20 ms·

I don't want anything your AI generates

• isodev 3y ago
  I’ve been feeling the same sentiment recently. It’s one thing to have a cool tool for a very narrow and specific use cases and it’s totally crazy that we’re subjecting actual humans to “AI”. It’s time for a nice game of chess.
• godDLL 3y ago
  People are interested fundamentally in other people. That is why we read, listen, watch the Internet. It connects us to a mesh of person-hubs where you can find out more about or vibe with the people and ideas that you are attracted to. Maybe you could contribute something. If the trend continues with LLM-related bullshitting technologies I will stop being interested in the Internet. I will stop coming. Many of us will. Generated music is as far removed from jamming with friends as kissing a girl you like is removed from gang raping her with five of your teenage comrades over Twitch. Is that a good analogy? I think it is.
  • ryloric 3y ago
    What... the... fuck? People do that sort of thing over twitch?
• d--b 3y ago
  Sure you concede Copilot, then you’ll concede translation, then weather prediction, then it’s too late
  • h_tbob 3y ago
    Yeah I thought it was so funny he admitted at the end ..."except copilot" (quotes added for emphasis, can't remember what he actually said) But it was so funny he cancelled his whole premise by admitting that.
• zug_zug 3y ago
  I can see how a broad declaration like this may feel bold/freeing, but if you really put your mind to it then it seems pretty easy to pick apart.
  • superb_dev 3y ago
    Then pick it apart?
    • imachine1980_ 3y ago
      People don't care if your product is made of ai from game like palworld too drug researchers people care that your results are good, generative ai in general is bad. But used whit professionals use and knowledge in the matters is empowering
      • mjr00 3y ago
        There's no evidence Palworld used AI for anything. The only reason it's come up is that the CEO commented that they liked generative AI on Twitter, and certain groups picked that up to try to build an anti-Palworld campaign by claiming it used AI to generate characters.
    • urbandw311er 3y ago
      I’ve picked it apart myself elsewhere in another reply. Enjoy.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• xSentus 3y ago
  90% of people have similar tastes, so statistics will make the majority's lives much easier, in my opinion.
  • CharlesW 3y ago
    I don't want anything your statistics generate
    • fragmede 3y ago
      Statistically, yeah, you do. Is it that there's numbers and forethought involved that turns you off, or the meta of it all?
      • roenxi 3y ago
        My best guess is that there might be a group of people who fear the fact that their behaviour can be modelled using straightforward formula, because that threatens their beliefs that there is some sort of cosmic protection.
      • CharlesW 3y ago
        (Sorry, it was meant to satirize the silly title, and in retrospect I should've added an "/s".)
      • marcosdumay 3y ago
        I guess you are missing the point. Every great work is an outlier. Now, the GP is hyperbolic, of course, but statistically safe content isn't great content.
    • Almondsetat 3y ago
      Wait until you learn how JPEGs work
      • urbandw311er 3y ago
        I love this comment
• echelon 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
    Buddy a few months is a little bit optimistic
    • echelon 3y ago
      You haven't seen what I've seen. :) There are a lot of groups running towards this goal and it's all going to land at once.
      • nooron 3y ago
        What have you seen? I am really interested as a writer.
        • echelon 3y ago
          Email or Discord me and I'll show you.
      • madrox 3y ago
        In my experience, "the first 80% is easy; the second 80% is hard." It's very easy to get caught up in the hype and think we're closer than we are because we can see the finish line. All this new generative work does a great job of giving compelling demos, but there's way more to do before it becomes compelling media. Having been through a few of these things in the last 20 years, I'm going to trust my priors before believing AI is all that different.
        • echelon 3y ago
          We're over the 80% hand hurdle now.
      • ziddoap 3y ago
        >You haven't seen what I've seen. :) I rolled my eyes so hard I could almost see my brain. If you have something pointing towards your claim being true, everyone here would be incredibly interested in seeing it.
• dheera 3y ago
  While I largely agree with the author's sentiment about not being very interested in AI-generated content, > AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative (of content, labor and the environment) I believe humans do exactly this as well, and to a greater extent. If you asked me to draw a picture of some mountains and rivers there's a pretty good chance it'll be almost the same composition as some Monet or Ansel Adams or other picture that I've seen before and even I won't realize it. It won't be deliberate, that's just how the brain works, it learns patterns and extrapolates them.
  • lawlessone 3y ago
    It's still time and effort you have spent though.
    • Bnichs 3y ago
      Did LLMs not take time and effort to create? There's this ongoing sentiment in the AI detractors that for something to be meaningful it requires a human to have spent time making it. Meanwhile we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of things we see and interact with are already made by machines or are machines themselves.
• bhpm 3y ago
  > If you're having AI attend a meeting for you, it probably wasn't that important. If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. I mean probably but I still have to do unimportant shit to live so might as well have the computer do it.
  • economicalidea 3y ago
    That’s kind of the point of it too — I just need AI to take care of the unimportant stuff so I can concentrate on the interesting things
    • ta988 3y ago
      While AI makes up things that are sure to make you find them interesting
• srackey 3y ago
  In a year, he’ll have no idea whether anything is AI or Human, or both!
  • pvorb 3y ago
    Your expectations are too high. There might be outcomes where it's hard to tell, but that's already present today. There also will be many more areas where AI's outcomes will be subpar and it will stay this way for a few years.
  • amelius 3y ago
    Is that good or bad?
    • MacsHeadroom 3y ago
      It is clearly good.
  • Terr_ 3y ago
    Only in the same way people can't tell what "meat" is actually in the frozen factory sausage. Powerless resignation is not the same as informed satisfaction.
• zitterbewegung 3y ago
  If you don’t want to have what an AI generates then don’t use it. I do agree with the sentiment that the addition of “AI” which goes from a rebrand of what was already there to integration of LLMs is at the moment only somewhat helpful and obtuse. But, really your new systems shouldn’t be thin front ends to gpt4 and instead something far more tangible. Output dashboards or reports or aggregate data. I have my own project which is a thin shell over gpt 4 but I tried experimenting with an SMS UI that while only has question and answer dialogs it presents the information in a different way. Think of what it can enable.
  • notpachet 3y ago
    > your new systems shouldn’t be thin front ends to gpt4 > I have my own project which is a thin shell over gpt 4 Physician, heal thyself!
