6 ms·
I have the same instinctive response to reading AI generated stuff, but I'm coming to a more moderate position where I'm trying to judge the content on the cont
by freedomben 1y ago
I have the same instinctive response to reading AI generated stuff, but I'm coming to a more moderate position where I'm trying to judge the content on the content itself. For example, in a post like this, it doesn't bother me at all because it's still an extremely useful reference, and the author clearly read through, organized, and edited the output. This is a good example of usage of AI in my opinion.
The people who just copy paste output from ai and ship it as a blog post however, deserve significant condemnation for that.
- nxor 1y agoNot worried about hallucinations?
- freedomben 1y agoI definitely would be, though this part I consider mitigation: > the author clearly read through, organized, and edited the output. Also worth noting, I've read plenty of human written stuff that has errors in it, so I read everything skeptically anyway.
- NewsaHackO 1y agoIf the author wrote the draft then reread it throughly then it most likely would only have human induced hallucinations
- WickyNilliams 1y agoWriting is a tool for thought I feel, and when you're outsourcing your thought, it detracts from whatever you intended to say. I guess if it was that heavily-edited such a telltale sign wouldn't have remained. I use AI for code, but I never use it for any writing that is for human eyes.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]