4 ms·

I care because in most (not all) cases, (a) AI UGC is one- to few-shotted with no concern for accuracy or readability, and (b) why would I read the results of s

by nunez 2mo ago

I care because in most (not all) cases, (a) AI UGC is one- to few-shotted with no concern for accuracy or readability, and (b) why would I read the results of someone else's prompt if I can achieve more or less the same result for free on ChatGPT? For example, I was searching for a guide for realigning the v-brakes on my wife's hybrid bike and found this: https://volatacycles.com/how-to-adjust-bike-brakes-rubbing/ https://volatacycles.com/how-to-adjust-bike-brakes-rubbing/ Now, this is for disc brakes, so not applicable in my situation. I've never ridden a bike with disc brakes, so I can't vet for the accuracy of this guide. Maybe it's totally right; I'm sure someone reading this will know. However, just look at this article! Zero pictures for a process that _really_ needs it. It just drones on. Imagine following this guide only to discover that the 12-15 Nm rotor torque the article is asking for is actually too high! A similar article from before AI would at least have (stolen) pictures describing the process. It would also very likely be shorter. Which creates the rub: if I know how to write something engaging and correcting AI's copy will take _just as much time_ as writing it myself, why would I use AI to do it? In short, AI content is lazy content. My time is valuable and finite; if I'm reading your stuff, I want to know that you at least tried to give a shit about my time as a reader while producing it.

bluebarbet 2mo ago
Sure, I get that argument. I just don't buy it. What counts is whether the article helps you fix your brakes. If it doesn't, it seems immaterial to me whether or not the bylined author sweated over it for hours. Not least because I have no means of knowing.
- andrewflnr 2mo ago
  GP described multiple reasons it didn't help them fix their brakes.
  - bluebarbet 2mo ago
    So blame whoever signed off on it. AI or not-AI is their problem.
    - andrewflnr 2mo ago
      Assigning blame doesn't fix the brakes either though, does it? And now their time has been wasted by bullshit they had to carefully analyze, in a field they're unfamiliar with. And yes, this was a problem with lazy writers before, but AI makes it the default, and makes it worse by reducing even the tenuous grounding to reality of a content mill writer, and makes so much more of it. Are you seeing the problem? Do you want to?
- bfbf 2mo ago
  But the OP already addressed this-he can just ask ChatGPT directly how to fix the brakes. He’s gone looking for a human expert because (for whatever reason) he doesn’t want that. For me the issue is very clear: I happily use AI to answer tons of questions each day, but if I’m reading your website/blog/article/Jira ticket, I expect real human input. It should matter whether the author “sweated over it for hours”, because that means they actually considered the best way to communicate something. If they didn’t do that, then they clearly don’t care enough about about the quality of their output and I shouldn’t spend any time at all on it. In fact it’s worse than that because if the author doesn’t respect the reader enough to craft their output, then I as a reader have no respect for their work, and I resent that they’ve taken my attention for the time it takes me to realize it’s ai generated. If you’re publishing Ai content, then I can only presume you have an ulterior motive than plain communication- in the case of OP I’d assume this is for ad revenue or clicks. There are many types of writing, and I struggle to think of many where a statistical model could feasibly produce an acceptable output for the given intention. Eg. A poet chooses their words extremely carefully; a good instruction manual is written by the designers of the product (not just guessing at a common or plausible method); a news article has an angle/story beyond just the facts.
  - bluebarbet 2mo ago
    If you or OP suspect (suspect) that a blogger's taking shortcuts, and that's a problem for you or OP, then you or OP can just skip that blog and find another that appears (appears) to meet some criteria for labor input. To the extent that this is all unfalsifiable, it just should not matter. I'll go further. Even if it were falsifiable, why should it matter? An example: I subscribe to a reputable US publication and I enjoy its journalism. If it turned out that one of its writers had (somehow) used AI to generate their article (which I enjoyed) in a click, here's what I would say to them: Hats off to you! How did you do it?! I don't care if the article took them two minutes or if they used AI any more than I care if they used a spellchecker or wrote it while standing upside down. Why should I? The author put their name to the article and I got something out of it. That is all I was ever looking for.
  - nunez 2mo ago
    You get it.
- brandon272 2mo ago
  If the article doesn't help you fix your brakes, it has confused you and wasted your time. Not immaterial.
brandon272 2mo ago
> However, just look at this article! Zero pictures for a process that _really_ needs it. It just drones on. Buckle up, because the next phase of this AI content generation nightmare will be articles like this featuring AI generated images of a bike repair in progress, except the bike will only kinda-sorta be like the real bike the article is describing.

