4 ms·
This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Content creation is not even close to the same as GMO or processed foods. People are justified in being c
by alpos 4y ago
This strikes me as a distinction without a difference. Content creation is not even close to the same as GMO or processed foods. People are justified in being concerned about how food is made precisely because there are meaningful differences in the nutritional value and trace chemical content in the end products. And that matters because we don't fully understand the role those factors play in long term human health. Created content does not share similar distinctions based on how it was produced.
At the level of our personal experience of a story, image, or sound it does not matter if the content was human generated or even if the stories are real; they either elicit an emotional response or they don't.
This is why we can enjoy fiction and art in the first place. It's also why a given piece of art can mean different things to different people.
Deliberately cutting yourself off from the meaning a piece could have for you just because you aren't yet sure that a human produced it is unnecessarily specist and only acts to your own detriment. Should one likewise refuse to engage with works that had assistance from the artist's pets?
With regard to news stories and other informational content, if two stories about the same event are both accurate, timely, informative, and/or insightful, it does not matter if one was written by a human on a typewriter and the other written by a bot after having been prompted by a human. The present state of the art still requires some human editing to hit those marks but we're quickly approaching a time where there will not be any detectable differences.
This idea that people deserve to invent a new category of things to be prejudiced about seems silly and unhelpful to me. Why bother inventing arbitrary distinctions just so people can play favorites and be judgemental about it? People are already free to judge content based on relative merits. That seems like enough to me.
And it's important to account for the fact that the end goal with these tools is that there will be no differences between human and AI generated content. The teams working on these things have already made considerable progress to that end, it's not hard to imagine the next couple of iterations actually achieving that.
So anyone trying to create these arbitrary labels is staring an uphill battle for a fundamentally unhelpful end state.
We really don't need to put that kind of energy into reinforcing people's desire to feel superior. We have more than enough elitism/triablism/racism/otherism around as it is.
- megous 4y agoAt the end of the day, good content is good content regardless of who or what produced it. We should focus on recognizing and celebrating the beauty, regardless of its origin.