3 ms·
Did you also generate this with “AI”?
by blks 1y ago
Did you also generate this with “AI”?
- swyx 1y agohttps://tenor.com/view/westworld-if-you-cant-tell-does-it-matter-gif-20585026 https://tenor.com/view/westworld-if-you-cant-tell-does-it-ma...
- tbillington 1y agoIf you couldn't tell your food had been cut with sawdust would it matter to you if you found out?
- maleldil 1y agoIs the result is molecular identical? If so, no.
- codebje 1y agoI really love this comment, it's got a very "tree-falling-in-the-woods" vibe to it. On the direct face of it, no, it turns out it doesn't matter: plant cellulose is not toxic to humans, a certain level of it is in many processed foods, and that information isn't secret. By the time it matters to people, it's at the level where you can tell it's happened: large, pointy chunks, eg, or so much the flavour or texture is ruined. Or toxic contaminants, albeit at the significant risk that one might only be able to tell at the point of suffering from the consequences. But if we modify the proposition a little, we get a statement about the possibility of a vegan's metaphorical sawdust being cut with ground beef. Now, it's more likely to matter. By and large, dietary choices like that are based on some belief structure, so the presence of the unwanted ingredient could be considered as an attack on the belief system. When we move the metaphor back to AI generated code, does this reveal a belief system at play? If the resulting program is not poor quality, but the use of AI is objectionable nevertheless, does that make a "no AI in software" stance a sort of veganism for code? (And can we coin a good term for that stance? I vote for hominism, because while I quite like anthropism that leads to anthropic which is obviously not going to work.) Given there's a regulatory number on acceptable bug parts per million for confectionary, is there a hypothetical acceptable bytes per million for AI-generated code that can still be called hoministic?
- latexr 1y agoThe HN guidelines explicitly ask you to steel man arguments you reply to. It is obvious that the point of the comment is not sawdust specifically; they could have used anything else, like cyanide, and the point would stand. Spending multiple paragraphs of rebuttal on a nitpick which fails to address the crux of the argument is precisely the kind of bad argument the HN guidelines aim to avoid.
- conartist6 1y agoYou read the same response I did, right? And you... thought it was... literally about sawdust? ...and you took offense? I'm so confused...
- latexr 1y agoSeems like you haven’t understood my comment, but I’m unsure how to clarify it for you. Perhaps start by not assuming that expressing disagreement means taking offence? Not everything needs to be emotionally charged. Again, steel man.
- conartist6 1y agoJust checked again to give you the benefit of the doubt, and I still see the same thing. I read the long post as a thoroughly steelmanned response. Nobody has yet engaged with the philosophical content of that post. You cried foul for reasons I still can't understand. Would you tell us what you thought about the post on an intellectual level? I eat meat but I'm one of those people who is ethically opposed to consuming AI content. An AI-vegan you might say. I've had a shouting fight with someone who tried to spoon feed an AI summary to me in a regular human conversation. But. I know that people are going to sneak AI content into what I consume even if I do everything within my power to avoid it. The question is straightforward if immensely complex. Do I have a right to not be fed AI content? Is that even a practical goal? What if I can't tell?
- 1y ago
- ethanwillis 1y agoYes, it does matter.
- rendaw 1y agoMy reading is that GP can tell, and they're trying to highlight it by asking a question.