3 ms·

Because they're in the business of producing original, quality content. That's why they charge a fee. Their whole model depends on real people writing articles.

by pyman 1y ago

Because they're in the business of producing original, quality content. That's why they charge a fee. Their whole model depends on real people writing articles. The moment they stop doing that is the moment they start losing subscribers.

skeledrew 1y ago
Using AI doesn't automatically mean content is no longer original and qualitative, no more than using an online dictionary or grammar check does.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- pyman 1y ago
  Your comment is misleading. 1. LLMs aren't like grammar checkers or translation tools, just like they're not calculators. They can handle far more complex tasks. 2. AI might be powerful, but it can't create anything original. It relies entirely on human-generated data. Without data, LLMs are completely useless.
- const_cast 1y ago
  If the content is AI generated, it explicitly does. Think about it, would you rather listen to a Spotify AI generated piano solo? Or Donna Summer's 1978 Album "On the Radio"? AI content is slop, plain and simple and there's no way around it. I would expect a literal child to produce better content than even the most advanced AI models available. That doesn't mean that AI is bad - it's very, very good at certain things. But media and art are uniquely human creations - if you remove the human part, what are you left with? Is it surprising that something Sora is producing isn't really comparable to The Devil Wears Prada? Now, if you create content and then slightly edit it with an AI, that's fine. But if, say, the NYT shifted to all AI generated stuff, they would go out of business remarkably fast.
  - skeledrew 1y ago
    What you're saying doesn't really pan. If the work is pleasing, there's no preference. And I've seen a couple of articles in the last several months where humans thought that AI-generated works of art were created by humans. And the quality will only improve over time. Eventually it'll be the case that the only way to tell something was generated by AI is by labeling it as such.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      > If the work is pleasing, there's no preference. Okay, but it's not. > And I've seen a couple of articles in the last several months where humans thought that AI-generated works of art were created by humans. Yes, and there's also human created works of art that are three blue stripes on a white canvas. Look, If I poll 1000 people, how many would rather listen to AI music rather than their favorite artist? 1, if I'm lucky? After a certain point we have to acknowledge what is actually going on, here in real life where real humans lives, and put aside what we think might be going on. People, currently, do not like AI music or AI TV or whatever the fuck. They just don't.

by pyman 1y ago

skeledrew 1y ago

Using AI doesn't automatically mean content is no longer original and qualitative, no more than using an online dictionary or grammar check does.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
pyman 1y ago
Your comment is misleading. 1. LLMs aren't like grammar checkers or translation tools, just like they're not calculators. They can handle far more complex tasks. 2. AI might be powerful, but it can't create anything original. It relies entirely on human-generated data. Without data, LLMs are completely useless.
const_cast 1y ago
If the content is AI generated, it explicitly does. Think about it, would you rather listen to a Spotify AI generated piano solo? Or Donna Summer's 1978 Album "On the Radio"? AI content is slop, plain and simple and there's no way around it. I would expect a literal child to produce better content than even the most advanced AI models available. That doesn't mean that AI is bad - it's very, very good at certain things. But media and art are uniquely human creations - if you remove the human part, what are you left with? Is it surprising that something Sora is producing isn't really comparable to The Devil Wears Prada? Now, if you create content and then slightly edit it with an AI, that's fine. But if, say, the NYT shifted to all AI generated stuff, they would go out of business remarkably fast.
- skeledrew 1y ago
  What you're saying doesn't really pan. If the work is pleasing, there's no preference. And I've seen a couple of articles in the last several months where humans thought that AI-generated works of art were created by humans. And the quality will only improve over time. Eventually it'll be the case that the only way to tell something was generated by AI is by labeling it as such.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    > If the work is pleasing, there's no preference. Okay, but it's not. > And I've seen a couple of articles in the last several months where humans thought that AI-generated works of art were created by humans. Yes, and there's also human created works of art that are three blue stripes on a white canvas. Look, If I poll 1000 people, how many would rather listen to AI music rather than their favorite artist? 1, if I'm lucky? After a certain point we have to acknowledge what is actually going on, here in real life where real humans lives, and put aside what we think might be going on. People, currently, do not like AI music or AI TV or whatever the fuck. They just don't.