3 ms·

It's marketed to be slightly better at "creative writing". This isn't the problem most businesses have with current-generation LLMs. On the other side; Anthropi

by siva7 2y ago

It's marketed to be slightly better at "creative writing". This isn't the problem most businesses have with current-generation LLMs. On the other side; Anthropic releases nearly at the same time a new model which solves more practical problems for businesses to the point that for coding many insiders don't use OpenAI models for such tasks anymore.

dingnuts 2y ago
I think it should be illegal to trick humans into reading "creative" machine output. It strikes me as a form of fraud that steals my most precious resources: time and attention. I read creative writing to feel a human connection to the author. If the author is a machine and this is not disclosed, that's a huge lie. It should be required that publishers label AI generated content.
- CuriouslyC 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure you read for pleasure, and feeling a human connection is one way that you derive pleasure. If it's the only way that you derive pleasure from reading, my condolences.
  - becquerel 2y ago
    Pretty much where my thoughts on this are. I rarely feel any particular sense of connection to the actual author when I read their books. And I have taken great pleasure from some AI stories (to the degree I put them up on my personal website as a way to keep them around).
- Philpax 2y ago
  Under the dingnuts regime, Dwarf Fortress will be illegal. Actually, any game with a procedural story? You better believe that's a crime: we can't have a machine generate text a human might enjoy.
  - glenneroo 2y ago
    Dingnuts point was that it should be disclosed. Everyone knows Dwarf Fortress stories are procedural/AI generated, the authors aren't trying to hide that fact.
    - Philpax 2y ago
      Actually, fair enough. I still disagree with their argument, but this was the wrong tack for me to use.
- Hoasi 2y ago
  > I think it should be illegal to trick humans into reading "creative" machine output. Creativity has lost its meaning. Should it be illegal? The courts will take a long time to settle the matter. Reselling people's work against their will as creative machine output seems unethical, to say the least. > It should be required that publishers label AI-generated content. Strongly agree.

by siva7 2y ago

dingnuts 2y ago

I think it should be illegal to trick humans into reading "creative" machine output. It strikes me as a form of fraud that steals my most precious resources: time and attention. I read creative writing to feel a human connection to the author. If the author is a machine and this is not disclosed, that's a huge lie. It should be required that publishers label AI generated content.

CuriouslyC 2y ago
I'm pretty sure you read for pleasure, and feeling a human connection is one way that you derive pleasure. If it's the only way that you derive pleasure from reading, my condolences.
- becquerel 2y ago
  Pretty much where my thoughts on this are. I rarely feel any particular sense of connection to the actual author when I read their books. And I have taken great pleasure from some AI stories (to the degree I put them up on my personal website as a way to keep them around).
Philpax 2y ago
Under the dingnuts regime, Dwarf Fortress will be illegal. Actually, any game with a procedural story? You better believe that's a crime: we can't have a machine generate text a human might enjoy.
- glenneroo 2y ago
  Dingnuts point was that it should be disclosed. Everyone knows Dwarf Fortress stories are procedural/AI generated, the authors aren't trying to hide that fact.
  - Philpax 2y ago
    Actually, fair enough. I still disagree with their argument, but this was the wrong tack for me to use.
Hoasi 2y ago
> I think it should be illegal to trick humans into reading "creative" machine output. Creativity has lost its meaning. Should it be illegal? The courts will take a long time to settle the matter. Reselling people's work against their will as creative machine output seems unethical, to say the least. > It should be required that publishers label AI-generated content. Strongly agree.