  • jsheard 3y ago
    > If you don’t want to have what an AI generates then don’t use it. If only it were that easy, the flood of other peoples AI generated content clogs up anywhere its not laboriously moderated out. DeviantArt, for example, has become more or less 99% AI content by volume over the last couple of years and is now basically useless if you're not interested in having a firehose of generic AI images blasted at you. I've seen people complaining that speciality groups for hobbies like crochet, interior design or car photography are overrun with fake AI images. Search engines are full of fake AI images and GPT-written SEO farms. Twitter is full of GPT powered bots. It's everywhere regardless of whether you deliberately engage with it. Not that I think complaining is going to fix anything, we've irrevocably broken the signal-to-noise ratio of the internet by building an infinite noise generator, for relatively nebulous benefits in return.
    • __s 3y ago
      Yep. Just because I don't use copilot doesn't mean I'm not stuck reviewing a bunch of copilot code
      • 3y ago
• usernamed7 3y ago
  This is not an attitude that will tolerate the changes to come. See: Chrome adding AI to every text field. AI will, at the least, became an extension of creatives - not as something that did the work for them, but that made it possible for them to better create it.
  • packetlost 3y ago
    We'll see how the US courts rule on it. I personally think it's unlikely that they cause any significant roadblocks to GPTs, but you never know. I know many people that find the use of GPTs to be morally reprehensible and my own employer bans the use of them over legal and data exfiltration concerns.
  • itishappy 3y ago
    > Chrome adding AI to every text field. Horrifying! I'm going to hazard a guess that it won't be running inference locally... Should we tolerate changes like this?
    • krapp 3y ago
      >Should we tolerate changes like this? We aren't being given a choice. But of course, if you refuse to tolerate AI, much less welcome it with open arms, you're just a small-minded Luddite.
  • rhizome 3y ago
    I remember VRML.
• bageler 3y ago
  I too want these young AIs off my lawn.
• baobabKoodaa 3y ago
  Usually these anti AI outbursts come from designers. This is the first one I've seen coming from a developer. Or at least the first with such salt, bitterness and anger.
  • fetzu 3y ago
    Honesty, Javascript front-end developers are probably more at risk of “being replaced” by AI than designers. This is probably where this sentiment is coming from.
    • copperx 3y ago
      Why Javascript front end developers specifically?
      • fetzu 3y ago
        I wouldn’t say it’s “Javascript front-end developers” specifically, but front-end developers in general. Intuitively, I’d say it’s because front-end development sits in the sweet spot between the creative side of the designer (who sets the tone of a website/app through their design) and the technical side/aspects of the back-end. An AI is most likely to understand how to interact with an existing back-end while respecting the “creative constraints” placed by the designer. To use a dumb analogy: if I had to use an AI to help design an airplane, I wouldn’t let it touch the flight control system or generate the movies and music from the in flight entertainment library, but I’d give it the task of making the HMI for the in flight entertainment system. Worst case scenario, it’s going to be .01% less clunky than the existing ones.
        • lesser_value 3y ago
          AI is wayyy better at writing backend then it is at writing CSS. Its magic to it, if you don't have an exact problem that you can probably find on stack overflow just as easily, you are fucked.
  • uberman 3y ago
• qiller 3y ago
  > I don't want AI mediating social interactions AI-based therapy tools that are popping up lately feel really weird to me
• Fauntleroy 3y ago
  ok
• RolandFlicket 3y ago
  My boss “writes” policies etc using ChatGPT. They’re generic, overly wordy and say nothing of original thought. I don’t read them and don’t care. When he sends me a link to them in MS Teams I always click the first auto suggested response Teams like “Looks great!” Machine v machine.
  • nperez 3y ago
    That's hilarious. Someday we'll all be working QA, just scanning over AI output for issues, like manufactured goods passing by on a conveyor belt.
    • Gud 3y ago
      Well at least that’s better than being QA’d by the AI.
  • hospitalJail 3y ago
    >My boss “writes” policies etc using ChatGPT. They’re generic, overly wordy and say nothing of original thought. Isnt this good for a workplace policy? Wife had to do something similar and I'm happy it was overfit. I don't want some creative policy book.
    • nickthegreek 3y ago
      I find that it is just real wordy by default. I commonly tell ChatGPT to be succinct.
      • deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      • gremlinsinc 3y ago
        I love Bing chat especially for the graphics it creates but I hate how every message says I'm Bing and I can help you with that...I get it.
  • truculent 3y ago
• hospitalJail 3y ago
  >I can't trust the answers it provides or the text it generates. It's not a replacement for search, it simply makes search worse. Why is an AI noob upvoted? When the author makes low tech skill claims, I wonder why this made it to the front page. The person missed the AI train, they decided instead of adapting, they would just Boo it.
  • ColonelPhantom 3y ago
    I find this kind of dismissal extremely tiring. It's very lazy to wave away criticism of a tool as a skill issue. On the tin the claims are both true: LLMs do not replace search (it does not link me to any resources), at best it augments it (with services like Phind or Bing combining the two). Also, search is made worse by SEO spam, which can be churned out more easily with AI, leading to crap like the following: https://web.archive.org/web/20230103091313/https://www.slowine.com/how-to-make-a-32-bit-wine-bottle/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230103091313/https://www.slowi... (which has been edited to be less nonsensical, but remains hilariously out of place). That's not to say that SEO spam wouldn't exist without AI, but this level of carelessness ("a 32 bit wine bottle is a bottle of wine that has been created with 32 bits of data") seems to be new.
    • floren 3y ago
      It's the same shit bitcoin peddlers have pushed for years. "Have fun staying poor". Insult you, imply it's a personal failing that you're not getting on board with this thing which coincidentally they have invested heavily in.
• Anon_Is_Truth 3y ago
  [dead]
• kfarr 3y ago
  I understand the sentiment but I view LLM and generative AI as tools to explore the possible idea space. A human can do this manually, it just takes a long time. But the output is the same either way. Therefore you're reduced to an argument that essentially says you don't like the output only because it was generated by an AI, which reminds me of "what colour are your bits?" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917679 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24917679
  • logicprog 3y ago
    The problem is that so-called AI isn't just a neutral tool for generating and exploring ideas in the whole idea space, nor is it a particular human being with particular experiences and talents and biases and ideas and a particular personality that can generate something interesting and unique, large language models always give you essentially the average of the entire Corpus of human output given whatever input you gave it. So they are always guaranteed to give you the most lukewarm, generic, uncreative ideas and output imaginable. Just try to get it to write something arguing against a widely held position or for a unique position. You're very quickly find that you can't really get it to do that, because that's fundamentally opposed to how it's reward function works so of course it isn't going to do that. This is because the problem stretches even further than just affecting what kinds of ideas large language models can produce on their own, too, because if you are asking it to expand on and process an idea you've given it, that processing itself will be subject to reverting to the mean, and so even if you have a human inputting unique and interesting ideas into the large language model, all you will get out is eventually more generic sludge with all of the interesting aspects scrubbed out. So ultimately everything created with LLMs will be lowest common denominator populist sludge with no interesting ideas or defining characteristics. And your fundamentally not going to be able to solve that until you come up with a completely different method for doing this with an entirely different reward function, with the problem being that the only quantitative, data based way of determining whether an output is good is to compare it to what's common in the Corpus of human output, since otherwise you get very quickly into very complex philosophical questions of Truth and value and logic that just aren't legible to a computer system.
