4 ms·
Because the perceived value will go way down when it is common knowledge that AI is being used to generate them. My contention (that I see some people don't li
by jordanpg 2y ago
Because the perceived value will go way down when it is common knowledge that AI is being used to generate them.
My contention (that I see some people don't like!) is that they don't have much value, regardless of who writes them.
- tivert 2y agoI'm not saying that text has value, it just seems really unlikely that making something cheaper will lead to less of it. Even if the perceived value is down, I assume people would keep doing it because it costs so much less.
- jordanpg 2y agoWell, I agree that it won't happen automatically. My hope is that AI will cause the patent legal community to undergo a paradigm shift and place value on conciseness and brevity. In the US, this would require Congressional and judicial buy-in. LOL!!! Notice that I used the word "fantasy" above.
- itsyourcode 2y agoThe value dimension of text is not the volume of words but rather the signal-to-noise ratio, aka information density. It does not matter whether a human or an AI produces a high-signal synthesis from a lower-signal body of work. The signal boost is value creation. The underlying debate is whether AI is capable of signal-boosting arbitrary works more effectively than humans. I'd say presently, it is not. Even with the most powerful models, consistency and reliability across work types and lengths are far from business-grade. If that were to change, the fact that an AI boosts the signal does not globally deflate the value of text. The value of text is determined by the signal, not the signal producer. The main issue right now is that AI is not reliably boosting information signals, and therefore, most serious professionals probably still prefer to read original works.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]