by nunez 2mo ago

bluebarbet 2mo ago

Sure, I get that argument. I just don't buy it. What counts is whether the article helps you fix your brakes. If it doesn't, it seems immaterial to me whether or not the bylined author sweated over it for hours. Not least because I have no means of knowing.

andrewflnr 2mo ago
GP described multiple reasons it didn't help them fix their brakes.
- bluebarbet 2mo ago
  So blame whoever signed off on it. AI or not-AI is their problem.
  - andrewflnr 2mo ago
    Assigning blame doesn't fix the brakes either though, does it? And now their time has been wasted by bullshit they had to carefully analyze, in a field they're unfamiliar with. And yes, this was a problem with lazy writers before, but AI makes it the default, and makes it worse by reducing even the tenuous grounding to reality of a content mill writer, and makes so much more of it. Are you seeing the problem? Do you want to?
bfbf 2mo ago
But the OP already addressed this-he can just ask ChatGPT directly how to fix the brakes. He’s gone looking for a human expert because (for whatever reason) he doesn’t want that. For me the issue is very clear: I happily use AI to answer tons of questions each day, but if I’m reading your website/blog/article/Jira ticket, I expect real human input. It should matter whether the author “sweated over it for hours”, because that means they actually considered the best way to communicate something. If they didn’t do that, then they clearly don’t care enough about about the quality of their output and I shouldn’t spend any time at all on it. In fact it’s worse than that because if the author doesn’t respect the reader enough to craft their output, then I as a reader have no respect for their work, and I resent that they’ve taken my attention for the time it takes me to realize it’s ai generated. If you’re publishing Ai content, then I can only presume you have an ulterior motive than plain communication- in the case of OP I’d assume this is for ad revenue or clicks. There are many types of writing, and I struggle to think of many where a statistical model could feasibly produce an acceptable output for the given intention. Eg. A poet chooses their words extremely carefully; a good instruction manual is written by the designers of the product (not just guessing at a common or plausible method); a news article has an angle/story beyond just the facts.
- bluebarbet 2mo ago
  If you or OP suspect (suspect) that a blogger's taking shortcuts, and that's a problem for you or OP, then you or OP can just skip that blog and find another that appears (appears) to meet some criteria for labor input. To the extent that this is all unfalsifiable, it just should not matter. I'll go further. Even if it were falsifiable, why should it matter? An example: I subscribe to a reputable US publication and I enjoy its journalism. If it turned out that one of its writers had (somehow) used AI to generate their article (which I enjoyed) in a click, here's what I would say to them: Hats off to you! How did you do it?! I don't care if the article took them two minutes or if they used AI any more than I care if they used a spellchecker or wrote it while standing upside down. Why should I? The author put their name to the article and I got something out of it. That is all I was ever looking for.
- nunez 2mo ago
  You get it.
brandon272 2mo ago
If the article doesn't help you fix your brakes, it has confused you and wasted your time. Not immaterial.

brandon272 2mo ago

> However, just look at this article! Zero pictures for a process that _really_ needs it. It just drones on. Buckle up, because the next phase of this AI content generation nightmare will be articles like this featuring AI generated images of a bike repair in progress, except the bike will only kinda-sorta be like the real bike the article is describing.