• laurencei 3y ago
  > I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. I find Spotify's "discover weekly" list to be generally pretty good. Sure, there are some songs I dont like, but there are often 3-4 great songs each week that get added to my regularly playlist. Its all good an well to say that human recommendations are better, but I'm not paying someone $50 per week to spend 3-4 hours finding me new and good songs. I get something that is maybe 80% as good included, and the reality is that is good enough. I feel like one of the reason AI is doing well is it doesnt need to be better, it just needs to be "good enough" at a fraction of the price..
  • sfpotter 3y ago
    I recently signed up for Qobuz, which costs the same or roughly the same as Spotify. They have a significant amount of recommendations, writing, etc written by actual people. It is of vastly higher quality than anything automatically generated by Spotify. I've only occasionally found something I like through Spotify but have already found many things I like through Qobuz.
  • NegativeLatency 3y ago
    Spotify (and most other services) actually have a mix of human and algorithimic recommendations in things like discover weekly: https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/30/9416579/spotify-discover-weekly-online-music-curation-interview https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/30/9416579/spotify-discover-...
    • 000ooo000 3y ago
      I wish I had the citation handy but they also put sponsored content in your 'recommendations' even if you're a paying customer. Rubs me the wrong way.
    • unsignedint 3y ago
      Honestly, I believe Spotify would offer me more accurate recommendations if they relied solely on AI, without human input. Their current DJ features, although supposedly based on my previous listening habits, often suggest popular songs I don't listen to, tracks supposedly reminiscent of my school days that I've never heard before, and genres that I'm not interested in.
• unboxingelf 3y ago
  This will age well.
• roenxi 3y ago
  We're approaching the threshold where a computer chip can outcompute a brain, and probably more cheaply for most creative and logical tasks. It is better to make peace with the inevitable at this point. The future is becoming increasingly obvious - these tools will pass any variation of the Turing test people care to come up with, the only hint that computers are involved will be when they really zoom past us and the quality and creativeness of the output is so consistently high that humans can't have been involved. We're not there yet, but realistically ChatGPT is already a superhuman intelligence, it is just a broad intelligence and something with depth is what is needed. There are questions of exactly when all this will happen (years or decades?) but the shape of the algorithms has basically been nailed down and we're seeing exponential hardware improvements where it seems wildly pessimistic to assume they will hit a wall before overtaking a biological mind.
• stolenmerch 3y ago
  I'm not a fan of this hyper aggressive line-in-the-sand argumentation about AI that pushes it all precariously close to culture war shenanigans. If you don't like a new technology that is perfectly cool and your right to an opinion. Please don't position it so that if I want to use AI I have to defend myself from accusations of exploiting labor and the environment. That is NOT at all clear, settled, or even correct much of the time. I'm open to that conversation and debate, but diatribes like this make it far too black-and-white with "good" people and "bad" people.
  • omnimus 3y ago
    Are We the Baddies?
  • logicprog 3y ago
    The idea that machine learning like large language models and image generating systems exploit labor might be up for debate, but the fact that they are disproportionately damaging to the environment compared to the alternatives is certainly true in the same way that it's true for Bitcoin mining. And there's more than just those two aspects to consider, it's also very much worth considering how the widespread use of such technologies and the integration of them into our economy might change our political, social, and economic landscape, and whether those changes would be good or bad or worth the downsides. I think it's perfectly valid to decide that an emerging technology is not worth the negative changes it will make in society or the downsides that it will bring with it, and reject its use, technological progress is not necessarily inevitable in the way that every new technology must become widespread.
    • gremlinsinc 3y ago
      how's it more damaging to the environment of you can replace 1k people, that's 1k people staying at home instead of commuting, sure that causes pain if we can't figure out ubi or a way to house and feed the masses, also many of the biggest ai users are working to get their energy 100 percent from solar, wind, and geothermal. AI is something we've been heading towards since the dawn of man. Hell, ancient Rome had automatons. There's no way to stop it. Ideally we merge with the ai to become something else than give it super powers and it decides to destroy us. I'm not sure the benevolent care giver of humanity is something we can hope for. It's a scary but interesting future, but I mean we've also got major problems like cancer, global warming, etc, and ai is a killer researcher, that did 300k years worth of human research hours in a month to find tons of materials that can possibly be used by industry. They're doing similar with medicine, etc... there's many pros and negatives, I'm a bit of an accelerationist, rip the band-aid off kind of guy, everyone dies someday I guess, not everyone can say they were killed by a Terminator, well at least not yet lol, tongue in cheek.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• spaceman_2020 3y ago
  Too bad AI-generated tools will give small two-person brands the tools to compete with multi-billion dollar brands when it comes to creative content, coders with 6-months experience to create the apps they actually dreamed of making, and normal folks to actually see images and ideas they only had in their heads come to life. Yeah, that's a really awful reality, isn't it? Joe the plumber should just learn to paint for 10 years to see the art he wanted to see but can't make. Such gatekeeping nonsense from the tech crowd about AI.
• Deprogrammer9 3y ago
  AI will one day soon run the planet. SORRY
• rain_iwakura 3y ago
  I think the funny result of our ML work is that we essentially bringing the value of being online down and will eventually force people to interact IRL as costs of verifying these generations becomes too high. That is we are going back to pre-Internet era interactions. I agree with the author, but I also don't see lower usage of all this already meaningless human-produced content as inherently bad. The hope is dim, but I do wish being online would be restricted to strictly work-related purposes and we'd be forced back to human-to-human interactions as primary modus operandi. We'd see the depression and polarization rates go down significantly. These online community feedback loops are too toxic and bring little to the table. If nothing online can be trusted then only offline can be the way to go, up until you people (the ones screaming Luddites at everyone 'normal' here) will decide that we need start augmenting our bodies to make better future, or in other words make profit to line your pockets. I work in ML btw (for a loooong time).
