4 ms·

> outsourcing the creation of a bedtime story for your child is just bad parenting. Yup anyone who reads a pre-written bedtime story to their kids is a bad par

> outsourcing the creation of a bedtime story for your child is just bad parenting. Yup anyone who reads a pre-written bedtime story to their kids is a bad parent /s Even before ChatGPT, I was using davinci in the OpenAI playground to have a lot of silly fun with my daughter. Totally dumb stuff like asking it to create a menu for an alien restaurant with farts as an ingredient, but it had us rolling. So, "What Do We Want Computers to Do?" - no matter what your answer, AI makes that question a lot more interesting and raises the ceiling of possibilities. I just wish the author (and others like them) would stop moralizing.

the_af 2y ago
> Yup anyone who reads a pre-written bedtime story to their kids is a bad parent /s Not a bad parent, but definitely something off about it. Or rather, my personal experience: reading bedtime stories to my daughter is a moment of connection. She loves this. I'm sometimes tired, and could use some prompts -- which I already have, the vast mental collection of books I've read and movies I've seen. I don't want to automate this. Suppose I could have ChatGPT improvise a story within some parameters and read it out loud with my synthetized voice -- seems dystopian to me. I want to be the one reading the stories to my daughter, and making them up. It's about bonding and connection, not about efficient storytelling! > Even before ChatGPT, I was using davinci in the OpenAI playground to have a lot of silly fun with my daughter. Totally dumb stuff like asking it to create a menu for an alien restaurant with farts as an ingredient, but it had us rolling. This to me sounds like a good use of software tools. Some computer time with your daughter, making the computer do fun things. Why not? It's not a replacement for bedtime stories, it's something new. I don't think this is what the article is criticizing.
- doug_durham 2y ago
  It's exactly what this article is criticizing. It rejects all uses of generative systems as anti-human.
  - the_af 2y ago
    I disagree. The article is about artistic creation making us human. While "artistic creation" is hard to demarcate, I think fooling around with a fun tool is not it. Asking an LLM or similar tool to create an alien menu with farts as ingredients, just to watch it do something silly, is not art-creation. Most people can do it without the LLM, too. From the article: > I’m not against playing with these generative AI tools. For months, I played with Midjourney, and I still occasionally play with ChatGPT. I say “play” because they’re excellent toys.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

the_af 2y ago

> Yup anyone who reads a pre-written bedtime story to their kids is a bad parent /s Not a bad parent, but definitely something off about it. Or rather, my personal experience: reading bedtime stories to my daughter is a moment of connection. She loves this. I'm sometimes tired, and could use some prompts -- which I already have, the vast mental collection of books I've read and movies I've seen. I don't want to automate this. Suppose I could have ChatGPT improvise a story within some parameters and read it out loud with my synthetized voice -- seems dystopian to me. I want to be the one reading the stories to my daughter, and making them up. It's about bonding and connection, not about efficient storytelling! > Even before ChatGPT, I was using davinci in the OpenAI playground to have a lot of silly fun with my daughter. Totally dumb stuff like asking it to create a menu for an alien restaurant with farts as an ingredient, but it had us rolling. This to me sounds like a good use of software tools. Some computer time with your daughter, making the computer do fun things. Why not? It's not a replacement for bedtime stories, it's something new. I don't think this is what the article is criticizing.

doug_durham 2y ago
It's exactly what this article is criticizing. It rejects all uses of generative systems as anti-human.
- the_af 2y ago
  I disagree. The article is about artistic creation making us human. While "artistic creation" is hard to demarcate, I think fooling around with a fun tool is not it. Asking an LLM or similar tool to create an alien menu with farts as ingredients, just to watch it do something silly, is not art-creation. Most people can do it without the LLM, too. From the article: > I’m not against playing with these generative AI tools. For months, I played with Midjourney, and I still occasionally play with ChatGPT. I say “play” because they’re excellent toys.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]