3 ms·

I'm sure this can be corrected by AI companies.

• q3k 9mo ago
  Just let my work have a soul, please.
  • amelius 9mo ago
    Eh, it's not __that__ simple.
    • ses1984 9mo ago
      It is, just don’t use a thing with no soul like ai if soul is what you’re after.
      • co_king_5 9mo ago
        [dead]
      • vasvir 9mo ago
        The point is that he may not using AI in any shape or form, Regardless, AI scrapes its work without explicit consent and then spits it back in "polished" soul free form.
  • AreShoesFeet000 9mo ago
    That is NOT possible.
    • q3k 9mo ago
      Why not?
      • AreShoesFeet000 9mo ago
        Because even though at work it looks like you’re tasked with creating use values, you’re only there as long as the use values you create can be exchanged in the market for a profit. So every humane drive to genuinely improve your work will clash with the external conditions of your existence within that setting. You’re not there to serve people, create beautiful things, solve problems, nu-uh. You’re there to keep capital flowing. It’s soulless.
        • Angostura 9mo ago
          Unless you work in the public sector, non-profit or charity.
          • AreShoesFeet000 9mo ago
            To think that “non-profit” work is actually non-profit work is just to not have grasped the nature of labor. You have to ask yourself: Am I producing use values for the satisfaction of human needs or am I working on making sure the appropriation of value extraction from the production of use values continues happening? In some very extreme cases, such as in the Red Cross or reformist organizations, your job looks very clear, direct, and “soulful”. You’re directly helping desperate people. But why have people gotten into that situation? What is the downstream effect of having you helping them. It’s profit. It’s always profit. You’re salvaging humanity for parts to be bought and sold again. It doesn’t make a dishonest work. It’s just equally soulless.
            • Angostura 9mo ago
              Your argument appears to be that if you redefine all of humanity to be mere grist for a capitalist machine, you can then redefine any altrustic act, as a measure to extract more profit. Truly feat of semantic legerdemain
              • AreShoesFeet000 9mo ago
                I don’t define anything. The truth is just that there’s no profit extraction without charity work. I’ve done lots of it. If you’ve done it, you know too. As dark as it may seem to strip romantism out of which you call humanity, not only there isn’t a just salary for those who bear the weight of the machine, but also there’s isn’t even a salary per se. If for you humanity is just doing seemingly nice guy work without question, call me a monster.
• yoyohello13 9mo ago
  The question is… why? What is the actual human benefit (not monetary).
  • JamesBarney 9mo ago
    If AI wrote and thought better by default then I wouldn't have to read the AI slop my co-workers send me.
  • 8bitsrule 9mo ago
    IME, in prose writing, arguing with LLM can help a newer writer to gather 'the facts' (to help with research) and 'the objections to the facts' (same result) to anticipate an initial approach to the material. This can save a lot of organizational time. After which, newer writer can more confidently approach topics in their own voice.
• co_king_5 9mo ago
  [flagged]