  • JohnFen 3y ago
    Well said. > If nothing online can be trusted I think we're already pretty much there, except that it isn't just online. This is an all-media problem now. (I work in ML as well)
    • akira2501 3y ago
      We were ever in a position to "trust" media? To me the advantage of having the internet was to allow a range of people without prior permission, a large sum of money, or more free time than sense to start publishing. It was all seemingly meant to expand the number of voices in the "media" and reduce the requirement to put your trust into any one outlet. We took a wrong turn somewhere.
      • JohnFen 3y ago
        Sorry, I was unclear. I meant "media" in the general sense, not "The Media" in the sense of media companies. "Media" includes the internet.
        • 3y ago
• SLHamlet 3y ago
  Anytime someone sends me something generated by ChatGPT, I think about how AI expert Hilary Mason puts it: "By design, ChatGPT aspires to be the most mediocre web content you can imagine." https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2023/03/chatgpt-explained-hilary-mason.html https://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2023/03/chatgpt-explained-hilary-m...
  • ColonelPhantom 3y ago
    This resonates with my experience using Copilot. It generates lowest-common-denominator code, and displays a stunning unawareness of language and library features. Some understandable due to training cutoff (but still very frustrating), but it also refused to use Pillow functions that seem to have been around for a decade, instead crufting together some shitty pipeline by hand.
    • notpachet 3y ago
      > it also refused to use Pillow functions that seem to have been around for a decade, instead crufting together some shitty pipeline by hand. Definitely passes the Turing test.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  • nicbou 3y ago
    I sometimes need this. It’s nice to get an average of all mediocre content summed up as a bullet list sometimes. Sometimes I want the average tourist guide, the average recipe or the average answer. Now I get it instantly without sifting through ad-infested shallow content. ChatGPT made it so much easier to be curious about new things. It’s a good trailhead for curiosity.
    • jayrot 3y ago
      Point of note: this is all well and good until these tools become inevitably ad-infested. I'm starting to think we need to add "advertising" to the list (Death, Taxes, etc).
• datadeft 3y ago
  > It's not a replacement for search, it simply makes search worse. I am not sure which one is worse: Google search (which ironically contains AI generated content already) or something like Perplexity. For many subjects Perplexity gives much better answers to me (anecdotal evidence).
• BirAdam 3y ago
  Author’s point about environmental cost is a frustration I share. Most people in the tech industry are at least somewhat concerned about the environment but their use and endorsements of technologies don’t follow at all: cloud technologies running in massive over-provisioned datacenters, LLMs consuming more energy than some countries, etc. It’s totally cool to strip mine the Earth, clear cut forests, and burn a bunch of coal when it’s for fashionable things, right?
  • golol 3y ago
    Energy is not really all that bottlenecked.
  • bee_rider 3y ago
    What consumes more energy in AI, training or inference? It seems to me that training ought to be a super shift-able workload, a great fit for intermittent green energy sources.
    • tomn 3y ago
      The expensive bit is not the electricity, it's the cost of the GPUs, so they will train flat out. There is also a massive amount of competition between the various players, and nobody taking part cares about the energy use (otherwise they wouldn't be doing it), so i don't see this happening. (rough numbers: a H100 is 700W, which is $613/year at $0.1/kWh, and the estimated cost is $25000-40000)
      • MacsHeadroom 3y ago
        Typical datacenter power cost is closer to $0.04/kWh. Datacenters mostly use renewable clean energy as well. Environmental concerns are deeply misplaced. 10 minutes of compute in a datacenter is far more environmentally friendly than 10 hours of work by a human.
        • bee_rider 3y ago
          Nice, we can just run the ML model—how do you put humans in suspend mode? Or do we just shut them off for now?
• PheonixPharts 3y ago
  I personally think AI will be it's most powerful not as some generated output, but as invisible glue that binds parts of a larger system. AI (specifically the LLM variety) should be performing small tasks via agents and then using structured output to allow those agents to pass information in a larger system. There, as an example, countless zero/few shot classification tasks that LLMs crush traditional ML at. You want user tickets routed to the correct rep? That sounds like a task an LLM should be doing behind the scenes. Code gen as an output is likewise boring, agents that adaptably learning to code themselves, generate tests, allow for debugging etc, that has the potential to be very powerful. Unfortunately I still feel the next AI winter will hit before people even really scratch the surface of how these tools can be used in practice. Everyone is tragically trapped in the prompt -> output model, rather than really thinking about agent based approaches.
  • tommymanstrom 3y ago
    IPcenter by Amelia (former IPSoft) was like that, it could use Bayesian statistics on incoming events/alerts to determine where to route a ticket. This would only work after a few tickets, with roughly same content, being routed manually. One issue with this was it learned that a particular database event would be routed to team_a after an incident. Next time similar tickets was raised, it would be routed to team_a incorrectly. This was an issue since events/alarms tend to look same for eg an application database and the organisations would route tickets to each application team first - not the centralized database team. It had "virtual engineers" which could do investigation (collecting logs etc) and remediations (basically scripts) too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amelia_(company)
• Imnimo 3y ago
  Does a forward pass of Dall-E or a human artist making an image have a higher environmental impact?
• micromacrofoot 3y ago
  This will probably age poorly. > it probably wasn't that important we all do a lot of things that aren't important, that's the point of having AI do it instead > my robots.txt file reflects this stance unfortunately yelling it into a pillow is equally as effective
• pawelduda 3y ago
  > The images it generates are, at best, a polished regression to the mean. If you want custom art, pay an artist. AI can clearly generate very high quality images (paintings, photos, and so on). Certainly not something I would be able to do myself, even after putting in hundreds of hours into drawing lessons.
• d357r0y3r 3y ago
  > I really don't. AI output is fundamentally derivative and exploitative (of content, labor and the environment). From the start, you can see where the author is coming from. This person is some variety of leftist/communist/socialist, and hates AI in the same way that their ilk hates any technology that reduces the need for (some) human labor. And, to their point, technology does have winners and losers. AI certainly has losers. Developers with this mindset will be among the losers.
  • copperx 3y ago
    The winners will be the entities that control the best models. It's not a matter of mindset.
