproductive at best.
This work is still not matching the expectations people have for an impressive graphic novel with or without the use of generative models.
That's totally okay. It doesn't have to.
But you need to hear that generative models are providing a false sense of achievement, and that there are artistic skills that you still need to learn to produce really great generative art.
I want you to produce the best Praveen-style work that you can.
Thanks for taking the time to write such a thoughtful response. It’s rare to get this kind of engagement, especially from someone on the other side of the AI-art conversation.
You’re right about a lot: the work is early, it’s rough in places, and there’s still a lot I’m figuring out. But what looks like lack of polish to you feels like forward motion to me. The alternative isn’t mastery. It’s paralysis. I’d rather be making progress than waiting for perfect conditions that may never come.
You called the blog post counterproductive. I don’t think it was. Without it, I wouldn’t have sparked a discussion like this. The post wasn’t trying to make a universal claim, it was just me writing down what I noticed, and trying to understand the reactions I got. That’s been useful.
I get that the work doesn’t meet everyone's standards. Some call it lazy because I used AI. Others call it unfinished because I didn’t use AI enough. That tension is actually what I’m exploring, how to use these tools just enough to get the work closer to what I see in my head, without losing the part that feels like me.
I’m not building this for a gallery. I’m building a record of progress. A timeline. Something I can look back on and say, "I made that, and I kept going".
I might not agree with everything you said. But I’m paying attention. And I’m still drawing.
I am running a 90 days challenge to learn, explore, challenge my past beliefs and build systems that will help me accelerate. If you're interested, you can follow me here on X: https://x.com/PraveenInPublic/status/1917824031660859667
After thinking about it a while I decided to send an email to the address that was included in the data archive email. Whether that was a good idea or not I don't know.
But! I got a 550 Requested action not taken response!
> Your message wasn't delivered to {redacted}@gmail.com because the address couldn't be found, or is unable to receive mail.
> 550 5.2.1 The email account that you tried to reach is disabled.
Kinda weird. But maybe it was disabled because that account was doing weird things?
On the one hand, I want to encourage you to do a Takeout of your account, but given the circumstances, maybe that will make things worse. Either way, I'm a bit nervous for you!
This is mostly a set of surface-level arguments about superficial aspects of personal knowledge management.
Yes, influencers pitching specific methodologies are often full of shit.
Yes, network graphs are often boring and gratuitous.
Yes, being overly focused on the tools used to complete tasks often gets in the way of completing tasks.
None of that is super interesting.
Particularly disappointing are the references to obesity and hoarding. Taking notes isn't hoarding. Storing notes isn't obesity. Physical and mental health issues should not be fodder for bad analogies. The act of writing notes and being able to search and read notes is useful for anyone, and is essential for those with memory issues.
The idea that ought to be central to this post, cutting a line through the knowledge graph, could have been really useful and compelling if not surrounded by trivial complaints. It would be fascinating to explore how knowledge management tools can help people do the job of cutting a line through a graph, though that's not really explored in this post.
Maybe with this post the author got a little lost in the knowledge graph in his head rather than cutting a line.
His business Indie Thinkers seems to share a market with many personal knowledge management tools. Of course it does.
I agree, this blog post is too long for what he was actually trying to say, he could of gotten his point through in a few paragraphs rather than an entire page, I'm surprised that I had the patience to read all of it today.
I considered that, but actually that's the cliché angle of nearly every story about northern places, especially in publications like SciAm and NatGeo, so I think we can safely take it as presupposed. It's not part of the diff: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so....
I was about to respond with something like "please don't edit titles" or something of the sort when I realized to whom I was responding.
Seems like a weird position; it's repeated so much because it's a massive problem that needs all of the attention it can get. I don't see why "repeating" anything is a reason to edit titles.
It will seem less weird if you understand the purpose of HN [1] and how it is optimized [2]. The idea here is to gratify intellectual curiosity. That's not the same as repeating the things that need the most attention; to some extent it's the opposite, because curiosity withers under repetition [3]. What curiosity likes is to encounter things it hasn't heard before; it's fine if there is an overlap with a familiar topic, as long as there's some interesting diff. Diffs are what make submissions intellectually interesting [4].
People sometimes feel that if a story doesn't make HN's front page or gets downweighted or flagged from HN's front page, that's because moderators or the community are saying it is unimportant. This is not true at all. Many topics are far more important than anything on HN. An odd, obscure topic is more likely to be on topic than a world crisis. There was just a thread about John Cage's mushroom hobby [5], of all things.
This leads to a somewhat complex dynamic because having an interesting site attracts a high-quality audience, and people then want to use the site to get stories they care about in front of that audience. Sometimes their motives are merely commercial, but sometimes it's because the story is big and important and they're passionate about it. It's easy to declare the commercials off topic, but when it comes to the important stories, that's when we need to remember what HN is. Maintaining an odd sort of site that goes against the default forces of the internet takes a lot of focus and you have to say 'no' a lot. If we start breaking the intended purpose, HN would quickly cease to be the kind of forum it is today—it would become a site for the same few important and/or most controversial stories, repeated over and over. Not only would that make HN totally different, it would probably kill it, because such a situation would be unstable: the current audience would largely leave, because HN would no longer have the quality that attracted them here in the first place. No one is claiming that intellectual curiosity is the most important quality or motive—but it's uniquely what this place is for, and one has to know what one is trying to achieve and what one is not trying to achieve.
