4 ms·
I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on
by lastangryman 3y ago
I'm not sure I see your point here. You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid?
A blogging service provides utility. It enables this writer to publish their content, and they've obviously decided that the paid service is better than alternatives. They are expressing concern that AI will replace people current paid to create things, because it's cheaper and will make people more money. The two situations seem completely different to me, I'm not sure I understand your comparison.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> I'm not sure I see your point here. The writer was fine with associating their online blog writing with subscription fees, locking content behind paywalls and so on 10 months ago. So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. > You are saying that because the writer signed up to a paid blogging service, and paid for their own domain, their opinion on how AI may replace humans is not valid? This is nonsense, personal opinions can neither be valid nor invalid by definition.
- lastangryman 3y agoThey are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> They are not against monetization, you have made that leap. They are against AI replacing humans simply because it will be cheaper. Your comparison is flawed. If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position? I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. For me, the most sensible reading is that they’re against any monetization of AI writing period. Not that they’re fine with AI writing if it’s beyond what most people can afford.
- beepbooptheory 3y ago> If they are fine with more expensive AI replacing humans, instead of cheaper AI, then that seems to be an even more objectionable position?..I doubt they have such bizarre views. But it’s possible the writer could have incoherent thoughts. I am not sure if you are being willfully obtuse, serious, or comedic here, but you made me smile either way, thank you.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoI was surprised and confused too, I hadn’t even considered the possibility!
- Mike_12345 3y ago> So they were fine with monetization in a scenario when it benefited them, and against when the scenario, AI assisted writing, wasn’t as favourable for them. Yes. So what? Not every business is identical. Some businesses are more greedy and ruthless than others. Some provide more societal benefits than others.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoWhen a smaller business starts openly declaiming against the system they benefited from 10 months ago, because shadier businesses are competing them out of the market, it tends to raise eyebrows. Why not declaim directly at the shady businesses?
- Mike_12345 3y agoI don't understand your point. It doesn't seem relevant to the article.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> Yes. So what? Not every business is identical. Some businesses are more greedy and ruthless than others. Some provide more societal benefits than others. This was written in the context of your analogy of different businesses competing.