• cryptoz 3y ago
  > I don't like the idea of it being trained on anything I've written or created[1]. I'm more curious about this part - because I'm the opposite. I'm ecstatic that having open source code on github over the last ~12 years means that you have contributed to machine intelligence. What a wild thought and how super cool that everyone who contributed to the internet also gets to contribute to AI. I can't imagine being upset that your output into the world is accelerated and incorporated into what eventually will be AGI. It's an honor, really. And obviously I disagree with the rest of the post. But trying to add something useful to the discussion - why are so many people offended that AI is learning from them? Do they see it some other way? As exploitation? But you are the one who put the content out there! If you didn't want others to see and use and learn from your content, it has always been rule #1 that you shouldn't put it online. Is this not drilled into everyone by this point in time? > These tools will improve ... I don't think this is a good thing. First time I've heard this one. Who doesn't want the tools to improve? You don't want to have an option to be excluded from the AI training that you were so upset about? You don't want to have an option to get paid for being included in training? You don't want models developed that don't use copyrighted content? You don't want anything to be better? You want ChatGPT to continue hallucinating forever? You don't want OpenAI to reduce the harm that comes from it hallucinating? I find it hard to believe that people who are so viciously against AI really mean everything they say. To so confidently state you want the world to halt progress on the most innovative and useful inventions of our time that can measurably improve people's lives is a hot take indeed.
  • ColonelPhantom 3y ago
    >Do they see it some other way? As exploitation? But you are the one who put the content out there! If you didn't want others to see and use and learn from your content, The point is that "others" learning from things is fine. The problem starts when it's a machine acting on behalf of a faceless mega-corporation. It's like the tragedy of the commons, except instead of originating from an invisible mass of takers, it mostly comes from a small amount of known actors like Microsoft and Google. No shit that people will rally against those. > First time I've heard this one. Who doesn't want the tools to improve? The reasoning is also given: improving machine learning has an environmental cost. It's also used to deskill jobs (which I don't think is a great argument, although it's not implausible for inequality to massively increase due to deployment of ML). The author also says AI is used to muddy public discourse, which is an understandable fear given that text generation can be used to fake e.g. some grassroots movement.
• TrevorJ 3y ago
  >It's not a replacement for search, it simply makes search worse. I strenuously disagree with this. Search has become all but useless in the last few years. LLM's provide a huge jumpstart on understanding, specifically, what to search on to find the canonical data you are after.
• urbandw311er 3y ago
  I also have concerns about where mankind is going with AI and believe it will have a chilling effect on original content. But… I disagree with almost everything this person has written. The output from LLMs can be wrong. It can be inappropriate or misleading. But it is often astonishingly, breathtakingly accurate and leads us to discover connections and conclusions derived from other humans that we would otherwise have missed or spent much longer looking for. In one regard, LLMs could not be more human : they are after all simply a reflection of ourselves, an entire corpus of human musings, discussions, interactions. So to say that “an AI can’t advise or suggest X Y and Z” when it’s mirroring existing human opinions is misleading at best, or even just plain wrong.
• tommykins 3y ago
  Not really the point but AI generated music recommendations have been great for me.
• arghwhat 3y ago
  "AI output is fundamentally derivative" By that definition, so is all human output. Musicians spend years studying and practicing other people's music before writing their own, painters spend years trying to replicate techniques before mastering their own, programmers spend years reading other people's bugs before authoring their own. All expression of skill is ultimately derivative. Sometimes slightly, sometimes verbatim, sometimes outright plagiarism. This is why we reserve "derivative" for cases where the output has a similarities and obvious connection, and why we have a hard time dealing with it in practice - it's impossible to disallow a human from using past experiences in future works. We taught a pile of melted sand to think using principles of learning (very roughly) similar to ours, and now we get upset that it worked and they apply what they learnt because now only we are allowed to do that.
  • adrian_b 3y ago
    All human output is much more derivative than the majority of "creators" dare to admit. Nevertheless, good human output always add something new and original to the elements that are derived from prior art. AI output consists entirely of derived elements, which only in the best case may happen to be mixed into a distinct combination from those already existing. Even when the combination is new, it is distinct only due to randomness, without an ability to select like a human, which from the possible random combinations is more suitable to achieve a purpose, or it is more beautiful, or it is better according to other such criteria that are not possible, at least yet, to be judged by a program.
    • arghwhat 3y ago
      > Nevertheless, good human output always add something new and original to the elements that are derived from prior art. My personal opinion is that even the new and original elements are derivative. Once a creation derives from a sufficiently large number of sources - some unrelated, such as being inspired by music when painting - you consider it original and new, and once the space of experiences and current inputs you derive from grow sufficiently large and chaotic - including in particular that inputs and outputs become experiences, forming a feedback loop currently lacking in machine learning - you get what we consider "free thought" . That's at least the model I believe in. > Without an ability to select like a human, which from the possible random combinations is more suitable to achieve a purpose, or ... Untrained humans do not have this ability. It takes training to identify and categorize things. For example, my mother may appreciate a photo that most people would consider "good", but does not have the practice needed to either frame the scene herself or select the best framing to be deemed "good". At the same time, others might outright dislike the same picture - "good" is not exact in the first place. I see no reason to believe that our models could do this as well or better than us. If an LLM generates reasonable responses, it must already have applied a standard of "best fitting". It is just not a distinct step, just like how we are not manually filtering our thoughts as we say them.
• deepsquirrelnet 3y ago
  I get it, but what if creativity isn’t your use case? Why so one dimensional? I don’t want to do corporate training modules, but I don’t care if they buy stock art or generate it using gpt. I don’t want to talk to a customer service bot at all, but I’d rather talk to one that is well built and capable. I don’t want to write cover letters. Now I don’t. There’s plenty of ways for tools to be used inappropriately, and if you simply stop believing that “AI” exists and try to understand it as another tool, you can avoid falling into the pattern of angst that keeps going around.
• rangewookie 3y ago
  I agree but most of this. Of course I would rather speak to a person, but replacing every chatbot with a person will increase cost (my cost). Do I really need a random person to read me a pre-written script when a chatbot can do the same thing? You think these people have permission to do things a chatbot can't? A chatbot can escalate your problem to a manager when necessary too. You don't want AI music recommendations? Great, don't use it. Go speak to people. Many find discovery algorithms useful. Want some custom art? Pay an artist. You can do this once a week at most before you're broke? It's not a replacement for search? Google search was gamed by spammy websites and shitty people for years before AI. It's idealistic. It's an easy opinion to have. You're not solving any problems. AI has it's place and it's not meaningful art, a replacement for genuine human interaction or going to solve all of our problems. But it turns out at a REALLY GREAT autocomplete is a powerful tool. That's good enough.