Would you consider updating the site guidelines to explain this "just the diff" principle? It sounds like an important enough concept to be captured there. And it seems in some cases to supersede the "please use the original title" guideline so it's probably worth calling that out.
[Edit]
I wish I didn't have to continually edit myself but originally I used the term "editorialize" and I thought it had a more broad meaning of "exercise editorial discretion". While there is still an opinion involved in the edit. Something along the lines of "users of this site will already know X so it isn't part of the diff" I don't think it meets the stricter definition of editorializing. "Not part of the diff" is still cited as a justification for editing the title that I don't see covered in the current site guidelines.
I think this case is a bit weird and you shouldn't generalize too much from it. I wouldn't put that principle in the guidelines, for the same reason. These are heuristics, not formal rules, and my comments are just trying to help people understand the intended spirit of the site.
Haha. Everything's changing drastically so "The World's Northernmost Town" is the only thing in this title intellectually interesting. That's an interesting take. A great way to satisfy the diffs guideline would be to add a fascinating hint about how the northernmost town is changing. Leaving out some words isn't it.
Arguing against including the whole title in this case makes me much more curious about how you make decisions and why than anything else.
I know that some aspects are counterintuitive but I don't think it's hard to understand that, without intervention, HN would trend to sensationalism, indignation, hotness, and other qualities which are not aligned with the intended spirit of the site.
The subtitle states the intention of the article pretty clearly and is located directly below the main title:
> Climate change is bringing tourism and tension to Longyearbyen on the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard
The article's first paragraph is how homeowners are noticing cracks in the foundation due to the terrain under their houses receding due to climate change warming the otherwise permafrosted ground.
The article's third paragraph pretty concretely discusses exactly what is happening to the temperatures there.
The entire article is about climate change. You've removed a very important part of the original title for (in my opinion) some philosophical nonsensical reason, ultimately changing the meaning the author intended.
It doesn't matter who you are replying to - if they're doing something wrong it's very important they are told as much, especially when that person is in an immense position of power.
> but actually that's the cliché angle of nearly every story about northern places
It's not a cliché when it's true.
I lived in the Yukon for 4 years, and the old timers there tell stories of an entirely different climate. 100F days in Alaska and Yukon are a heck of a thing!
And in the case of severe climate change it's imperative that we DO repeat it. Forever if necessary.
Next you're going to say that telling people to wear masks in a pandemic is cliché, or that professionals should stop telling companies to focus on cybersecurity, because that's a cliché. Repeating things that are true and extremely important is critical. You can't just hand wave it away with "it's a cliché so it's not important".
You need to be more careful what you editorialize to suit your own beliefs. The author who wrote the article chose the headline they did for a reason, and you're changing it to what you want and taking away the entire purpose of the linked article.
Who says it isn't important? It's more important than nearly, if not literally everything else that appears here.
You seem to be under a misconception of what HN is. If importance were the criterion for the front page, HN would be an entirely different forum—something like a current affairs site. It also be repeating the same things every day. I posted a longer explanation elsewhere in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27486354.
> You seem to be under a misconception of what HN is
Please don't make assumptions about my understanding of things.
Nothing in my comments has anything to do with what is or isn't on the front page, or what should be or shouldn't be on the front page.
I'm talking about how you editorialized the title of the article to take away it's meaning - it's very reason for existing - and the reason someone might want to click it and learn more.
The article itself isn't much about the actual northern town, it's about how climate change is changing it so much - surely the title needs to indicate that.
All the content in the article is about how it this northern place is changing. If the contention is that the title is cliché for noting that things are changing, then the article is cliché for all the same reasons. So wouldn't we want a post title that reflects that (and also matches the article's title) so that readers can judge for themselves whether they want to click?
This is about accurate labeling. If we want cliché articles to have less prominence on this site, it is a matter of moderation, not editing.
I expect it is bad form to reply to yourself but I've changed my opinion and no longer object to the post title. I think this reply better reflects that than a mere edit...
Not to put words into anyone's mouth but if I imagine what dang or someone else with a similar position might think in response to my post above:
The goal with the title of a post isn't only to accurately convey what the linked content is, but also why it is interesting and belongs on Hacker News and do both of those concisely. And while both the title and content of the article might wander into cliché, framing everything in the context of change, some things that are just plain interesting are included and those are the main reason for it being posted here. I think it is easier for me to recognize that when the post title adds to or modifies the original, pointing at what makes it interesting rather than removing something. But I can see how in this case removing from the article title achieves the same goal so it seems in keeping with the goals of this site.
Oh, and finally I misunderstood the comment about "not part of the diff". I thought dang was pointing at a history of edits to the post title showing he merely chose not to alter the original post title which already differed from the article. I should have followed the link which I appreciate. Though it also makes me concerned about how we can fight the novelty bias it introduces which I think our society and the tech industry in particular suffers from.
Marko was created over a decade ago at Ebay.
One of its core dependencies is morphdom, which has been used successfully by a slew of frontend view libraries like Marko, including Phoenix LiveView.
Please chill. In general.
Use cases are not all equivalent.
Ignorance is boring.