> good-enough slop It isn't nearly good enough, as far as I can tell. Systems that nobody understands because nobody wrote them are unsafe, unmaintainable, an

> good-enough slop It isn't nearly good enough, as far as I can tell. Systems that nobody understands because nobody wrote them are unsafe, unmaintainable, and brittle. Art generated by AI can't be copyrighted so its use can't be controlled. > Why do anything that makes us think or exhibit any human qualities when it's not the most cost effective way in our lovely capitalist AI dystopia? If the most optimistic reasonable projections of the AI optimists are true, the decay of human capability by itself among people who rely on AI will be so damaging that those who don't rely on it will become more valuable on the labor market. If the most optimistic projections aren't correct, then in all likelihood these will continue to be simple tools that nobody should use for anything serious. And apart from market/labor dynamics, I have seen no evidence that those who shun the use of AI tools are worse off for it (quite the contrary), so the spread of these tools should, if the current tend continues, actually become a rallying cry for and proof of the value of human work and the intrinsicness and necessity of our participation in the worlds we make for ourselves. The longer the hype continues, the surer I am that it won't replace humans.