• sackfield 3y ago
  It's very strange how many Luddites inhabit the tech world. I would expect to find this diatribe in many places but not on a developers blog.
  • timeon 3y ago
    It is only strange because you have assigned the label. But reality could be different. Just wrong pattern matching.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• unoti 3y ago
  While arguing against the usefulness of ML models, the author of this piece is not thinking of two key concepts. 1) Supply and demand are linked. If the supply is cheap/plentiful enough, this opens up new demand for things that would have been prohibitively inaccessible before. To illustrate, imagine CPU chips were so cheap that they were essentially free, where the most expensive thing about them was shipping them. In that case, new demand might open up to begin using them to pave roadways or something. 2) There is knowledge and wisdom wrapped up in LLM's and recommendation systems that comes not from the computer program, but from the knowledge and wisdom of the crowds. This knowledge shouldn't be dismissed as useless out of hand just because it's in a computer. The argument that computer generated art is worthless because "if you want custom art, pay an artist"-- this doesn't recognize basic facts about economics. In particular, supply and demand are related, they are almost the same thing. If the cost of free art is exceedingly low, this enables me to make custom art for things that I wouldn't even consider if the price or barrier to entry or time-to-generate were higher. The author also points out: > I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. While it may be true that humans understand music better than computers, the intelligence behind recommendation systems is actually not the computer programs themselves. It's the wisdom of the aggregation of many people, reflected in the numbers of the model. While talking with an expert curator about the next movie/series you should watch, or the next band you should discover would be nice, the truth is it's just not as practical or easy as firing up a computer recommendation system. While I could book an appointment with an expert music curator and go through a 2 hour interview process to find my perfect music tastes, a recommendation algorithm can still provide easy value for me.
• bloody-crow 3y ago
  This is a pretty naive argument. People use AI to trivialize mundane tasks and make the more accessible. > If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. There's plenty of situations where extra politeness and wordiness has a real measurable impact on the outcome of the communication even when the actual information you're trying to convey could be compressed into one sentence. AI can wrap your thought into an appropriate amount of polite meaningless bullshit solving a real-world problem. It can do it much faster and better than I can. Even when the recipient knows or suspects it was composed with the help of an AI, the rules of engagement and social contract has been uphold successfully. Maybe this qualifies as "not important" in the mind of the author, but I'd argue that if the outcome of such emails can seriously affect your personal or professional life as it often does, it is important to me. > I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. This is just plain demonstrably false. Humans recommend what they think you'd like based on an imperfect overly biased and incomplete simulation of you in their heads. AI doesn't give a fuck and recommends stuff similar to what it knows you like. > The images it generates are, at best, a polished regression to the mean. If you want custom art, pay an artist. Again, my mileage probably varies from the author here, but I have infinitely more scenarios where I don't want custom art but abundant and quick polished regression to the mean. AI can give it to me. It's silly to argue that it has no use. I generally agree that AI often doesn't deliver what overly enthusiastic marketing claims it does, but it still can do amazing things that are of real use to a lot of people.
• peterbonney 3y ago
  > I can't trust the answers it provides or the text it generates. It's not a replacement for search, it simply makes search worse. Can you trust search results without AI summarization? They’re mostly SEO spam. > The images it generates are, at best, a polished regression to the mean. If you want custom art, pay an artist. Most visual art that people consume is polished regression to the mean. It’s designed for mass appeal, not originality. > I want to talk to a person, not a chatbot. The chatbot wastes time while you wait for a person that can actually help. Have you spoken to an outsourced call center in the last, oh, 20 years? > I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. I’m old enough to remember hearing the same popular song 10 times a day on the local radio station because their rotation was designed for broad appeal to maximize ad sales, not to uncover new and interesting music for eager listeners. > I don't want AI mediating social interactions that it cannot and does not understand (though it may appear to). If I'm weary of too much volume on any social platform or in any news feed, I'll cut back on what I'm following. This one I agree with, but it’s been our reality for at least a decade now, not a new development. > If you're having AI attend a meeting for you, it probably wasn't that important. True > If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. Even in important emails there is a lot of “copy”, and AI-generated copy is no worse than human-generated copy. It’s just copy. > If it's screening job candidates for you, you're missing quality candidates. If the alternative is keyword screening, I’ll take AI screening, thank you.
• stormouse 3y ago
  Is it fair to say: complain if you can pass a double blind experiment on the arts you enjoy?
  • 000ooo000 3y ago
    Your argument being that if you enjoy AI content, you can't criticise AI? Doesn't seem reasonable to me
    • stormouse 3y ago
      I think it’s more about the author criticizing AI content being of low quality. IRL there are many cases I don’t see them distinguishable between human generated or AI generated.
      • 000ooo000 3y ago
        That's a fair comment, but the article criticises more than just that element of AI. I took your comment to mean that the ends justified the means if one couldn't tell the difference between AI and human content, which it doesn't sound like you were suggesting.
• lmm 3y ago
  > I don't want music recommendations from something that can't appreciate or understand music. Human recommendations will always be better. Ok but that's not actually true. "AI" music recommendations have been better than human ones for years, IME. AI art might not be better yet, but it's often good enough. > If you're having AI attend a meeting for you, it probably wasn't that important. If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. 100%. No-one actually cares about those meetings or emails. But apparently they're mandatory, so shrug. Replacing human drudgery with AI is good for everyone. And a lot of meetings, emails, and even illustration work is drudgery. If you think AI can't be original and creative, then original and creative work will be precisely the part that's left over for humans to do, which seems like a win to me.
• cowmix 3y ago
  > If you're having AI write your email, it probably wasn't that important. "I hope this email finds you well." floods my inbox. Yuck. I agree with most of that post. However, for me when I give AI tons of context (and follow up input), it helps me write emails better than pre-AI (given the same time and effort). Not putting an email I consider "important" through the AI sausage grinder is (in my case) malpractice.
• D13Fd 3y ago
  I have zero problem with people using AI to write or create. I think that's great. But I don't like it when people start a sentence "Well, I asked ChatGPT what it thought, and . . ." If I wanted to know that, I'd ask ChatGPT. Just give me your human views (and if they are partially informed by ChatGPT, that's fine).
