5 ms·

> now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. Absolutely, and I personally don't design my own fonts. But if I were a

> now we use mechanical fonts and layout engines etc. Times change, technology changes. Absolutely, and I personally don't design my own fonts. But if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. > Is science a search for truth, a process that should broadly accessible even to those with poor language skills? It's absolutely a search for truth, and like I said elsewhere, I'm not opposed to someone using a large language model to help them document their findings. You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. I have no issue with that. You're arguing against a straw man. I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". That doesn't mean someone else who doesn't have the time or resources to master English can't use ChatGPT as a writing aid. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. [1] https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html https://practicaltypography.com/about-matthew-butterick.html [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667

czl 3y ago
> if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. When you publish research the writeup is important but goal is useful and new results. Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters whatever serves that best should be used. > You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. > I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". Will the situation be the same when AI improves so much that it helps writing much like mechanical fonts regularly help our writing today? Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? When it comes to science writing should pride be placed in penmanship skills? Should pride be in English language skills? What matters for science writing? Today AI writing has a mixed reputation. Sometimes the output is fantastic. Sometimes output is fantastic nonsense. To tell someone their manuscript looks like ChatGPT wrote it is likely meant as an insult. In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? How do you suppose the future of science writing will go?
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. Ok fine, we'll go with your formulation of the analogy, because it doesn't affect my overarching point at all. If I spent hours tweaking my font manually with the pen tool in a vector graphics software suite, and someone accused me of using ChatGPT to simply spit out an SVG file, I'd be annoyed. > When you publish research the writeup is important [...] Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters Yes, exactly. If it were just a matter of uploading data, then scientists would be publishing their results strictly as csv files and excel spreadsheets. You're admitting that the writeup itself is important. Whatever small iota of importance you assign to the writeup, why can't a human being take credit for that achievement (regardless of how marginal you think it is)? Do you want to argue about the relative percentage of importance we assign to the writing vs the data? If I gave you the percentage you're looking for would you be content? I feel like we have nothing substantive to debate here. > The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. Out of curiosity, why did you attribute the work to ChatGPT at all? I was under the impression that you don't value the craft of writing, and don't care about who receives the credit for it. So why admit to using AI at all? Isn't this the same as using the HTML input element's spellcheck feature, or using someone else's font according to your philosophy? > Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? If you're a professional calligrapher and someone says you didn't produce your letterforms by hand, but instead used a robot that mechanically held a pen to produce the output, then yes you would have a right to be annoyed. > In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? That's not the future, that's the present. Half of job applications these days have a disclaimer stating that AI will be used to analyze the application, and writing is already (and has always) been rejected if it's not intelligible. The best way to meet those standards for you might involve using an AI to help you write...and that's fine. I'll repeat this again — I don't have a problem with people using AI to assist in their writing. The only thing I'm lamenting is the fact that it's becoming functionally impossible to take credit for your writing without someone assigning all of the credit to some tech company's AI product. I think you have this preconceived notion that there's something we have to disagree about, and you're desperately searching for the point of contention. I'm not really sure what your goal in this discussion is. Are you really trying to convince me that humans can't take credit for their writing? This is such a bizarre "debate".

czl 3y ago

> if I were a professional typographer like Matthew Butterick[1] for example, and someone accused me of using Times New Roman when I actually created my own fonts from scratch, I'd probably be a little perturbed. A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. When you publish research the writeup is important but goal is useful and new results. Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters whatever serves that best should be used. > You can continue using ChatGPT to help you write [2]. > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38637667 The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. > I'm saying if someone had poor English language skills for example, and they spent years acquiring English language proficiency, they'd probably be annoyed if you discredited their years of mastering the language by simply saying "you're not fluent in English, you just used ChatGPT to write everything". Will the situation be the same when AI improves so much that it helps writing much like mechanical fonts regularly help our writing today? Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? When it comes to science writing should pride be placed in penmanship skills? Should pride be in English language skills? What matters for science writing? Today AI writing has a mixed reputation. Sometimes the output is fantastic. Sometimes output is fantastic nonsense. To tell someone their manuscript looks like ChatGPT wrote it is likely meant as an insult. In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? How do you suppose the future of science writing will go?

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> A closer analogy with AI for science writing would be to accuse you of getting help from a computer to create the new font and not doing it by hand. When you create fonts goal is the font. Ok fine, we'll go with your formulation of the analogy, because it doesn't affect my overarching point at all. If I spent hours tweaking my font manually with the pen tool in a vector graphics software suite, and someone accused me of using ChatGPT to simply spit out an SVG file, I'd be annoyed. > When you publish research the writeup is important [...] Because accuracy and clarity of the writeup matters Yes, exactly. If it were just a matter of uploading data, then scientists would be publishing their results strictly as csv files and excel spreadsheets. You're admitting that the writeup itself is important. Whatever small iota of importance you assign to the writeup, why can't a human being take credit for that achievement (regardless of how marginal you think it is)? Do you want to argue about the relative percentage of importance we assign to the writing vs the data? If I gave you the percentage you're looking for would you be content? I feel like we have nothing substantive to debate here. > The example you quoted states the output comes from ChatGPT. It was used to explain some concepts and it did a far better job than I could do for the time it took. Out of curiosity, why did you attribute the work to ChatGPT at all? I was under the impression that you don't value the craft of writing, and don't care about who receives the credit for it. So why admit to using AI at all? Isn't this the same as using the HTML input element's spellcheck feature, or using someone else's font according to your philosophy? > Say I took years to develop penmanship skills such that my hand writing looks like mechanical fonts. Should I be annoyed if you say “Your hand writing looks like a mechanical font!”? If you're a professional calligrapher and someone says you didn't produce your letterforms by hand, but instead used a robot that mechanically held a pen to produce the output, then yes you would have a right to be annoyed. > In the future do you not expect AIs will be used to judge writing (like Latex style sheets guide journal submissions today)? Will writing not be rejected unless it meets high standards for clarity etc? Perhaps the best way to meet those standards will be to get an AI to help you? That's not the future, that's the present. Half of job applications these days have a disclaimer stating that AI will be used to analyze the application, and writing is already (and has always) been rejected if it's not intelligible. The best way to meet those standards for you might involve using an AI to help you write...and that's fine. I'll repeat this again — I don't have a problem with people using AI to assist in their writing. The only thing I'm lamenting is the fact that it's becoming functionally impossible to take credit for your writing without someone assigning all of the credit to some tech company's AI product. I think you have this preconceived notion that there's something we have to disagree about, and you're desperately searching for the point of contention. I'm not really sure what your goal in this discussion is. Are you really trying to convince me that humans can't take credit for their writing? This is such a bizarre "debate".