3 ms·
You said: "if a human cares, a human will author." That statement was somewhat ambiguous, and I interpreted that in such a way that the first human (the consume
by otterley 2mo ago
You said: "if a human cares, a human will author." That statement was somewhat ambiguous, and I interpreted that in such a way that the first human (the consumer) is different from the second (producer). Perhaps that's not what you meant.
I also think, respectfully, that you're overindexing on LinkedIn. I was using it as an example to illustrate a point. My primary concern is with teams I work with day to day, and to a much lesser extent, AI-written blog posts being featured here on HN.
- godwinson__4-8 2mo agoI'm not sure where the lack of clarity on my part came in. I think at this juncture it is best to thank you for the back and forth and wish you a good day. I will just also suggest debates at work should be settled at work. Thanks! I appreciated it. Edit: I see what you mean. In my formulation the "human" in question was one and the same. Perhaps this clarification makes my point more intelligible. Thanks again!