• jktjkt 3y ago
  I get it. It's doesn't seem about AI vs non-AI. I think it's a more telling statement about how useless a lot of the applications are right now. They solve marginal problems in marginal environments, problems that are portrayed by their stakeholders as being of utmost importance. All so people can go around patting themselves on the back for having used AI to solve a non-problem in the first place. We conflate a job's duty with a job's problem. Want to make AI useful? Solve big, real problems with it. Combine it with the learnings of the last 20 years on how to build grassroots movements. Maybe make a change in society, rather than solving yet another imagined-email problem.
• ab_goat 3y ago
  I've started to think about the current use of AI as trend in the 1990s that started moving unimportant goods to be "manufactured in China". Quality doesn't matter -- money matters. And with AI you can save a lot of money without sacrificing a lot of quality.
• SebFender 3y ago
  AI has been a great help in my little day to day stuff and I'm happy to report I wouldn't go without it.
• happytiger 3y ago
  This seems to be a common argument every time society gets interrupted by technology, especially when the technology advancement has moral grey areas (and they always do). It turns out there is an entire line of research that parallels the “technology adoption” ethos we all know called, appropriately enough, “Technology Rejection.” > A fundamental question is whether the field of technology rejection requires investigation at all, considering the wealth of research available in technology adoption. Are they distinct phenomena? Or is knowledge on technology rejection merely a by-product and subset of knowledge on technology adoption? > “Rejection of technology” may be expressed as a phenomenon wherein a society, ranging from individual users, community groups, through states (nations), capable of availing the service of a particular technology, deliberately chooses to refrain from its use, in full or part. Consequently, some technologies get increasingly used while the use of others tends to ebb. Conventionally, the debate surrounding the divide between technological “haves” and “have nots” has simply quarantined the latter as individual deficits (Selwyn, 2003), typically of a financial nature. However, a consensus is recently emerging within the arena of sociology of technology that conceptualizing nonusers of technology as purely technology “have nots” is too crude an analysis (Selwyn, 2003). As Bauer (1995) highlights, nonuse or resistance to technology has largely been treated with a negative connotation, placing the nonusers at fault. Bruland (1995) states that such resistance to technology is by no means irrational or conservative. Rejecters must thus be dealt with as deliberate rational nonusers. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013485248?icid=int.sj-abstract.citing-articles.26 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244013485248?ic... The field of research that is technological rejection is fascinating. That paper lays out rejection at the individual, group and national level as the basis for study, with the original poster’s article being a prime example of individual technology rejection, including the reasons for doing so, and it’s posting to the Internet and hacker news actually an interesting attempt to “find the community” of people who feel similarly. We’ve seen this before with radio, television and especially the Internet. There were so many people who out-and-out rejected the need for the Internet when it was coming of age in the 90s, and many who still do even as the world has moved on. The joke about the boss who printed every email wasn’t a joke: I knew several of them and still know one who does this very thing. So what causes rejection of technology and is this a distinct field of research we should be looking at? Aside: further reading and an example worth looking at. https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_some_people_reject_new_things https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_some_people_reject_new... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/life-without-technology-rejecting-technology https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/19/life-w...
• JonChesterfield 3y ago
  Using chatgpt to generate work email is an amazing opportunity. It decreases that thought that goes into writing the message and increases the effort on the part of everyone who reads it. It's a 1:N overhead increase. If people use chatgpt to summarise before reading, the transform will be lossy and the baseline sketchy communication via text picks up a higher error rate. That's also overhead. Finally because it's easy to create this stuff more will be sent out. We have an unprecedented increase in operational overhead of corporations that go down this path. Merely by not doing this nonsense you gain a competitive advantage.
• disambiguation 3y ago
  Would you like AI in a house? Would you like AI with a mouse?
• geor9e 3y ago
  "I don't like CGI" Same idea. What you actually don't like is bad CGI. Done well enough to be undetectable, you can never object to it.
  • ragazzina 3y ago
    Maybe the author does not like the idea of CGI in their movies? > What you actually don't like is bad poop. Cooked well enough to be undetectable, you can never object to it.
    • Nemrod67 3y ago
      cue the reglementations about feces levels in food, you'd be surprised
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• cqzaaron 3y ago
  Might sound like an ass but would it be possible to tell something was made with the help of AI in the future? Sure, most things AI generated can seem obvious that it's... well AI generated. But if it was generated and afterwards fine-tuned by people, the content would be indistinguishable. Just to put it out there, Although I'm biased towards AI as i believe it can benefit people, I understand well enough the people it can benefit could be saints or assholes.
• RecycledEle 3y ago
  When Gutenberg asked people what they thought of his printing press, they replied that it lacked the soul of a hand-copied book and they would never buy a book printed on it. Also relevant: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ& https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ&
  • arp242 3y ago
    Have you seen old manuscripts? They weren't wrong. But "something vaguely similar to this"-type of argument is fallacious nonsense in the first place.
    • RecycledEle 3y ago
      I apollogize in advance. I do not know what you are trying to say, so I am going to ask for clarification while answering as best I can. > Have you seen old manuscripts? I have seen pics of old manuscripts online. > They weren't wrong. Are you saying the old manuscripts were not wrong, or that the people who refused to use printed books were not wrong? > But "something vaguely similar to this"-type of argument Can you please clarify? Are you saying I made some sort of argument comparing printed books to hand-written manuscripts? > But "something vaguely similar to this"-type of argument is fallacious nonsense in the first place. Because I do not understand what that argument is, I can not know if it is correct or fallacious. I look forward to any clarification. I like learning that I was previously wrong.
• 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
  Feels like "crypto" where if someone says "I am not interested", "I do not like it", or something to that effect then commenters suddenly appear suggesting that this is somehow unacceptable. Look at the top comment. Like crypto, it seems some folks have bet on "AI", and are spooked by any hint of skepticism.
  • fisf 3y ago
    The issue is that both your statements are ultimately very subjective opinions first and foremost. It's absolutely fine to hold those, but then people extrapolate this to things like: "The "benefits" it provides to end users are, at best, dubious — though everyone responsible for creating it will most certainly enrich themselves." And those are presented as objective value judgments, which ought to require somewhat more than personal opinions to back up. Why does it not have value for end-users? Why is it bad if people creating those tools become rich? But we live in a day and age, where everyone thinks that their mere opinion needs to be heard and has objective value.
    • mplewis 3y ago
      The end users don’t want it. There’s no need to get defensive about that.
      • fisf 3y ago
        I am an end user of AI in many cases. I use it to generate graphics, summarize notes I have drafted, explore topics (instead of searching to some degree), etc. I absolutely want AI driven tooling in place of the manual / tedious options. So who is this "end user" that is invoked all the time?
  • sevagh 3y ago
    Loud and public objections are the opposite of not caring.
  • 1vuio0pswjnm7 3y ago
    "hyper-aggressive", "loud" It's a blog post, there's no audio or video.
• matthewfelgate 3y ago
  I've got to break it to you, everything humans generate is derivative.
• defyonce 3y ago
  AI art does "something" to my perception, I tend to strongly dislike it from the first glance, but I am unable to see why or whether it was generated. In general, it makes me want to consume less and less of "this". Which, in a sense, coincides with the drop of media consumption in general. What we see now is subtle poisoning of content: video games, news, social media, books, music. At some point in the future, it is going to pass the threshold of not being worthy of attention for almost anyone, so the whole industries will collapse. And we will have to start again, from one soul to the others, with permaban on anything computer generated. In general, it is possible, to subtle integrate computer generation in creative workflows enabling artists to create something great with less effort, but I am not sure that LLM is the way to go with this.
  • jijijijij 3y ago
    Same. It's almost like an allergic reaction. As soon as I perceive a hint of "AI" origin I feel a strong aversion. Probably some uncanny valley dynamic, plus the sense of over saturation with "content" in general, where AI in particular contributes nothing of value.
• 0dayz 3y ago
  At first I wanted to roll my eyes at the pearl clutching and move on but it actually pushed me in the opposite direction. I want more Ai to automate the entire web, to push out us humans so that we can stop these cynical platforms from creating more anti-social, anti-moral and obsessive internet personas. Or that now increasingly we all have to politically be pawns to certain influencers, heaven forbid you have an opinion of your own as that means less money for that poor poor influencer. Maybe the internet could have been different, the early days of it certainly showed this, where even places where anti-social and anti-moral people met, could to a degree be human.
• anonzzzies 3y ago
  > chatbot Good luck with that; I don’t want that and never have, but this is only getting worse. Everyone is firing support / helpdesk employees for a $20/mo AI that indeed wastes your time. I wish companies that make money off a user (by payments or ads or selling your data; whatever) would get fined if not offering Real Person support. But it’s not going to happen and we are stuck with basically worthless AI support for now.
• themonsu 3y ago
  What about AI-generate educational content? We use AI-generated voice calls to teach languages, e.g. immigrants get to practice speaking a new language without paying for a human tutor.
  • novemp 3y ago
    Sounds great until the "AI" tutor poisons their learning with hallucinations.
    • novemp 3y ago
      downvoted for this lmao, I love that we're just pretending hallucinations aren't a thing
• skynet305 3y ago
  That's a tremendously ignorant post and clearly doesn't understand ai and what it all contains. Does the author also think that the ai/ml based deep fold is shit? This author just shouldn't post about things and form such a strong opinion on something they clearly have no knowledge about
• theknocker 3y ago
  [dead]
• tr3ntg 3y ago
  I agree with a lot of what the author is saying here. If it matters, whatever it is, don’t use AI to directly generate it. There is one great use of ChatGPT that I don’t think violates any of the author’s principles. When you’re trying to search for something on google, but you don’t know the words to use, and nobody you know is familiar with the topic, ChatGPT is great at giving you the words you need to continue your own search. This continues to be the most impressive types of “conversations” I’ve had with it.
• glimshe 3y ago
  So silly. This reminds me of anti-computer rants from the 1980s. People confuse "AI can be used to generate garbage content" with "All AI-generated content is garbage". I have 2 artist/photographer cousins, and both of them are raving about AI. I've seen the results, they make good use of AI as a tool to augment their talent, rather than to replace it. Sometimes they spend an hour going through AI-generated/altered content, but that saves them 10+ hours - the artistic input here is in operating and curating the AI-generated content in ways that an untalented individual wouldn't be able to do.
  • snakeyjake 3y ago
    It is true that some people use AI as a tool to jumpstart, enhance, or refine their own works. It is also true that the vast, overwhelming, majority of people simply take the terrible, horrible, no-good, vomit that spews out the end of the AI pipeline and pollute the world with it.
    • lesser_value 3y ago
      This was the case beforehand as well though? Now they are just better at it.
• lifestyleguru 3y ago
  Nowadays AI feeds on organic content created by humans. Soon humans will be ultimately discouraged to create organic content and remaining humans will feel "smart" by publishing generated one. How the era of synthetic content will look like?
• shortsunblack 3y ago
  We need a right from LLMs. The same way public society shuns and forces religion out of public sphere -- thus the right to freedom from religion is born -- there must exist a right from LLMs. That must not mean a general prohibition of practice, not necessarilly. The Catholic church exists to this day. Yet there must be clear separation.
• akash8305 3y ago
  [flagged]
• actuallyrizzn 3y ago
  Should I know or care why Cory doesn't want AI? Literally a bunch of unsupported assertions and a hostile/aggressive tone.
• unintendedcons 3y ago
  Psychological asbestos
• iainctduncan 3y ago
  I'm in 100% agreement with the poster. I'm a programmer, but also a musician. People make money by doing something better, fast, or cheaper than others. If you give me AI generated stuff for anything, I'm getting the shitty version as cheaply as quickly as possible. I don't want crap. I'm not poor, I want to pay for quality. I don't want crap customer service, crap support, crap writing, crap music, or crap art. And make no mistake, as much as it's impressive that a computer can make crap, it's still crap. It's polished crap, but crap nonetheless. Banal, generic, mediocre, everything that is uninteresting in media. The message a company sends when foisting this crap on us is "we'll do anything to boost our margins, including giving you completely auto generated garbage". MARGINS!! ME! ME! ME! No thanks.
• mocmoc 3y ago
  Return to monkey
• rchaud 3y ago
  I don't see how this is an unreasonable take. Deep down, all of us know that generative AI's main use case is going to be lowest-common denominator stuff like customer support chatbots, SEO-optimized copy writing, deepfake video ads on social media, Canva templates for social media posts, just accelerating the pace at which marketing noise is being created. That's where the market is trending and where investment dollars will flow to. I'm sure it'll have good uses, as most computing advances do. But on the consumer side of things, let's be real. Generative AI is going to deliver value in the same way Uber delivers 'ride sharing'.
• Havoc 3y ago
  To each their own. I find them helpful in specific use cases like learning coding